The opinion of Mr. Justice Bradley, in a case in the United States Circuit Court in New Orleans (1 Abb.  U.S.  Rep. 402) would seem to be decisive of this question, although the right involved in that case was not that of the elective franchise.  The learned justice says:  “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:  ’No State shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.’  What are the privileges and immunities of citizens?  Are they capacities merely?  Are they not also rights?”

Senator Carpenter, who took part in the discussion of the fourteenth amendment in the Senate, and aided in its passage, says:  “The fourteenth amendment executes itself in every State of the Union....  It is thus the will of the United States in every State, and silences every State Constitution, usage or law which conflicts with it....  And if this provision does protect the colored citizen, then it protects every citizen, black or white, male or female....  And all the privileges and immunities which I vindicate to a colored citizen, I vindicate to our mothers, our sisters and our daughters.”—­Chicago Legal News, vol. iv., No. 15.

It has been said, with how much or how little truth I do not know, that the subject of securing to women the elective franchise was not considered in the preparation, or in the adoption of these amendments.  It is wholly immaterial whether that was so or not.  It is never possible to arrive at the intention of the people in adopting constitutions, except by referring to the language used.  As is said by Mr. Cooley, “the intent is to be found in the instrument itself” (p. 55), and to that I have confined my remarks.  It is not a new thing for constitutional and legislative acts to have an effect beyond the anticipation of those who framed them.  It is undoubtedly true, that in exacting Magna Charta from King John, the Barons of England provided better securities for the rights of the common people than they were aware of at the time, although the rights of the common people were neither forgotten nor neglected by them.  It has also been said, perhaps with some truth, that the framers of the original Constitution of the United States “builded better than they knew;” and it is quite possible that in framing the amendments under consideration, those engaged in doing it have accomplished a much greater work than they were at the time aware of.  I am quite sure that it will be fortunate for the country, if this great question of female suffrage, than which few greater were ever presented for the consideration of any people, shall be found, almost unexpectedly, to have been put at rest.