The plaintiff additional states, that the defendant, well figuring out that she, as a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, resident as aforesaid, was then and there entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship, chief among which is the elective franchise, and as such, was entitled to be registered, with a purpose to train said privilege: yet, unlawfully intending, contriving, and designing to deprive the plaintiff of mentioned franchise or privilege, then and there knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and corruptly refused to place her identify upon the list of registered voters, whereby she was deprived of her proper to vote. Defendant said to plaintiff, that she was not entitled to be registered, or to vote, because she was not a “male” citizen, but a girl! And in the judgment of your committee, we cannot too scrupulously guard, in the interest of the liberty of the citizen, this great and virtually invaluable right. The States, with one exception, which we shall notice hereafter more intimately, have uniformly claimed and exercised the correct to act, as to the matter of suffrage, simply as they pleased-to limit or extend it, as they saw proper.
It’s admitted, by the pleadings, that the plaintiff is a local-born, free white citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri; that the defendant is a Registrar, certified and performing as such; that the plaintiff, in correct time and in correct form made software to him to be registered, and that the defendant refused to register the plaintiff solely for the explanation that she is a female (and that she possesses the skills of an elector, in all respects, besides as to the matter of sex, as before acknowledged). Why should we not depart the matter up to the folks acting democratically via legislatures? The people are indispensable to the State, and so in one sense its basis, just as the sq. miles that compose its territory are its bodily foundation, but the people stand in no political relation no matter to the State, any more than the rocks and gravel of its territory. The plaintiff, nonetheless, denies the validity of this clause of the Missouri Constitution, and the registration act primarily based thereon, and contends that they are in violation of, and repugnant to, the Constitution of the United States, and notably to these articles and clauses thereof which she has specified in her petition.
The plaintiff, nonetheless, denied the validity of this clause of the Missouri Constitution, and the registration act primarily based thereon, and contended that they are in violation of, and repugnant to, the Constitution of the United States, and notably to these articles and clauses thereof which she had specified in her petition. 3. Because the mentioned Supreme Court of Missouri erred in affirming the judgment of the St. Louis Circuit Court-thereby, in effect, declaring that the Constitution and laws of Missouri, earlier than recited, do not conflict with the Constitution of the United States. Therefore, because the advantageous has been imposed by a court of the United States for an offense triable by jury, with out the same being submitted to the jury, and because the court docket assumed to itself the suitable to enter a verdict with out submitting the case to the jury, and in order that the judgment of the House of Representatives, if it concur with the judgment of the committee, might, in the most sign and impressive form, mark its determination to sustain in its integrity the widespread-legislation right of trial by jury, your committee suggest that the prayer of the petitioner be granted, and to this finish report the following bill, with the recommendation that it do cross.
