sonal rights; in regard to the elective franchise, the vital principle of our government.
This government does not stand to-day on free trade, or tariff, or the war-power, or its right to manage post-offices, or to coin money, or to make treaties. Not one of these singly, nor all collectively, form the ground-plan of this Nation. This Nation stands upon the ballot, the self-governing power; it stands upon the right of every person governed by the Nation to share in the election of its rulers.
How can statesmen believe the Nation secure unless personal rights are held inviolable? The National government has control over money, currency, and national banks. It will not trust its question of finance to individual States; shall it trust the personal political rights of its citizens where it can not its money? Is it not an anomaly that the lesser rights shall be held by the Nation, the greater by the States?
In the case of the 10,000 naturalized citizens of Rhode Island, and that of Susan B. Anthony and other women of New York and elsewhere, who try to vote, there is one great dissimilarity. The suffrage of the 10,000 is only regulated. As soon as each one secures real estate to the small value of one hundred and thirty-four dollars, he votes; but there women can never vote, simply because they are women. Property amounts to nothing; education amounts to nothing; even native-born citizenship amounts to nothing; the ballot for them is not regulated but prohibited because they were born women instead of men. Congress would quickly waken up to an appreciation of its power over the ballot, if under pretense of "regulating" suffrage, all the male citizens of a State were denied the ballot simply because they were men. The Nation would lose no time in deciding that a regulation of a character not possible to overcome was not a regulation, but a prohibition destructive of every natural right. The word "deny" would be elucidated by able lawyers and lexicographers. We should then be told that to deny pre-supposes an existing right; that only positive rights can be denied, and force of arms would be invoked to maintain the existence of those rights.
The battle for suffrage is narrowed down to the meaning of "privileges and immunities." Those who believe the consent of the governed to be the fundamental principle of the Nation, define "privileges and immunities" as the right of voting, which is the only "consent." Thaddeus Stevens went so far as to affirm that "inalienable rights" in the Declaration meant the ballot. Persons who thus define "inherent rights" belong to the true national, patriotic class. But others, deeply tinctured with belief in the supreme right of States, declare "privileges and immunities" to comprehend anything and everything except the ballot. Even some good Republicans, contrary to the principles indorsed and sustained by them in the war amendments, led by their prejudices against acknowledging woman's right to self-government; have declared that "privileges and immunities" merely signify civil and legal rights, but not political. Such was the groundwork of the argument of the Hon. Matt. Carpenter in the Myra Bradwell case. What a farce! It declared at an early day that the United States possessed the greatest trust ever confided to a "political society."