them as parts and parcels of the "Supreme Law," before which all existing legislation contrary to and inconsistent therewith did fall, and was rendered null and void.

The Constitution can be amended as follows:-“ Congress, whenever two-thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to the Constitution, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States." (Article V.) Again it says:-"This Constitution and the Laws of the United States which shall be made under authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land." (Article VI.)

These amendments were thus proposed by two-thirds of both Houses, were thus ratified by the Legislatures of three-fourths of the several States, and were thus formally legislated upon by all the several State Legislatures and adopted by them in the due and solemn manner in which they pass all laws. From the moment the official declaration was made that they were so adopted by State legislation they became a part of the "supreme law of the land," which they never could have become without such legislation.

Are not these amendments in question, as a part of the supreme law, the very creatures of the State Legislatures, and as such do they not supersede all legislative Acts in all the States not in harmony therewith? Nor can the States recede from these Acts without similar formal legislation in which threefourths of all the States must concur. And what do they establish? The status of every native born or naturalized person in the country as a citizen of the United States and of the State, and the right to vote as vested in every such person. And to go further: The State of New York has declared-Article I. of the Constitution of New York-and every other State holds that: "No member of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the rights or privileges secured to any citizen thereof,

unless by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers." As the State cannot pass any law which deprives any citizen of his or her citizenship and the declared right to vote, it follows that the Legislatures have acted directly upon this question by the adoption of these amendments, and for ever precluded themselves from receding, except by a similar proceeding, viz.: by another amendment to the Constitution which would annul and repeal the XIVth and XVth Amendments.

These amendments are therefore not only the law of the United States, but the Constitutional law of New York and every other State in the Union.

Therefore, I would have Congress, in the pursuit of its duty, to enforce the Constitution by appropriate legislation, pass a Declaratory Act plainly setting forth the right of all citizens to vote, and thus render unnecessary the thousands of suits for damages which will otherwise arise. What legislation could be more appropriate than defining the rights of one-half the citizens of the country, when they are in question? This matter has passed beyond the States. They have delegated this power to Congress by these amendments. Could the legislatures of the States think of legislating upon the question of who are citizens? How can they then upon the rights of these same citizens, which are no less clearly a part of the Constitution that the fact of citizenship.

If Congress refuse to legislate appropriately in this matter, every woman who desires to vote should take all the steps required as prerequisite to become qualified, and, if prevented from voting, should prosecute those who prevent them, under the plainly worded Act of May 30, 1870, and so continue to do until the Government of the United States and of the several States shall be made to enforce the supreme law of the land, and thus secure to every citizen equal right and exact justice under a Republican form of Government.

THE XIVTH AND XVTH AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.

A Speech before the National Woman's Suffrage Convention,

At Apollo Hall, May 11th, 1871.

SINCE this is not a convention for the consideration of general political questions, I am not certain that I have anything to say which will prove of interest or profit to you. But with your permission I will endeavour to state the position which the movement for political equality now occupies, and attempt to show therefrom the duties which devolve upon those who advocate it.

Whatever there may have been spoken, written, or thought in reference to the constitutional rights of women citizens of the United States, as defined by the XIVth and XVth Articles of Amendments to the Supreme Law of the Land, the first practical movement under it to secure their exercise was made in the Congress of the United States during the past winter. A memorial, setting forth the grievances of a woman citizen, who was denied the right of citizenship, was introduced into both Houses of Congress, and by them referred to their Judiciary Committees. Upon this memorial the House Judiciary Committee made two reports; that of the majority, while admitting the validity of the foundation upon which the memorial was based, was averse to congressional action thereon, naively attempts to ignore the force of the argument by thrusting the

responsibility back upon the States, which have acted upon the point in question by the adoption of said Amendments. That of the minority, than whom there is no more conclusive judiciary authority in the United States, took issue with the entire pleading of the majority, and fortified their position by such an array of authority, judicial decisions, and logic, as to fully establish the fact of the right of women to the elective franchise in every unprejudiced mind.

So forcible was the conviction which this report carried wherever analyzed that even Democrats who, everybody well knows, are constitutionally predisposed against the extension of suffrage, acknowledged it as unanswerable. Besides this, there has been so much high judicial authority also expressing itself in the same terms of approbation that there can be no question whatever about the fact that women, equally with men, are entitled to vote. This conclusion, though at first received with great scepticism by very many who wished it were really so, is gradually spreading among the people, and settling into a welldefined conviction in their hearts. Many of your own journals even ridiculed the matter more I presume from dislike to the movers in it than from convictions of its incapacity to meet the required demand.

I am glad, however, to now announce that most of these journals have reconsidered the subject, since there has been such enthusiasm and action raised all over the country by it, resulting in bringing women forward to demand their rights, which have been accorded to them in a sufficient number of cases to finally decide the true value of the movement. If I mistake not some of those who were instrumental in preventing the exercise of these claimed rights will have the pleasure of paying for their presumption in money, if not by imprisonment, both of which may be meted to them under the Act which it seems was almost providentially passed by Congress in May, 1870, to meet just such cases as are now required to be met.

There are two ways by which the success already gained may be pushed on to ultimate and complete victory, both of which I count as legitimate and justifiable. One is to continue the appeals to the courts, until by a final decision of the Supreme Court it shall be fully determined. The other is for Congress to pass an Act declaring the equal rights of all citizens to the elective franchise. To this method some object that it stultifies the position that the Constitution already grants everything we ask. But these objectors forget that by Article I., Section 8, par. 17, of this same Constitution it is made one of the duties of Congress to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all powers vested by the Constitution in the Government of the United States, and that one of the special powers vested in Congress is the right to make all laws necessary for enforcing the provisions of the XIVth and XVth Amendments. It seems to me that petitioning Congress to enforce the provisions of these Amendments is eminently proper, and that any who object thereto either do not understand the powers and duties of Congress or do not wish so easy a solution of the franchise question, which solution cannot be expected from the courts, as a decision therein may be deferred for years. A Washington correspondent of the Tribune, of May 2nd, speaking of this matter, says :

"There is no probability that the women of this district will vote by the next Presidential election, if they depend on a decision of the courts in their favour for the privilege. The action is brought in the Circuit Court of the District, which will adjourn before reaching the case. It cannot, then, be decided until the October term; but, no matter what the decision may be, the case will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which, judging from the present condition of its docket, will not be able to render an opinion in less than two or three years."

The matter of time is an important element in this issue. I