Let us look at this. Is it possible to amend a Constitution not in accordance with its underlying principles? It can be repealed, abolished, destroyed, but not _amended; except in accordance with its original character_. The Supreme Court of the United States has declared that the powers of the Constitution are granted by the people, and are to be exercised strictly _on them_, and _for their benefit_. Story asks, "Who are the parties to this great contract?" and answers the question by saying, "The people of the United States are the parties to the Constitution." _Com. on Con._ _Com. on Con. Legal Rules_, 283, says: "This first paragraph of the Constitution, declaring its ends, is the most vital part of the instrument, revealing its spirit and intent, _and the understanding of its framers_." Here we have the recognized legal rule that the understanding or INTENTION of the framers of an instrument is to be found in its first paragraph, and the first paragraph of the Constitution declares it was framed BY THE PEOPLE, and for the purpose of securing the blessings of liberty to themselves and their posterity. The native-born American women of to-day, are the posterity of the framers of the Constitution, which was thus designed for their benefit. The intention to include women is here positive; women are part of the people now, and ever have been. "Rules of legal interpretation are general in their character," and so general has the interpretation of the Constitution been, that not only did the people who framed the Constitution, and their posterity, come in for its blessings, but the people also of every nation and tongue, from continent or isles of the sea, who come to us, are included in its benefits. Who can say our forefathers _intended_ to include Chinamen, or Sandwich Islanders, or the Norwegian, Russian, or Italian in its benefits? Yet they do all share in it as soon as they become citizens. How absurd we should think the assertion that it was not the Lord's intention to hold the people of the United States under the law of the Ten Commandments, as they were given to the Jews alone, some four thousand years before the United States existed as a nation. Massachusetts never abolished slavery by legislative act; never intentionally abolished it. In 1780 that State adopted a new Constitution with a Bill of Rights, declaring "All men born free and equal." Upon this, some slaves demanded their freedom, and their masters granted it. The slavery of men and _women_, both, was thus destroyed in Massachusetts without intention on the part of the framers of the Constitution, and this, because it is a legal rule to argue down from generals to particulars, and that the "words of a statute ought not to be interpreted to destroy natural justice;" but as Coke says, "Whenever the question of liberty runs doubtful, _the decision must be given in favor of liberty_." _Digest C.L._