Page:History of Woman Suffrage Volume 5.djvu/659

 register Mrs. Francis Minor, she brought suit against them, and her husband carried the case to the Supreme Court of the United States (Minor vs. Happersett). He made an able and exhaustive argument but an adverse decision was rendered March 29, 1875.

The women then returned to the original demand for a 16th Amendment, which indeed many of them, including Miss Anthony and Mrs. Stanton, never had entirely abandoned. Beginning with 1869 Congressional committees had granted hearings on woman suffrage every winter, even though no resolution was before them. Under the auspices of the National Association petitions by the tens of thousands continued to pour into Congress, which were publicly presented. Finally on Jan. 10, 1878, Senator A. A. Sargent of California offered the following joint resolution: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."

The Committee on Privileges and Elections granted a hearing which consumed a part of two days, with the large Senate reception room filled to overflowing and the corridors crowded. extended hearings were given also by the House Judiciary Committee and constitutional arguments of the highest order were made by noted women in attendance at the national suffrage convention. The Senate committee reported adversely, however, and the House committee not at all. This took place over forty years ago. Senator Sargent's amendment, which in later years was sometimes called the Susan B. Anthony Amendment, was presented to every Congress during this period and hearings were granted by committees of every one. The women who made their pleadings and arguments simply to persuade these committees to give a favorable report and bring the question before their respective Houses for debate comprised the most distinguished this country had produced. It is only by reading their addresses in the History of Woman Suffrage that one can form an idea of their masterly exposition of laws and constitution, their logic, strength and oftentimes deep pathos.

There are in the pages of history many detached speeches of rare eloquence for the rights of man but nowhere else is there so