FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   735   736   737   738   739   740   741   742   743   744   745   746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759  
760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768   769   770   771   772   773   774   775   776   777   778   779   780   781   782   783   784   >>   >|  
possess no form of suffrage. A decision of the Supreme Court, Feb. 1, 1901, that an amendment to be adopted must receive a majority of the highest number of votes cast at the election, has made it practically impossible to secure the franchise for women by changing the State constitution. It is held, however, by lawyers whose opinion is of value, that this even now may be legally construed so as to permit them to vote. Sustained in her own belief by these views and by a Supreme Court decision of 1893, which interpreted this constitution to permit women to practice law (see Occupations), Mrs. Helen M. Gougar decided to make a test case, and offered her vote in the State election, Nov. 6, 1894, at her home in Lafayette. It was refused and she brought suit against the election board in the Superior Court of Tippecanoe County. Sayler & Sayler and John D. Gougar, husband of the plaintiff, were her attorneys, but she was herself admitted to the bar and argued her own case before Judge F. B. Everett, Jan. 10, 1895. She based her masterly argument on the rights guaranteed to all citizens by the Federal Constitution, and on the first article of the constitution of Indiana, which declares that "the General Assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens;" and she used with deadly effect the parallel between the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Antoinette D. Leach, by which she was enabled to practice law, and the claims which were now being made as to the right of women to vote.[252] The long, adverse decision of Judge Everett was based upon his declaration that "suffrage is not a natural right or one necessarily incident to such freedom and preservation of rights as are upheld by the National and State constitutions;" that "the intention of their framers to limit the suffrage to males is so strong that it can not be disregarded;" and that "the legal and well understood rule of construction is that the express mention of certain things excludes all others." Mrs. Gougar then carried her case to the Supreme Court of Indiana, and was herself the first woman admitted to practice before that body. Her brief was filed by her attorneys and she made her own argument before the full bench, the court-room being crowded with lawyers and members of the Legislature. It was said by one of the judges to be the cleares
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   735   736   737   738   739   740   741   742   743   744   745   746   747   748   749   750   751   752   753   754   755   756   757   758   759  
760   761   762   763   764   765   766   767   768   769   770   771   772   773   774   775   776   777   778   779   780   781   782   783   784   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

decision

 

Supreme

 

election

 

constitution

 

suffrage

 

practice

 
citizens
 

Gougar

 
permit
 

Everett


Indiana

 
rights
 
admitted
 
argument
 

Sayler

 
attorneys
 

lawyers

 
freedom
 

preservation

 

claims


possess
 

necessarily

 

natural

 

declaration

 

incident

 

enabled

 

adverse

 

immunities

 
privileges
 

citizen


equally

 

belong

 

parallel

 

Antoinette

 

effect

 

deadly

 

constitutions

 

carried

 
judges
 
cleares

Legislature
 

members

 
crowded
 
excludes
 

things

 
strong
 

framers

 

National

 

intention

 
disregarded