July, 1853, the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the convention c mcluded between the Uni'ed States of America nnd Great Britain, at London, on the 8th of February. 1853, and which yet remain unsettled, as vveil as any other sucn claims which may he presented within the time sp cihed in Ar <chj HI of this convention, whether or not arising out of the late civil war in the United States.shall be referred to four commissioners, to be appointed in the following manner, that is to say: two commissioners shall be named by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate. and two by her Britannic Majesty. Incase of the. death, absence, or incapacity of anv commissioner, or in the eventof any commissioner omitting or declining Op ceasing to act as such, the President of the Uui ed States, or her Britannic Majesty, as the case may be, shall forthwith name ano'her person to act as commissioner in the place or stead of the commissioner originallv named.

The commissioners so named shall meet at Washington at the earliest convenient period after they shall have been respectively named, and shall, before proceeding to any business, make and subscribe a solemn declaration that they will impartially and carefully examine and dec de, to the best of their judgment, and according to justice and equity, without fear, favor, or affection to their own country, upon all such claims as shall be laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United Stales and of her Britannic Majesty, respectively, and such declaration shall be entered on the record of their proceedings.

The commissioners shall then,and before proceeding to any other business, name some person to act as an arbitrator or umpire, to whose final decisioti shall be referred any claim upon which they may not be able to come to a decis ion. If they should not be able to agree upon an arbitrator or umpire, the commissioners on eh her side shall name a person as arbitrator or umpire, and in each and every case in which the commissioners may not be able to come to a decision, the commissioners shall determine by lot which of the two persons so named* shall be the arbitrator or umpire in that particular case. The person or persons so to be chosen as arbitrator or umpire shall, before proceeding to act as such in" any case, make and subscribe a solemn declaration in a form similar to that made and subscribed by the commissioners, which shall be entered on the record of their proceedings. In the event of the death, absence, or incapacity of such person or persons, or of his or their omitting, or declining, or ceasing to act as such arbitrator or umpire, another person shall be named, in the same manner as the person originally named, to act as arbitrator or umpire in his place and stead, and shall make and subscribe such declaration as afore

Article II.

The commissioners shall then forthwith proceed to the investigation of the claims which shall be presented to their notice. They shall

investigate and decide upon such claims in : such order and in such manner as they may think proper, but upon such evidence or information only as shall be furnished by or on ; behalf of their respective Governments. The I official correspondence which has taken place I between the two Governments respecting any I claims shall be laid before the commissioners, ; and they shall, moreover, be bound to receive | and peruse all other written documents or stateJ ments which may be presented to them by or on behalf of the respective Governments, in support of or in answer to any claim, and to hear, if required, one person on each side on behalf of each Government, as counsel or agent for such Government, on each and every separate claim. Should they fail to decide by a majority upon any individual c'aim, they shall call to their assistance the arbitrator or umpire whom they may have agreed upon, or who may be determined by lot, as the case may be; and such arbitrator or umpire, after having examined the official correspondence which has taken place between the two Governments, and the evidence adduced for and against the claim, and after having heard, if required, one person on each side as aforesaid, and consulted with the commissioners, shall decide thereupon finally and wi hout appeal.

Nevertheless, if the commissioners, or any two of them, sln.ll think it desirable that a sovereign or head of a friendly State should be arbitrator or umpire in case of any claim, the commissioners shall report to that effect to their respective Governments, who shall thereupon, within six months, agree upon some sovereign or h^ad of a friendly State, who shall be invited to decide upon such claim, and before whom shall be laid the official correspondence which has taken place between the two Governments, and the other written documents or statements which may have been presented to the commissioners in respect of such claims.

The decision of the commissioners, and of the arbitrator or umpire, shall be given upon each claim in writing, and shall be signed by them respectively, and dated.

In the event of a decision involving a question of compensation to be paid being arrived at byaspecial arbitrator or umpire, the amount of such compensation shall be referred back to the commissioners for adjudication; and in the event of their not being able to come to a decision, it shall then be decided by the arbitrator or umpire appointed by them, or who shall have been determined by lot.

It shall be competent for each Government to name one person to attend the commissioners as agent on its behalf, to present and support claims on its behalf, and to answer claims made upon it, and to represent it generally in all matters connected with the investigation and decision thereof.

The President of the United States of America, and her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, hereby solemnly and sincerely engage to consider the decision of the commissioners, or of the arbitrator or umpire, as the case may be, as absolutely final and conclusive upon each of such j claims, decided upon by him or them respect- 1 ively, and to give full effect, to such decision j without any objection or delay whatsoever. |

It is agreed that no claim arising out of any j transaciion of a, date prior to the 2Gth of July, 1853, the day of the exchange of the ratifications of the convention of the 8ih of February, 1853, shall be admissible under this convention.

Article III.

Every claim shall be presented to the commissioners within six months from the day of their fir>t meeting, unless in any case where reasons for delay shall be established to the satisfaction of the commissioners, or of the arbitrator or umpire in the event of the commissioners differing in opinion thereupon ; and then, and in any such case, the period for presenting the claim nmy be extended to anytime not exceeding three months longer.

The commissioners shall be bound to examine and decide upon every claim within two years from the day of their first meeting. It shall be competent lor rhe commissioners, or for the arbitrator or umpire if they differ, to decide in each case whether any claim has or has not been duly made, preferred, or laid before them, either wholly, or to auy and what extent, according to the true intent and meaning of this convention.

Article IV.

All sums of money which maybe awarded by the commissioners, or by the arbitrator or umpire, on account of any claim, shall be paid in coin or its equivalent, by the one Government to the other, as the case may be, withiu eighteen months after the date of the decision, without interest.

Article V.

The high contracting parties engage to consider the result of the proceedings of this commission as a full and final settlement of every claim upon either Government arising out of any transaction of a date prior to the exchange of the ratifications of the present convention; and further engage that every

such claim, whether or not the same may have been presented to the notice of, made, preferred, or laid before the said commission, shal1, from and after the conclusion of the proceedings of the said commission, be considered and treated as finally settled and barred, and thenceforth inadmissible. Article VI.

The commissioners and the arbitrator or umpire appointed by them shall keep an accurate record and correct minutes or notes of all their proceedings, with the dates thereof, and shall appoint and employ clerks or other persons to assist them in the transaction of the business which may come before them.

The secretary shall be appointed by the Secretarv of State of the United States and by her Britannic Majesty's representative at Washington jointly.

Each Government shall pay the salaries of its own commissioners. All other expenses, and the contingent expenses of the commission, including the salary of the secretary, shall be defrayed in moieties by the two parties.

Article VII.

The present convention shall be ratified by the President of the United States, by and with the advice and Consent of the Senate thereof, and by her Britannic Majesty; and the ratifications shall be exchanged at London as soon as may be within twelve months from the date hereof.

In witness whereof the respective plenipotentiaries have signed the same, and have affixed thereto their respective seals.

Done at London, the fourteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-nine. [seal.] Reverdy Johnson,

[seal] Clarendon.

[note.—Although the seal of secrecy has not been removed from the proceedings of the Senate upon this treaty, it is understood that but one vote—that of Mr. Thomas C. McOeery, of Kentucky—was given in favor of its ratification.—E. McP.]

Report of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

1871, January 80—Mr. Bingham, from the Committee on the Judiciary, to which was referred the memorial of Victoria C. Woodhull, made the following report; which was recommitted and ordered printed:

The memorialist asks the enactment of a law by Congress which shall secure to citizens of the United States in the several States the right to vote ''without regard to sex." .Since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution there is no longer auy rea

son to doubt that all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside; for that is the express declaration of the amendment.

The clause of the fourteenth amendment, "no Stp.te shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States," does not, in the opinion of the committee, refer to privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States other than those privileges and immunities eml/raced in the original text of the Constitution, article four, section two. The fourteenth amendment, it is believed, did not add to the privileges or immunities before mentioned, but was deemed necessary for their enforcement as an express limitation upon the powers of the States. Jt had been judicially determined that the first eight articles of amendment of the Constitution were not limitations on the power of the States, and it was apprehended that the same might be held of the provision of the second section, fourth article.

To remedy this defect of the Constitution, the express limitations upon the Stares contained in the first section of the fourteenth amendment, together with the grant of power in Congress to enforce them by legislation, were incorporated in the Constitution. The words u citizens of the United States," and "citizens of the States," as employed in the fourteenth amendment, did not change or modify ihe relations of citizens of the State and nation as they existed under the original Constitution.

Attorney General Bates gave the opinion that the Constitution uses the word ''citizen" only to express the political quality of the individual in his relation to the nation; to declare that, he is a member of the body-politic, and bound to it by the reciprocal obligation of allegiance on the one side and protection on the other. ''The phrase ka citizen of the United States,' without addition or qualification, means neither more nor less than a member of the nation." (Opinion of Attorney General Bates on citizenship.)

The Supreme Court of the Unites States has ruled that, according to the express words and clear meaning of the second section, fourth article of the Constitution, no privileges are secured by it except those which belong to citizenship. (Conner et al. vs. Elliott et al., 18 Howard, 593.)

In Corfield vs. Coryell, (4 Washington Cir cuit Court Reports, 380,) the court say:

"The inquiry is, what are the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? We feel no hesitation in confining these expressions to those privileges and immunities which are in their nature fundamental; which belong of right to the citizens of all free Gov ernments, and which have at all times been enjoyed by the citizens of the several States which compose this Union, from the time of their becoming free, independent, and sovereign. What these fundamental principles are would perhaps be'more tedious than difficult to enumerate. They may, however, be all comprehended under the following general heads: protection by the Government; the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind, and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such restraints as the Government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole; the right of a citizen of one State to pass through or to reside in any other State for the purposes of trade, agriculture, professional pursuits, or otherwise; to

claim the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; to institute and maintain actions of any kind in the courts of the State; to take, hold, and dispose of property either real' or personal; and an exemption from higher taxes or impositions than are paid by the other citizens of the State may be mentioned as some of the particular privileges and immunities of citizens which are clearly embraced by the general description of privileges deemed to be fundamental; to which maybe added the elective franchise as regulated and established by the laws or constitution of the State in which it is to be exercised.'7 * * * *

'•But we cannot accede to the proposition which was insisted on by the counsel, that under this provision of the Constitution (section two, article four) the citizens of the several States are permitted to participate in all the rights which belong exclusively to the citizens of any other particular State."

The learned Justice Story declared that the intention of the clause ('kthe citizens of each State shall be entitled to ali the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States") was to confer on the citizens of each State a general citizenship, and communicated all the privileges and immunities which a citizen of the same State would be entitled to under the same circumstances. (Story on the Constitution, volume two, page bl)5 )

in the case of the Bank of the United States vs. Primrose, in the Supreme Court of the United States, Mr. Webster said:

''That this article in the Constitution (article four, section two) does not cniiter on the citizens ot each State political rights in every other State, is admitted. A cnizen of Pennsylvania cannot go into Virginia and vote at any election in that State, though when he has acquired a residence in Virginia, and is otherwise qualified as is required by the constitunon (of Virginia) he becomes, without formal adoption as a citizen of Virginia, a citizen of that State politically. (Webster's Works, volume six, page 112.)

It must be obvious that Mr. Webster was of opinion that the privileges and immunities of citizens, guarantied to them in the several States, did not include the privilege of the elective franchise otherwise than as secured by the State constitution. For, after making the statement above quoted, that a citizen of Pennsylvania cannot go into Virginia and vote, Mr. Webster adds, ''but for the purposes of trade, commerce, buying and selling, it is evidently not in the power of any State to impose any hinderance or embarrassment, &c, upon citizens of other States, or to place them, going there, upon a different footing from her own citizens." (Ibid.)

The proposition is clear that no citizen of the United States can rightfully vote in any State of this Union who has not the qualifications required by the constitution of The State in which the right is claimed to be exercised, except as to such conditions in the constitution of such States as deny the right to vote to citizens resident therein '"on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

The adoption of the fifteenth amendment of the Constitution, imposing tnese three limitations upon the power of the several States, was, by neces-ary implication, a declaration that the States had the power to regulate by a uniform rule the conditions upon which the elective franchise should be exercised by citizens of the United Stares resident therein. The limitations specified in the fifteenth amendment exclude the conclusion that a State of this Union, having a government republican in form, may not prescribe conditions upon which -alone citizens may vote other than those prohibited. It can hardly be said that a Stale law which excludes from voting women citizens, minor citizens, and non-resident citizens of the United Spates, on account of sex, minority, or domicile, is a denial of the right to vote on account of race, color, or previous condi ion of servitude.

It may be fur her added that the second Spction of the fourteenth amendment, by the provision that "when the right to vote at any election for the choice ot electors of President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, or executive and judicial officers of the State, or the members of the Legis ature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, b^ing twenty-one years of age, a ciazen of the United Slates, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of representation therein shnll be reduced in the propor.ion winch the number of such male cit.zens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twemy-one years of age in such State," implies that the several States may restrict the elective franchise as to other than male citizens. In disposing of this question effect must be given, if possible, to'every provision of the Constitution. Article one, section two, of the Consiituion provides:

"That the House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous banch of ihe S'ate Legislature."

This provision has always been construed to vest in ihe several Stales the exclusive right to prescribe the qualifications of electors for the most numerous branch of the State Legislature, and therefore lor members of Congress. And this interpretation is supported by section four, article one, of the Constitution, which provides—

"That the time, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter sucn regulations except as to the place of choosing Senators."

Now, it is submitted, if it bad been intended that Congress should prescribe the qualification of electors, that the grant would have read: the Congress may at any time by law ^aake or aber such regulations, and also prescribe the qualification of electors, &c. The power, on the contrary, is limited exclusively 4o the time, place, and manner, and does not

extend to the qualification of the electors. This power to prescribe the qualification of electors in the several States has always been exercised, and is to-day, by the several States of the Union; and we apprehend, until the Constitution shall be changed, will continue to be so exercised, subject only to the express limitations imposed by the Constitution upon the several States, belore noticed. We are of opinion, iherefore, that it is not competent for the Congress of the United States to establish by law the right to vote without regard to sex in the several States of this Union without the consent of the people of such States and against their constitutions and laws; and that such legislation would be, in our judgment, a violation of the Constitution of the United States, and of the rights reserved to the States respectively by the Constitution. It is undoubtedly ~ue right of the people of the several States so to reform their constitutions and laws as to secure the equal exercise of the right of suffrage .tit all elections held therein, under the Constitution of the United States, to all citizens, without regard to sex; and as public opinion creates constitutions and governments in the several Stares, it is not to be doubted that whenever, in any State, the people are of opinion that such a reform is advisable, it will be made.

If, however, as is claimed in the memorial referred to, the right to vote "is vested by the Constitution in the citizens of the United States without regard to sex," that right can be established in the courts without further legislaion.

The suggestion is made that Congress by a mere declaratory act shall say that the construction claimed in the memorial is the true construction of the -Constitution, or, in other words, that by the Constitutiou of the United States the right to vote is vested in citizens of the United States " without regard to sex," anything in the constitution and laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. In the opinion of the committee such declaratory act is not authorized by the Constitution nor within the legislative power of Congress. We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution:

Resolved, That the prayer of the petitioner be not granted ; that the memorial be laid on the table, and that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from ihe further consideration of the subjectFebruary 1—Mr. Loughridge, from the same committee, submitted the following minority report, (which, from its extreme length, it becomes necessary to condense,) signed by himself and Mr. B.F. Butler:

The question presented is one of exceeding interest and importance, involving as it does the constitutional rights not only of the memorialist but of more than one half of the citizens of the United States—a question of constitutional law in which the civil and the natural rights of the citizen are involved. Questions of propriety or of expediency have nothing te do with it. The question is not "Would it be expedient to extend the right of suffrage to women V" but "Have women citizens that, right by the Constitution as it is?" • * * * * The question is to be decided by the Constitution and the fundamental principles of our Government, and not by the usage and dogmas of the past. * * * * * *

The people of the UnitedStates determined this question by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution, which declares that—

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive tiny person of life, liberty, or prop erty, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

This amendment, after declaring who are citizens of the United States, and thus fixing but one grade of ciiizenship, which insures to all citizens alike all the privileges, immunities, and rights which accrue to that condition, goes on in the Fame section and prohibits these privileges and immunities from abridgment by the States.

Whatever these "privileges and immunities" are, they attach to the female citizen equally with the male. It is implied by this amendment, that they are inherent, that they belong to citizenship as such, for they are not therein specified or enumerated.

The majority of the committee hold that the privileges guarantied by the fourteenth amendment do not refer to any o'her than the privileges embraced in section two of article four of the original text. * * *

Section two of article four provides for the privileges of "citizens of the Stares," while the tir^tsection of the fourteenth amend ment protects the privileges of "citizens of the United S;at<-s." The terms "citizens of the States" and "citizens of the United States" are by no means convertible.

A circuit court of the United States seems to hold a different view of this question from that srated by the committee.

In the case of the Live Stock Association vs. Crescent City, (1 Abbott, 396.) Justice Bradley, of the Supreme Court of the United States, delivering the opinion, uses the following language in relation to the first clause of the lourteemh amendment:

"Tne new prohibition that 'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States' is not identical with the clause m the Constitution which declared that 'the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.' It embraces much more.

"It is possible that those who framed the article were not themselves aware of the farreaching character of its terms, yet if the amendment does in fact bear a broader meaning, and does extend its protecting shield over those who were never thought of when it was

conceived and put in form, and does reach social evils which were never before prohibited by constitutional enactment, it is to be presumed that the American people in giving it their imprimatur understood what they were doing, and meant to decree what in fact they have decreed.

"The 'privileges and immunities' secured by the original Constitution were only such as each State gave to its own citizens," *

* * * "but the fourteenth amendment prohibits any State from abridging the privileges or immunities of citizetis of the United States, whether its own citizens or any others. It not merely requires equality of privileges, but it demands that the privileges and immunities of all citizens shall be absolutely unabridged and unimpaired."

In the same opinion, after enumerating some of the "privileges" of the citizens, such as were pertinent to the case on trial, but declining to enumerate all, the court further says:

"These privileges cannot be invaded without sapping the very foundation of republican government. A republican government is not merely a government of the people, but it is a free government." * * * . *

"It was very ably contended on the part of the defendants that the fourteenth amendment was intended only to secure to all citizens equal capacities before the law. That was at first our view of it. But it does not so read. The language is, k No State shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.' What are the privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States?Are they capacities merely? Are they not also rights?"

The court in this case seems to intimate very strongly that the amendment was intended to secure the natural rights of citizens, as well as their equal capacities before the iavv.

In a case in the supreme court of Georgia, in 18(39, thg question was before the court whether a negro was competent to hold office in the State of Georgia. The case was ably argued on both sides, Mr. Akerman. the present Attorney General of the United Siates, being of counsel f>r the petitioner. Although the point was made and argued fully that the right to vote and hold office were both included in the privileges and immunities of citizens, and were thus guarantied by the fourteenth amendment, yet that point was not directly passed upon by the court, the court holding that under the laws and constitution of Georgia the negro citizen had the right claimed. In delivering the opinion, Chief Justice Brown said:

"It is not necessary to the decision of this case to inquire what are the 'privileges and immunities' of a citizen which are guarantied by the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Whatever they may be, they are protected against all abridgment, by legislation." * * * * *

"Whether the 'privileges and immunities' of the citizen embrace political rights, including the right to hold office, I need not now inquire. If they do, that right is guarantied alike by