Brian Carnell's Wiki

This page is read only. You can view the source, but not change it. Ask your administrator if you think this is wrong.
<html>
<h1 class="sc">HISTORY<br /><br />
<small>of</small><br /><br />
<big>Woman Suffrage.</big></h1>

<p><br /></p>

<h5>EDITED BY</h5>

<p><br /></p>

<h4>ELIZABETH CADY STANTON,<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;SUSAN B. ANTHONY, AND<br />
&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.</h4>

<p><br /></p>

<h5>ILLUSTRATED WITH STEEL ENGRAVINGS.</h5>

<p><br /></p>

<h4><i>IN THREE VOLUMES.</i></h4>


<h4>VOL. III.</h4>

<h4>1876-1885.</h4>

<hr class="tiny" />

<div class="narrow">
<h6>"WOMEN ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, ENTITLED TO ALL
THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED
TO CITIZENS BY THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION."</h6>
</div>

<p><br /></p>

<h4 class="sc">SUSAN B. ANTHONY.<br />
17 Madison St., Rochester, N. Y.</h4>

<p><br /></p>

<h6>Copyright, 1886, by Susan B. Anthony.</h6>

<hr />

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 389px;">
<a name="v3_frontis" id="v3_frontis">
<img src="https://brian.carnell.com/wiki/_media/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_frontis.jpg" width="389" height="500" alt="Phoebe W. Couzins." title="" /></a>
</div>

<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iii" id="Page_iii">[Pg iii]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="PREFACE" id="PREFACE"></a>PREFACE.</h2>


<p>The labors of those who have edited these volumes are not only
finished as far as this work extends, but if three-score years and
ten be the usual limit of human life, all our earthly endeavors
must end in the near future. After faithfully collecting material
for several years, and making the best selections our judgment has
dictated, we are painfully conscious of many imperfections the
critical reader will perceive. But since stereotype plates will not
reflect our growing sense of perfection, the lavish praise of
friends as to the merits of these pages will have its antidote in
the defects we ourselves discover. We may however without egotism
express the belief that this volume will prove specially
interesting in having a large number of contributors from England,
France, Canada and the United States, giving personal experiences
and the progress of legislation in their respective localities.</p>

<p>Into younger hands we must soon resign our work; but as long as
health and vigor remain, we hope to publish a pamphlet report at
the close of each congressional term, containing whatever may be
accomplished by State and National legislation, which can be
readily bound in volumes similar to these, thus keeping a full
record of the prolonged battle until the final victory shall be
achieved. To what extent these publications may be multiplied
depends on when the day of woman's emancipation shall dawn.</p>

<p>For the completion of this work we are indebted to Eliza Jackson
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_iv" id="Page_iv">[Pg iv]</a></span>Eddy, the worthy daughter of that noble philanthropist, Francis
Jackson. He and Charles F. Hovey are the only men who have ever
left a generous bequest to the woman suffrage movement. To Mrs.
Eddy, who bequeathed to our cause two-thirds of her large fortune,
belong all honor and praise as the first woman who has given alike
her sympathy and her wealth to this momentous and far-reaching
reform. This heralds a turn in the tide of benevolence, when,
instead of building churches and monuments to great men, and
endowing colleges for boys, women will make the education and
enfranchisement of their own sex the chief object of their lives.</p>

<p>The three volumes now completed we leave as a precious heritage to
coming generations; precious, because they so clearly
illustrate&mdash;in her ability to reason, her deeds of heroism and her
sublime self-sacrifice&mdash;that woman preeminently possesses the three
essential elements of sovereignty as defined by Blackstone:
"wisdom, goodness and power." This has been to us a work of love,
written without recompense and given without price to a large
circle of friends. A thousand copies have thus far been distributed
among our coadjutors in the old world and the new. Another thousand
have found an honored place in the leading libraries, colleges and
universities of Europe and America, from which we have received
numerous testimonies of their value as a standard work of reference
for those who are investigating this question. Extracts from these
pages are being translated into every living language, and, like so
many missionaries, are bearing the glad gospel of woman's
emancipation to all civilized nations.</p>

<p>Since the inauguration of this reform, propositions to extend the
right of suffrage to women have been submitted to the popular vote
in Kansas, Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska and Oregon, and lost by
large majorities in all; while, by a simple act of legislature,
Wyoming, Utah and Washington territories have enfranchised their
women without going through the slow process of a constitutional<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_v" id="Page_v">[Pg v]</a></span>
amendment. In New York, the State that has led this movement, and
in which there has been a more continued agitation than in any
other, we are now pressing on the legislature the consideration
that it has the same power to extend the right of suffrage to women
that it has so often exercised in enfranchising different classes
of men.</p>

<p>Eminent publicists have long conceded this power to State
legislatures as well as to congress, declaring that women as
citizens of the United States have the right to vote, and that a
simple enabling act is all that is needed. The constitutionality of
such an act was never questioned until the legislative power was
invoked for the enfranchisement of women. We who have studied our
republican institutions and understand the limits of the executive,
judicial and legislative branches of the government, are aware that
the legislature, directly representing the people, is the primary
source of power, above all courts and constitutions. Research into
the early history of this country shows that in line with English
precedent, women did vote in the old colonial days and in the
original thirteen States of the Union. Hence we are fully awake to
the fact that our struggle is not for the attainment of a new
right, but for the restitution of one our fore-mothers possessed
and exercised.</p>

<p>All thoughtful readers must close these volumes with a deeper sense
of the superior dignity, self-reliance and independence that belong
by nature to woman, enabling her to rise above such multifarious
persecutions as she has encountered, and with persistent
self-assertion to maintain her rights. In the history of the race
there has been no struggle for liberty like this. Whenever the
interest of the ruling classes has induced them to confer new
rights on a subject class, it has been done with no effort on the
part of the latter. Neither the American slave nor the English
laborer demanded the right of suffrage. It was given in both cases
to strengthen the liberal party. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vi" id="Page_vi">[Pg vi]</a></span> philanthropy of the few may
have entered into those reforms, but political expediency carried
both measures. Women, on the contrary, have fought their own
battles; and in their rebellion against existing conditions have
inaugurated the most fundamental revolution the world has ever
witnessed. The magnitude and multiplicity of the changes involved
make the obstacles in the way of success seem almost
insurmountable.</p>

<p>The narrow self-interest of all classes is opposed to the
sovereignty of woman. The rulers in the State are not willing to
share their power with a class equal if not superior to themselves,
over which they could never hope for absolute control, and whose
methods of government might in many respects differ from their own.
The annointed leaders in the Church are equally hostile to freedom
for a sex supposed for wise purposes to have been subordinated by
divine decree. The capitalist in the world of work holds the key to
the trades and professions, and undermines the power of labor
unions in their struggles for shorter hours and fairer wages, by
substituting the cheap labor of a disfranchised class, that cannot
organize its forces, thus making wife and sister rivals of husband
and brother in the industries, to the detriment of both classes. Of
the autocrat in the home, John Stuart Mill has well said: "No
ordinary man is willing to find at his own fireside an equal in the
person he calls wife." Thus society is based on this fourfold
bondage of woman, making liberty and equality for her antagonistic
to every organized institution. Where, then, can we rest the lever
with which to lift one-half of humanity from these depths of
degradation but on "that columbiad of our political life&mdash;the
ballot&mdash;which makes every citizen who holds it a full-armed
monitor"?</p>



<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_vii" id="Page_vii">[Pg vii]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="LIST_OF_ENGRAVINGS" id="LIST_OF_ENGRAVINGS"></a>LIST OF ENGRAVINGS.</h2>

<hr class="tiny" />
<h3 class="sc">Vol. III.</h3>
<hr class="tiny" />



<div class="center">
<table class="engravings" summary="Illustrations">
<tr><td class="left sc">Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_frontis"><i>Frontispiece.</i></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Marilla M. Ricker</td><td class="right">page <a href="#v3_112">112</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Frances E. Willard</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_129">129</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Jane H. Spofford</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_192">192</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Harriet H. Robinson</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_273">273</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Phebe A. Hanaford</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_337">337</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Armenia S. White</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_369">369</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Lillie Devereux Blake</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_417">417</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Rachel G. Foster</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_465">465</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Cornelia C. Hussey</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_481">481</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">May Wright Sewall</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_545">545</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Elizabeth Boynton Harbert</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_592">592</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Sarah Burger Stearns</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_656">656</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Clara Bewick Colby</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_689">689</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Helen M. Gougar</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_704">704</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Laura DeForce Gordon</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_753">753</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Abigail Scott Duniway</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_769">769</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Caroline E. Merrick</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_801">801</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Mary B. Clay</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_817">817</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Mentia Taylor</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_833">833</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">Priscilla Bright McLaren</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_864">864</a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="left sc">George Sand</td><td class="right"><a href="#v3_896">896</a></td></tr>
</table></div>




<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_ix" id="Page_ix">[Pg ix]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CONTENTS" id="CONTENTS"></a>CONTENTS.</h2>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXVII">CHAPTER XXVII.</a><span class="ralign sc">page</span></p>

<p class="center">THE CENTENNIAL YEAR&mdash;1876.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>The Dawn of the New Century&mdash;Washington Convention&mdash;Congressional
Hearing&mdash;Woman's Protest&mdash;May Anniversary&mdash;Centennial Parlors in
Philadelphia&mdash;Letters and Delegates to Presidential
Conventions&mdash;50,000 Documents sent out&mdash;The Centennial Autograph
Book&mdash;The Fourth of July&mdash;Independence Square&mdash;Susan B. Anthony
reads the Declaration of Rights&mdash;Convention in Dr. Furness'
Church, Lucretia Mott, Presiding&mdash;The Hutchinson Family, John and
Asa&mdash;The Twenty-eighth Anniversary, July 19, Edward M. Davis,
Presiding&mdash;Letters, Ernestine L. Rose, Clarina I. H. Nichols&mdash;The
<i>Ballot-Box</i>&mdash;Retrospect&mdash;The Woman's Pavilion<span class="ralign">1</span></p>
</div>


<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXVIII">CHAPTER XXVIII.</a></p>

<p class="center">NATIONAL CONVENTIONS, HEARINGS AND REPORTS.</p>

<p class="center">1877-1878-1879.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Renewed Appeal for a Sixteenth Amendment&mdash;Mrs. Gage Petitions for
a Removal of Political Disabilities&mdash;Ninth Washington Convention,
1877&mdash;Jane Grey Swisshelm&mdash;Letters, Robert Purvis, Wendell
Phillips, Francis E. Abbott&mdash;10,000 Petitions Referred to the
Committee on Privileges and Elections by Special Request of the
Chairman, Hon. O. P. Morton, of Indiana&mdash;May Anniversary in New
York&mdash;Tenth Washington Convention, 1878&mdash;Frances E. Willard and
30,000 Temperance Women Petition Congress&mdash;40,000 Petition for a
Sixteenth Amendment&mdash;Hearing before the Committee on Privileges
and Elections&mdash;Madam Dahlgren's Protest&mdash;Mrs. Hooker's Hearing on
Washington's Birthday&mdash;Mary Clemmer's Letter to Senator
Wadleigh&mdash;His Adverse Report&mdash;Thirtieth Anniversary, Unitarian
Church, Rochester, N. Y., July 19, 1878&mdash;The Last Convention
Attended by Lucretia Mott&mdash;Letters, William Lloyd Garrison,
Wendell Phillips&mdash;Church Resolution Criticised by Rev. Dr.
Strong&mdash;International Women's Congress in Paris&mdash;Washington
Convention, 1879&mdash;Favorable Minority Report by Senator Hoar&mdash;U.
S. Supreme Court Opened to Women&mdash;May Anniversary at St.
Louis&mdash;Address of Welcome by Phoebe Couzins&mdash;Women in Council
Alone&mdash;Letter from Josephine Butler, of England&mdash;Mrs. Stanton's
Letter to <i>The National Citizen and Ballot-Box</i><span class="ralign">57</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXIX">CHAPTER XXIX.</a></p>

<p class="center">CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS AND CONVENTIONS.</p>

<p class="center">1880-1881.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Why we Hold Conventions in Washington&mdash;Lincoln Hall
Demonstration&mdash;Sixty-six Thousand Appeals&mdash;Petitions Presented in
Congress&mdash;Hon. T. W. Ferry of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_x" id="Page_x">[Pg x]</a></span> Michigan in the Senate&mdash;Hon. Geo.
B. Loring of Massachusetts in the House&mdash;Hon. J. J. Davis of
North Carolina Objected&mdash;Twelfth Washington Convention&mdash;Hearings
before the Judiciary Committee of both Houses, 1880&mdash;May
Anniversary at Indianapolis&mdash;Series of Western
Conventions&mdash;Presidential Nominating Conventions&mdash;Delegates and
Addresses to each&mdash;Mass-Meeting at Chicago&mdash;Washington
Convention, 1881&mdash;Memorial Service to Lucretia Mott&mdash;Mrs.
Stanton's Eulogy&mdash;Discussion in the Senate on a Standing
Committee&mdash;Senator McDonald of Indiana Champions the Measure&mdash;May
Anniversary in Boston&mdash;Conventions in the chief cities of New
England<span class="ralign">150</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXX">CHAPTER XXX.</a></p>

<p class="center">CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND CONVENTIONS.</p>

<p class="center">1882-1883.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Prolonged Discussions in the Senate on a Special Committee to
Look After the Rights of Women, Messrs. Bayard, Morgan and Vest
in Opposition&mdash;Mr. Hoar Champions the Measure in the Senate, Mr.
Reed in the House&mdash;Washington Convention&mdash;Representative Orth and
Senator Saunders on the Woman Suffrage Platform&mdash;Hearings Before
Select Committees of Senate and House&mdash;Reception Given by Mrs.
Spofford at the Riggs House&mdash;Philadelphia Convention&mdash;Mrs. Hannah
Whitehall Smith's Dinner&mdash;Congratulations from the Central
Committee of Great Britain&mdash;Majority and Minority Reports in the
Senate&mdash;E. G. Lapham, J. Z. George&mdash;Nebraska
Campaign&mdash;Conventions in Omaha&mdash;Joint Resolution Introduced by
Hon. John D. White of Kentucky, Referred to the Select
Committee&mdash;Washington Convention, January 24, 25, 26,
1883&mdash;Majority Report in the House.<span class="ralign">198</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXI">CHAPTER XXXI.</a></p>

<p class="center">MASSACHUSETTS.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>The Woman's Hour&mdash;Lydia Maria Child Petitions Congress&mdash;First New
England Convention&mdash;The New England, American and Massachusetts
Associations&mdash;<i>Woman's Journal</i>&mdash;Bishop Gilbert Haven&mdash;The
Centennial Tea-Party&mdash;County Societies&mdash;Concord
Convention&mdash;Thirtieth Anniversary of the Worcester
Convention&mdash;School Suffrage Association&mdash;Legislative
Hearing&mdash;First Petitions&mdash;The Remonstrants Appear&mdash;Women in
Politics&mdash;Campaign of 1872&mdash;Great Meeting in Tremont
Temple&mdash;Women at the Polls&mdash;Provisions of Former State
Constitutions&mdash;Petitions, 1853&mdash;School-Committee Suffrage,
1879,&mdash;Women Threatened with Arrest&mdash;Changes in the Laws&mdash;Woman
Now Owns her own Clothing&mdash;Harvard Annex&mdash;Woman in the
Professions&mdash;Samuel E. Sewall and William I.
Bowditch&mdash;Supreme-Court Decisions&mdash;Sarah E. Wall&mdash;Francis
Jackson&mdash;Julia Ward Howe&mdash;Mary E. Stevens&mdash;Lucia M.
Peabody&mdash;Lelia Josephine Robinson&mdash;Eliza (Jackson) Eddy's Will
<span class="ralign">256</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXII">CHAPTER XXXII.</a></p>

<p class="center">CONNECTICUT.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Prudence Crandall&mdash;Eloquent Reformers&mdash;Petitions for
Suffrage&mdash;The Committee's Report&mdash;Frances Ellen Burr&mdash;Isabella
Beecher Hooker's Reminiscences&mdash;Anna Dickinson in the Republican
Campaign&mdash;State Society Formed October 28, 29, 1869&mdash;Enthusiastic
Convention in Hartford&mdash;Governor Marshall Jewell&mdash;He recommends
More Liberal Laws for Women&mdash;Society Formed in New Haven,
1871&mdash;Governor Hubbard's Inaugural, 1877&mdash;Samuel<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xi" id="Page_xi">[Pg xi]</a></span> Bowles of the
<i>Springfield Republican</i>&mdash;Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Chaplain,
1870&mdash;John Hooker, Esq., Champions the Suffrage Movement&mdash;The
Smith Sisters&mdash;Mary Hall&mdash;Chief-Justice Park&mdash;Frances Ellen
Burr&mdash;Hartford Equal Rights Club<span class="ralign">316</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXIII">CHAPTER XXXIII.</a></p>

<p class="center">RHODE ISLAND.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Senator Anthony in <i>North American Review</i>&mdash;Convention in
Providence&mdash;State Association organized, Paulina Wright Davis,
President&mdash;Report of Elizabeth B. Chase&mdash;Women on School
Boards&mdash;Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional
Institutions&mdash;Dr. Wm. F. Channing&mdash;Miss Ida Lewis&mdash;Letter of
Frederick A. Hinckley&mdash;Last Words of Senator Anthony<span class="ralign">339</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXIV">CHAPTER XXXIV.</a></p>

<p class="center">MAINE.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Women on School Committees&mdash;Elvira C. Thorndyke&mdash;First Suffrage
Society organized, 1868, Rockland&mdash;Portland Meeting, 1870&mdash;John
Neal&mdash;Judge Goddard&mdash;Colby University Open to Girls, August 12,
1871&mdash;Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash Admitted to the Bar, October 26,
1872&mdash;Tax-Payers Protest&mdash;Ann F. Greeley, 1872&mdash;March, 1872, Bill
for Woman Suffrage Lost in the House, Passed in the Senate by
Seven Votes&mdash;Miss Frank Charles, Register of Deeds&mdash;Judge
Reddington&mdash;Mr. Randall's Motion&mdash;Moral Eminence of
Maine&mdash;Convention in Granite Hall, Augusta, January, 1873, Hon.
Joshua Nye, President&mdash;Delia A. Curtis&mdash;Opinions of the Supreme
Court in Regard to Women Holding Offices&mdash;Governor Dingley's
Message, 1875&mdash;Convention, Representatives Hall, Portland, Judge
Kingsbury, President, Feb. 12, '76&mdash;The two Snow Families&mdash;Hon.
T. B. Reed<span class="ralign">351</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXV">CHAPTER XXXV.</a></p>

<p class="center">NEW HAMPSHIRE.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Nathaniel P. Rogers&mdash;Parker Pillsbury&mdash;Galen Foster&mdash;The
Hutchinson Family&mdash;First Organized Action, 1868&mdash;Concord
Convention&mdash;William Lloyd Garrison's Letter&mdash;Rev. S. L. Blake
Opposed&mdash;Rev. Mr. Sanborn in Favor&mdash;<i>Concord Monitor</i>&mdash;Armenia S.
White&mdash;A Bill to Protect the Rights of Married Men&mdash;Minority and
Majority Reports&mdash;Women too Ignorant to Vote&mdash;Republican State
Convention&mdash;Women on School Committees, 1870&mdash;Voting at School
District Meetings, 1878&mdash;Mrs. White's Address&mdash;Mrs. Ricker on
Prison Reform&mdash;Judicial Decision in Regard to Married Women,
1882&mdash;Letter from Senator Blair<span class="ralign">367</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXVI">CHAPTER XXXVI.</a></p>

<p class="center">VERMONT.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Clarina Howard Nichols&mdash;Council of Censors&mdash;Amending the
Constitution&mdash;St. Andrew's Letter&mdash;Mr. Reed's Report&mdash;Convention
Called&mdash;H. B. Blackwell on the <i>Vermont Watchman</i>&mdash;Mary A.
Livermore in the <i>Woman's Journal</i>&mdash;Sarah A. Gibbs' Reply to Rev.
Mr. Holmes&mdash;School Suffrage, 1880<span class="ralign">383</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xii" id="Page_xii">[Pg xii]</a></span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXVII">CHAPTER XXXVII.</a></p>

<p class="center">NEW YORK&mdash;1860-1885.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Saratoga Convention, July 13, 14, 1869&mdash;State Society Formed,
Martha C. Wright, President&mdash;<i>The Revolution</i> Established,
1868&mdash;Educational Movement&mdash;New York City Society, 1870,
Charlotte B. Wilbour, President&mdash;Presidential Campaign,
1872&mdash;Hearings at Albany, 1873&mdash;Constitutional Commission&mdash;An
Effort to Open Columbia College, President Barnard in
Favor&mdash;Centennial Celebration, 1876&mdash;School Officers&mdash;Senator
Emerson of Monroe, 1877&mdash;Governor Robinson's Veto&mdash;School
Suffrage, 1880&mdash;Governor Cornell Recommended it in his
Message&mdash;Stewart's Home for Working Women&mdash;Women as Police&mdash;An
Act to Prohibit Disfranchisement&mdash;Attorney-General Russell's
Adverse Opinion&mdash;The Power of the Legislature to Extend
Suffrage&mdash;Great Demonstration in Chickering Hall, March 7,
1884&mdash;Hearing at Albany, 1885&mdash;Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs.
Rogers, Mrs. Howell, Gov. Hoyt of Wyoming<span class="ralign">395</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXVIII">CHAPTER XXXVIII.</a></p>

<p class="center">PENNSYLVANIA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Carrie Burnham&mdash;The Canon and Civil Law the Source of Woman's
Degradation&mdash;Women Sold with Cattle in 1768&mdash;Women Arrested in
Pittsburg&mdash;Mrs. McManus&mdash;Opposition to Women in Colleges and
Hospitals; John W. Forney Vindicates their Rights&mdash;Ann
Preston&mdash;Women in Dentistry&mdash;James Truman's Letter&mdash;Swarthmore
College&mdash;Suffrage Association Formed in 1866, in
Philadelphia&mdash;John K. Wildman's Letter&mdash;Judge William S.
Pierce&mdash;The Citizens' Suffrage Association, 333 Walnut Street,
Edward M. Davis, President&mdash;Petitions to the
Legislature&mdash;Constitutional Convention, 1873&mdash;Bishop Simpson,
Mary Grew, Sarah C. Hallowell, Matilda Hindman, Mrs. Stanton,
Address the Convention&mdash;Messrs. Broomall and Campbell Debate with
the Opposition&mdash;Amendment Making Women Eligible to School
Offices&mdash;Two Women Elected to Philadelphia School Board,
1874&mdash;The Wages of Married Women Protected&mdash;J. Edgar Thomson's
Will&mdash;Literary Women as Editors&mdash;The Rev. Knox Little&mdash;Anne E.
McDowell&mdash;Women as Physicians in Insane Asylums&mdash;The Fourteenth
Amendment Resolution, 1881&mdash;Ex-Gov. Hoyt's Lecture on Wyoming<span class="ralign">444</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XXXIX">CHAPTER XXXIX.</a></p>

<p class="center">NEW JERSEY.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Women Voted in the Early Days&mdash;Deprived of the Right by
Legislative Enactment in 1807&mdash;Women Demand the Restoration of
Their Rights in 1868&mdash;At the Polls in Vineland and Roseville
Park&mdash;Lucy Stone Agitates the Question&mdash;State Suffrage Society
Organized in 1867&mdash;Conventions&mdash;A Memorial to the
Legislature&mdash;Mary F. Davis&mdash;Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford&mdash;Political
Science Club&mdash; Mrs. Cornelia C. Hussey&mdash;Orange Club, 1870&mdash;Mrs.
Devereux Blake gives the Oration, July 4, 1884&mdash;Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell's Letter&mdash;The Laws of New Jersey in Regard to Property
and Divorce&mdash;Constitutional Commission, 1873&mdash;Trial of Rev. Isaac
M. See&mdash;Women Preaching in his Pulpit&mdash;The Case Appealed&mdash;Mrs.
Jones, Jailoress&mdash;Legislative Hearings<span class="ralign">476</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiii" id="Page_xiii">[Pg xiii]</a></span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XL">CHAPTER XL.</a></p>

<p class="center">OHIO.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>The First Soldiers' Aid Society&mdash;Mrs. Mendenhall&mdash;Cincinnati
Equal Rights Association, 1868&mdash;Homeopathic Medical College and
Hospital&mdash;Hon. J. M. Ashley&mdash;State Society, 1869&mdash;Murat
Halstead's Letter&mdash;Dayton Convention, 1870&mdash;Women Protest Against
Enfranchisement&mdash;Sarah Knowles Bolton&mdash;Statistics on Coëducation
by Thomas Wentworth Higginson&mdash;Woman's Crusade, 1874&mdash;Miriam M.
Cole&mdash;Ladies' Health Association&mdash;Professor Curtis&mdash;Hospital for
Women and Children, 1879&mdash;Letter from J. D. Buck, M. D.&mdash;March,
1881, Degrees Conferred on Women&mdash;Toledo Association, 1869&mdash;Sarah
Langdon Williams&mdash;<i>The Sunday Journal</i>&mdash;<i>The
Ballot-Box</i>&mdash;Constitutional Convention&mdash;Judge Waite&mdash;Amendment
Making Women Eligible to Office&mdash;Mr. Voris, Chairman Special
Committee on Woman Suffrage&mdash;State Convention, 1873&mdash;Rev. Robert
McCune&mdash;Centennial Celebration&mdash;Women Decline to Take
Part&mdash;Correspondence&mdash;Newbury Association&mdash;Women Voting,
1871&mdash;Sophia Ober Allen&mdash;Annual Meeting, Painesville, 1885&mdash;State
Society, Mrs. Frances M. Casement, President&mdash;Adelbert College
<span class="ralign">491</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLI">CHAPTER XLI.</a></p>

<p class="center">MICHIGAN.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Women's Literary Clubs and Libraries&mdash;Mrs. Lucinda H.
Stone&mdash;Classes of Girls in Europe&mdash;Ernestine L. Rose&mdash;Legislative
Action, 1849-1885&mdash;State Woman Suffrage Society, 1870&mdash;Annual
Conventions&mdash;Northwestern Association&mdash;Wendell Phillips'
Letter&mdash;Nannette Gardner votes&mdash;Catharine A. F. Stebbins
Refused&mdash;Legislative Action&mdash;Amendments Submitted&mdash;An Active
Canvas of the State by Women&mdash;Election Day&mdash;The Amendment Lost,
40,000 Men Voted in Favor&mdash;University at Ann Arbor Opened to
Girls, 1869&mdash;Kalamazoo Institute&mdash;J. A. B. Stone&mdash;Miss Madeline
Stockwell and Miss Sarah Burger Applied for Admission to the
University in 1857&mdash;Episcopal Church Bill&mdash;Local
Societies&mdash;Quincy&mdash;Lansing&mdash;St. Johns&mdash;Manistee&mdash;Grand
Rapids&mdash;Sojourner Truth&mdash;Laura C. Haviland&mdash;Sybil Lawrence<span class="ralign">513</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLII">CHAPTER XLII.</a></p>

<p class="center">INDIANA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>The First Woman Suffrage Convention After the War, 1869&mdash;Amanda
M. Way&mdash;Annual Meetings, 1870-85, in the Larger
Cities&mdash;Indianapolis Equal Suffrage Society, 1878&mdash;A Course of
Lectures&mdash;In May, 1880, National Convention in
Indianapolis&mdash;Zerelda G. Wallace&mdash;Social Entertainment&mdash;Governor
Albert G. Porter&mdash;Susan B. Anthony's Birthday&mdash;Schuyler
Colfax&mdash;Legislative Hearings&mdash;Temperance Women of Indiana&mdash;Helen
M. Gougar&mdash;General Assembly&mdash;Delegates to Political
Conventions&mdash;Women Address Political Meetings&mdash;Important Changes
in the Laws for Women, from 1860 to 1884&mdash;Colleges Open to
Women&mdash;Demia
Butler&mdash;Professors&mdash;Lawyers&mdash;Doctors&mdash;Ministers&mdash;Miss Catharine
Merrill&mdash;Miss Elizabeth Eaglesfield&mdash;Rev. Prudence Le Clerc&mdash;Dr.
Mary F. Thomas&mdash;Prominent Men and Women&mdash;George W. Julian&mdash;The
Journals&mdash;Gertrude Garrison<span class="ralign">533</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xiv" id="Page_xiv">[Pg xiv]</a></span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLIII">CHAPTER XLIII.</a></p>

<p class="center">ILLINOIS.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Chicago a Great Commercial Centre&mdash;First Woman Suffrage
Agitation, 1855&mdash;A. J. Grover&mdash;Society at Earlville&mdash;Prudence
Crandall&mdash;Sanitary Movement&mdash;Woman in Journalism&mdash;Myra
Bradwell&mdash;Excitement in Elmwood Church, 1868&mdash;Mrs. Huldah
Joy&mdash;Pulpit Utterances&mdash;Convention, 1869, Library Hall,
Chicago&mdash;Anna Dickinson, Robert Laird Collier Debate&mdash;Manhood
Suffrage Denounced by Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony&mdash;Judge
Charles B. Waite on the Constitutional Convention&mdash;Hearing before
the Legislature&mdash;Western Suffrage Convention, Mrs. Livermore,
President&mdash;Annual Meeting at Bloomington&mdash;Women Eligible to
School Offices&mdash;Evanston College&mdash;Miss Alta Hulett Medical
Association&mdash;Dr. Sarah Hackett Stevenson&mdash;"Woman's Kingdom" in
the <i>Inter-Ocean</i>&mdash;Mrs. Harbert&mdash;Centennial Celebration at
Evanston&mdash;Temperance Petition, 180,000&mdash;Frances E.
Willard&mdash;Social Science Association&mdash;Art Union&mdash;Jane Graham Jones
at International Congress in Paris&mdash;Moline Association<span class="ralign">559</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLIV">CHAPTER XLIV.</a></p>

<p class="center">MISSOURI.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Missouri the first State to Open Colleges of Law and Medicine to
Woman&mdash;Liberal Legislation&mdash;Harriet Hosmer&mdash;Wayman Crow&mdash;Dr.
Joseph N. McDowell&mdash;Works of Art&mdash;Women in the War&mdash;Adeline
Couzins&mdash;Virginia L. Minor&mdash;Petitions&mdash;Woman Suffrage
Association, May 8, 1867&mdash;First Woman Suffrage Convention, Oct.
6, 1869&mdash;Able Resolutions by Francis Minor&mdash;Action Asked for in
the Methodist Church&mdash;Constitutional Convention&mdash;Mrs. Hazard's
Report&mdash;National Suffrage Association, 1879&mdash;Virginia L. Minor
Before the Committee on Constitutional Amendments&mdash;Mrs. Minor
Tries to Vote&mdash;Her Case in the Supreme Court&mdash;Mrs. Annie R.
Irvine&mdash;"Oregon Woman's Union"&mdash;Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins Graduates
From the Law School, 1871&mdash;Reception by Members of the
Bar&mdash;Speeches&mdash;Dr. Walker&mdash;Judge Krum&mdash;Hon. Albert
Todd&mdash;Ex-Governor E. O. Stanard&mdash;Ex-Senator Henderson&mdash;Judge
Reber&mdash;George M. Stewart&mdash;Mrs. Minor&mdash;Miss Couzins<span class="ralign">594</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLV">CHAPTER XLV.</a></p>

<p class="center">IOWA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Beautiful Scenery&mdash;Liberal in Politics and Reforms&mdash;Legislation
for Women&mdash;No Right yet to Joint Earnings&mdash;Early
Agitation&mdash;Frances Dana Gage, 1854&mdash;Mrs. Amelia Bloomer Lectures
in Council Bluffs, 1856&mdash;Mrs. Martha H. Brinkerhoff&mdash;Mrs. Annie
Savery, 1868&mdash;County Associations Formed in 1869&mdash;State Society
Organized at Mt. Pleasant, 1870, Henry O'Connor, President&mdash;Mrs.
Cutler Answers Judge Palmer&mdash;First Annual Meeting, Des
Moines&mdash;Letter from Bishop Simpson&mdash;The State Register
Complimentary&mdash;Mass-Meeting at the Capitol&mdash;Mrs. Savery and Mrs.
Harbert&mdash;Legislative Action&mdash;Methodist and Universalist Churches
Indorse Woman Suffrage&mdash;Republican Plank, 1874&mdash;Governor
Carpenter's Message, 1876&mdash;Annual Meeting, 1882, Many Clergymen
Present&mdash;Five Hundred Editors Interviewed&mdash;Miss Hindman and Mrs.
Campbell&mdash;Mrs. Callanan Interviews Governor Sherman,
1884&mdash;Lawyers&mdash;Governor Kirkwood Appoints Women to Office&mdash;County
Superintendents&mdash;Elizabeth S. Cook&mdash;Journalism&mdash;Literature&mdash;
Medicine&mdash;Ministry&mdash;Inventions&mdash;President of a National Bank&mdash;
The Heroic Kate Shelly&mdash;Temperance&mdash;Improvement in the Laws<span class="ralign">612</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xv" id="Page_xv">[Pg xv]</a></span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLVI">CHAPTER XLVI.</a></p>

<p class="center">WISCONSIN.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Progressive Legislation&mdash;The Rights of Married Women&mdash;The
Constitution Shows Four Classes Having the Right to Vote&mdash;Woman
Suffrage Agitation&mdash;C. L. Sholes' Minority Report, 1856&mdash;Judge
David Noggle and J. T. Mills' Minority Report, 1859&mdash;State
Association Formed, 1869&mdash;Milwaukee Convention&mdash;Dr. Laura
Ross&mdash;Hearing Before the Legislature&mdash;Convention in Janesville,
1870&mdash;State University&mdash;Elizabeth R. Wentworth&mdash;Suffrage
Amendment, 1880, '81, '82&mdash;Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine,
1877&mdash;Madam Anneké&mdash;Judge Ryan&mdash;Three Days' Convention at Racine,
1883&mdash;Eveleen L. Mason&mdash;Dr. Sarah Munro&mdash;Rev. Dr. Corwin&mdash;Lavinia
Godell, Lawyer&mdash;Angie King&mdash;Kate Kane<span class="ralign">638</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLVII">CHAPTER XLVII.</a></p>

<p class="center">MINNESOTA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Girls in State University&mdash;Sarah Burger Stearns&mdash;Harriet E.
Bishop, the First Teacher in St. Paul&mdash;Mary J. Colburn Won the
Prize&mdash;Mrs. Jane Grey Swisshelm, St. Cloud&mdash;Fourth of July
Oration, 1866&mdash;First Legislative Hearing, 1867&mdash;Governor Austin's
Veto&mdash;First Society at Rochester&mdash;Kasson&mdash;Almira W. Anthony&mdash;Mary
P. Wheeler&mdash;Harriet M. White&mdash;The W. C. T. U.&mdash;Harriet A.
Hobart&mdash;Literary and Art Clubs&mdash;School Suffrage, 1876&mdash;Charlotte
O. Van Cleve and Mrs. C. S. Winchell Elected to School
Board&mdash;Mrs. Governor Pillsbury&mdash;Temperance Vote, 1877&mdash;Property
Rights of Married Women&mdash;Women as Officers, Teachers, Editors,
Ministers, Doctors, Lawyers<span class="ralign">649</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLVIII">CHAPTER XLVIII.</a></p>

<p class="center">DAKOTA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Influences of Climate and Scenery&mdash;Legislative Action, 1872&mdash;Mrs.
Marietta Bones&mdash;In February, 1879, School Suffrage Granted
Women&mdash;Constitutional Convention, 1883&mdash;Matilda Joslyn Gage
Addressed a Letter to the Convention and an Appeal to the Women
of the State&mdash;Mrs. Bones Addressed the Convention in Person&mdash;The
Effort to get the Word "Male" out of the Constitution
Failed&mdash;Legislature of 1885&mdash;Major Pickler Presents the
Bill&mdash;Carried Through Both Houses&mdash;Governor Pierce's Veto&mdash;Major
Pickler's Letter<span class="ralign">662</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_XLIX">CHAPTER XLIX.</a></p>

<p class="center">NEBRASKA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Clara Bewick Colby&mdash;Nebraska Came into the Possession of the
United States, 1803&mdash;The Home of the Dakotas&mdash;Organized as a
Territory, 1854&mdash;Territorial Legislature&mdash;Mrs. Amelia Bloomer
Addresses the House&mdash;Gen. Wm. Larimer, 1856&mdash;A Bill to Confer
Suffrage on Women&mdash;Passed the House&mdash;Lost in the
Senate&mdash;Constitution Harmonized with the Fourteenth
Amendment&mdash;Admitted as a State March 1, 1867&mdash;Mrs. Stanton, Miss
Anthony Lecture in the State, 1867&mdash;Mrs. Tracy Cutler, 1870&mdash;Mrs.
Esther L. Warner's Letter&mdash;Constitutional Convention, 1871&mdash;Woman
Suffrage Amendment Submitted&mdash;Lost by 12,676 against, 3,502
for&mdash;Prolonged Discussion&mdash;Constitutional Convention,
1875&mdash;Grasshoppers Devastate the Country&mdash;<i>Inter-Ocean</i>, Mrs.
Harbert&mdash;Omaha <i>Republican</i>, 1876&mdash;Woman's Column Edited by Mrs.
Harriet S.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvi" id="Page_xvi">[Pg xvi]</a></span> Brooks&mdash;"Woman's Kingdom"&mdash;State Society Formed,
January 19, 1881, Mrs. Brooks President&mdash;Mrs. Dinsmoor, Mrs.
Colby, Mrs. Brooks, before the Legislature&mdash;Amendment again
Submitted&mdash;Active Canvass of the State, 1882&mdash;First Convention of
the State Association&mdash;Charles F. Manderson&mdash;Unreliable
Politicians&mdash;An Unfair Count of Votes for Woman
Suffrage&mdash;Amendment Defeated&mdash;Conventions in Omaha&mdash;Notable Women
in the State&mdash;Conventions&mdash;<i>Woman's Tribune</i> Established in 1883
<span class="ralign">670</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_L">CHAPTER L.</a></p>

<p class="center">KANSAS.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Effect of the Popular Vote on Woman Suffrage&mdash;Anna C.
Wait&mdash;Hannah Wilson&mdash;Miss Kate Stephens, Professor of Greek in
State University&mdash;Lincoln Centre Society, 1879&mdash;The Press&mdash;The
Lincoln <i>Beacon</i>&mdash;Election, 1880&mdash;Sarah A. Brown, Democratic
Candidate&mdash;Fourth of July Celebration&mdash;Women Voting on the School
Question&mdash;State Society, 1884&mdash;Helen M. Gougar&mdash;Clara Bewick
Colby&mdash;Bertha H. Ellsworth&mdash;Radical Reform Association&mdash;Mrs. A.
G. Lord&mdash;Prudence Crandall&mdash;Clarina Howard Nichols&mdash;Laws&mdash;Women
in the Professions&mdash;Schools&mdash;Political Parties&mdash;Petitions to the
Legislature&mdash;Col. F. G. Adams' Letter<span class="ralign">696</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LI">CHAPTER LI.</a></p>

<p class="center">COLORADO.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Great American Desert&mdash;Organized as a Territory, February 28,
1860&mdash;Gov. McCook's Message Recommending Woman Suffrage,
1870&mdash;Adverse Legislation&mdash;Hon. Amos Steck&mdash;Admitted to the
Union, 1876&mdash;Constitutional Convention&mdash;Efforts to Strike Out the
Word "Male"&mdash;Convention to Discuss Woman Suffrage&mdash;School
Suffrage Accorded&mdash;State Association Formed, Alida C. Avery,
President&mdash;Proposition for Full Suffrage Submitted to the Popular
Vote&mdash;A Vigorous Campaign&mdash;Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Patterson of
Denver&mdash;Opposition by the Clergy&mdash;Their Arguments Ably
Answered&mdash;D. M. Richards&mdash;The Amendment Lost&mdash;<i>The Rocky Mountain
News</i><span class="ralign">712</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LII">CHAPTER LII.</a></p>

<p class="center">WYOMING.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>The Dawn of the New Day, December, 1869&mdash;The Goal Reached in
England and America&mdash;Territory Organized, May, 1869&mdash;Legislative
Action&mdash;Bill for Woman Suffrage&mdash;William H. Bright&mdash;Gov. Campbell
Signs the Bill&mdash;Appoints Esther Morris, Justice of the Peace,
March, 1870&mdash;Women on the Jury, Chief-Justice Howe, Presiding&mdash;J.
W. Kingman, Associate-Justice, Addresses the Jury&mdash;Women Promptly
Take Their Places&mdash;Sunday Laws Enforced&mdash;Comments of the
Press&mdash;Judge Howe's Letter&mdash;Laramie <i>Sentinel</i>&mdash;J. H.
Hayford&mdash;Women Voting, 1870&mdash;Grandma Swain the First to Cast her
Ballot&mdash;Effort to Repeal the Law, 1871&mdash;Gov. Campbell's Veto&mdash;Mr.
Corlett&mdash;Rapid Growth of Public Opinion in Favor of Woman
Suffrage<span class="ralign">726</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LIII">CHAPTER LIII.</a></p>

<p class="center">CALIFORNIA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Liberal Provisions in the Constitution&mdash;Elizabeth T.
Schenck&mdash;Eliza W. Farnham&mdash;Mrs. Mills' Seminary, now a State
Institution&mdash;Jeannie Carr, State Superintendent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xvii" id="Page_xvii">[Pg xvii]</a></span> of
Schools&mdash;First Awakening&mdash;<i>The Revolution</i>&mdash;Anna Dickinson&mdash;Mrs.
Gordon Addresses the Legislature, 1868&mdash;Mrs. Pitts Stevens Edits
<i>The Pioneer</i>&mdash;First Suffrage Society on the Pacific Coast,
1869&mdash;State Convention, January 26, 1870, Mrs. Wallis,
President&mdash;State Association Formed, Mrs. Haskell of Petaluma,
President&mdash;Mrs. Gordon Nominated for Senator&mdash;In 1871, Mrs.
Stanton and Miss Anthony Visit California&mdash;Hon. A. A. Sargent
Speaks in Favor of Suffrage for Women&mdash;Ellen Clark Sargent Active
in the Movement&mdash;Legislation Making Women Eligible to Hold School
Offices, 1873&mdash;July 10, 1873, State Society Incorporated, Sarah
Wallis, President&mdash;Mrs. Clara Foltz&mdash;A Bill Giving Women the
Right to Practice Law&mdash;The Bill Passed and Signed by the
Governor&mdash;Contest Over Admitting Women into the Law Department of
the University&mdash;Supreme Court Decision Favorable&mdash;Hon. A. A.
Sargent on the Constitution and Laws&mdash;Journalists and Printers
Silk Culture&mdash;Legislative Appropriation&mdash;Mrs. Knox Goodrich
Celebrates July 4, 1876&mdash;Imposing Demonstration&mdash;Ladies in the
Procession<span class="ralign">749</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LIV">CHAPTER LIV.</a></p>

<p class="center">THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>The Long Marches Westward&mdash;Abigail Scott Duniway&mdash;Mary Olney
Brown&mdash;The First Steps in Oregon&mdash;Col. C. A. Reed&mdash;Judge G. W.
Lawson&mdash;1870&mdash;The New Northwest, 1871&mdash;Campaign, Mrs. Duniway and
Miss Anthony&mdash;They Address the Legislature in Washington
Territory&mdash;Hon. Elwood Evans&mdash;Suffrage Societies Organized at
Olympia and Portland&mdash;Before the Oregon Legislature&mdash;Donation
Land Act&mdash;Hon. Samuel Corwin's Suffrage Bill&mdash;Married Woman's
<i>Sole</i> Traders' Bill&mdash;Temperance Alliance&mdash;Women Rejected&mdash;Major
Williams Fights Their Battles and Triumphs&mdash;Mrs. H. A.
Loughary&mdash;Progressive Legislation, 1874&mdash;Mob-Law in Jacksonville,
1879&mdash;Dr. Mary A. Thompson&mdash;Constitutional Convention,
1878&mdash;Woman Suffrage Bill, 1880&mdash;Hon. W. C. Fulton&mdash;Women
Enfranchised in Washington Territory, Nov. 15, 1883&mdash;Great
Rejoicing, Bonfires, Ratification Meetings&mdash;Constitutional
Amendment Submitted in Oregon and Lost, June, 1884&mdash;Suffrage by
Legislative Enactment Lost&mdash;Fourth of July Celebrated at
Vancouvers&mdash;Benjamin and Mary Olney Brown&mdash;Washington
Territory&mdash;Legislation in 1867-68 Favorable to Women&mdash;Mrs. Brown
Attempts to Vote and is Refused&mdash;Charlotte Olney French&mdash;Women
Vote at Grand Mound and Black River Precincts,
1870&mdash;Retrogressive Legislation, 1871&mdash;Abby H. Stuart in
Land-Office&mdash;Hon. William H. White&mdash;Idaho and Montana<span class="ralign">767</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LV">CHAPTER LV.</a></p>

<p class="center">LOUISIANA&mdash;TEXAS&mdash;ARKANSAS&mdash;MISSISSIPPI.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>St. Anna's Asylum, Managed by Women&mdash;Constitutional Convention,
1879&mdash;Women Petition&mdash;Clara Merrick Guthrie&mdash;Petition Referred to
Committee on Suffrage&mdash;A Hearing Granted&mdash;Mrs. Keating&mdash;Mrs.
Saxon&mdash;Mrs. Merrick&mdash;Col. John M. Sandige&mdash;Efforts of the Women
all in Vain&mdash;Action in 1885&mdash;Gov. McEnery&mdash;The <i>Daily
Picayune</i>&mdash;Women as Members of the School Board&mdash;Physiology in
the Schools&mdash;Miss Eliza Rudolph&mdash;Mrs. E. J. Nicholson&mdash;Judge
Merrick's Digest of Laws&mdash;Texas&mdash;Arkansas&mdash;Mississippi&mdash;Sarah A.
Dorsey<span class="ralign">789</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xviii" id="Page_xviii">[Pg xviii]</a></span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LV_Continued">CHAPTER LV. (<span class="smcap">Continued</span>).</a></p>

<p class="center">DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA&mdash;MARYLAND&mdash;DELAWARE&mdash;KENTUCKY&mdash;TENNESSEE&mdash;VIRGINIA&mdash;WEST
VIRGINIA&mdash;NORTH CAROLINA&mdash;SOUTH
CAROLINA&mdash;FLORIDA&mdash;ALABAMA&mdash;GEORGIA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Secretary Chase&mdash;Women in the Government Departments&mdash;Myrtilla
Miner&mdash;Mrs. O'Connor's Tribute&mdash;District of Columbia Suffrage
Bill&mdash;The Universal Franchise Association, 1867&mdash;Bill for a
Prohibitory Law Presented by Hon. S. C. Pomeroy, 1869&mdash;A Bill for
Equal Wages for the Women in the Departments, Introduced by Hon.
S. M. Arnell, 1870&mdash;In 1871 Congress Passed the Organic Act for
the District Confining the Right of Suffrage to Males&mdash;In 1875 it
Withdrew all Legislative Power from the People&mdash;Women in Law,
Medicine, Journalism and the Charities&mdash;Dental College Opened to
Women&mdash;Mary A. Stewart&mdash;The Clay Sisters&mdash;The School of
Pharmacy&mdash;Elizabeth Avery Meriwether&mdash;Judge Underwood&mdash;Mary
Bayard Clarke&mdash;Dr. Susan Dimock&mdash;Governor
Chamberlain&mdash;Coffee-Growing&mdash;Priscilla Holmes Drake&mdash;Alexander H.
Stephens<span class="ralign">808</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LV_Concluded">CHAPTER LV. (<span class="smcap">Concluded</span>).</a></p>

<p class="center">CANADA.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Miss Phelps of St. Catharines&mdash;The Revolt of the Thirteen
Colonies&mdash;First Parliament&mdash;Property Rights of Married
Women&mdash;School Suffrage Thirty Years&mdash;Municipal Suffrage, 1882,
1884&mdash;Women Voting in Toronto, 1886&mdash;Mrs. Curzon&mdash;Dr. Emily H.
Stone&mdash;Woman's Literary Club of Toronto&mdash;Nova Scotia&mdash;New
Brunswick&mdash;Miss Harriet Stewart<span class="ralign">831</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LVI">CHAPTER LVI.</a></p>

<p class="center">GREAT BRITAIN.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>Women Send Members to Parliament&mdash;Sidney Smith, Sir Robert Peel,
Richard Cobden&mdash;The Ladies of Oldham&mdash;Jeremy Bentham&mdash;Anne
Knight&mdash;Northern Reform Society, 1858&mdash;Mrs. Matilda
Biggs&mdash;Unmarried Women and Widows Petition
Parliament&mdash;Associations Formed in London, Manchester, Edinburgh,
1867&mdash;John Stuart Mill in Parliament&mdash;Seventy-three Votes for his
Bill&mdash;John Bright's Vote&mdash;Women Register and
Vote&mdash;Lord-Chief-Justice of England Declares their Constitutional
Right&mdash;The Courts Give Adverse Decisions&mdash;Jacob Bright Secures
the Municipal Franchise&mdash;First Public Meeting&mdash;Division on Jacob
Bright's Bill to Remove Political Disabilities&mdash;Mr. Gladstone's
Speech&mdash;Work of 1871-72&mdash;Fourth Vote on the Suffrage Bill&mdash;Jacob
Bright Fails of Reëlection&mdash;Efforts of Mr. Forsyth&mdash;Memorial of
the National Society&mdash;Some Account of the Workers&mdash;Vote of the
New Parliament, 1875&mdash;Organized Opposition&mdash;Diminished Adverse
Vote of 1878&mdash;Mr. Courtney's Resolution&mdash;Letters&mdash;Great
Demonstrations at Manchester&mdash;London&mdash;Bristol
&mdash;Nottingham&mdash;Birmingham&mdash;Sheffield&mdash;Glasgow&mdash;Victory in the Isle
of Man&mdash;Passage of the Municipal Franchise Bill for Scotland&mdash;Mr.
Mason's Resolution&mdash;Reduction of Adverse Majority to 16&mdash;Liberal
Conference at Leeds&mdash;Mr. Woodall's Amendment to Reform Bill of
1884&mdash;Meeting at Edinburgh&mdash;Other Meetings&mdash;Estimated Number of
Women Householders&mdash;Circulars to Members of Parliament&mdash;Debate on
the Amendment&mdash;Resolutions of the Society&mdash;Further Debate&mdash;Defeat
of the Amendment&mdash;Meeting at St. James Hall&mdash;Conclusion<span class="ralign">833</span><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_xix" id="Page_xix">[Pg xix]</a></span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LVII">CHAPTER LVII.</a></p>

<p class="center">CONTINENTAL EUROPE.</p>

<div class="chapter-summary">
<p>The Woman Question in the Back-ground&mdash;In France the Agitation
Dates from the Upheaval of 1789;&mdash;International Women's Rights
Convention in Paris, 1878&mdash;Mlle. Hubertine Auclert Leads the
Demand for Suffrage&mdash;Agitation Began in Italy with the
Kingdom&mdash;Concepcion Arenal in Spain&mdash;Coëducation in
Portugal&mdash;Germany: Leipsic and Berlin&mdash;Austria in Advance of
Germany Caroline Svetlá of Bohemia&mdash;Austria Unsurpassed in
Contradictions&mdash;Marriage Emancipates from Tutelage in
Hungary&mdash;Dr. Henrietta Jacobs of Holland&mdash;Dr. Isala Van Diest of
Belgium&mdash;In Switzerland the Catholic Cantons Lag Behind&mdash;Marie
G&oelig;gg, the Leader&mdash;Sweden Stands First&mdash;Universities Open to
Women in Norway&mdash;Associations in Denmark&mdash;Liberality of Russia
toward Women&mdash;Poland&mdash;The Orient&mdash;Turkey&mdash;Jewish Wives&mdash;The Greek
Woman in Turkey&mdash;The Greek Woman in Greece&mdash;An Unique
Episode&mdash;Woman's Rights in the American Sense not Known<span class="ralign">895</span></p>
</div>

<p class="TOC-chapter"><a href="#CHAPTER_LVIII">CHAPTER LVIII.</a></p>

<p class="center">REMINISCENCES.</p>

<p class="center"><small>BY E. C. S.</small><span class="ralign">922</span></p>


<p><a href="#APPENDIX">Appendix</a><span class="ralign">955</span></p>


<p><a href="#INDEX">INDEX</a><span class="ralign">985</span></p>

<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1" id="Page_1">[Pg 1]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXVII" id="CHAPTER_XXVII"></a>CHAPTER XXVII.</h2>

<h3>THE CENTENNIAL YEAR&mdash;1876.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>The Dawn of the New Century&mdash;Washington Convention&mdash;Congressional
Hearing&mdash;Woman's Protest&mdash;May Anniversary&mdash;Centennial Parlors in
Philadelphia&mdash;Letters and Delegates to Presidential
Conventions&mdash;50,000 Documents sent out&mdash;The Centennial Autograph
Book&mdash;The Fourth of July&mdash;Independence Square&mdash;Susan B. Anthony
reads the Declaration of Rights&mdash;Convention in Dr. Furness'
Church, Lucretia Mott, Presiding&mdash;The Hutchinson Family, John and
Asa&mdash;The Twenty-eighth Anniversary, July 19, Edward M. Davis,
Presiding&mdash;Letters, Ernestine L. Rose, Clarina I. H. Nichols&mdash;The
<i>Ballot-Box</i>&mdash;Retrospect&mdash;The Woman's Pavilion. </p>
</div>

<p><span class="sc">During</span> the sessions of 1871-72 congress enacted laws providing for
the celebration of the one-hundredth anniversary of American
independence, to be held July 4, 1876, in Philadelphia, the
historic city from whence was issued the famous declaration of
1776.</p>

<p>The first act provided for the appointment by the president of a
"Centennial Commission," consisting of two members from each State
and territory in the Union; the second incorporated the Centennial
Board of Finance and provided for the issue of stock to the amount
of $10,000,000, in 1,000,000 shares of $10 each. It was at first
proposed to distribute the stock among the people of the different
States and territories according to the ratio of their population,
but subscriptions were afterward received without regard to States.
The stockholders organized a board of directors, April 1, 1873. The
design of the exhibition was to make it a comprehensive display of
the industrial, intellectual and moral progress of the nation
during the first century of its existence; but by the earnest
invitation of our government foreign nations so generally
participated that it was truly, as its name implied, an
"International and World's Exposition."</p>

<p>The centennial year opened amid the wildest rejoicing. In honor of
the nation's birthday extensive preparations were made for the
great event. Crowds of people eager to participate in the
celebration, everywhere flocked from the adjacent country to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_2" id="Page_2">[Pg 2]</a></span> the
nearest village or city, filling the streets and adding to the
general gala look, all through the day and evening of December 31,
1875. From early gas-light upon every side the blowing of horns,
throwing of torpedos, explosion of fire-crackers, gave premonition
of more enthusiastic exultation. As the clock struck twelve every
house suddenly blossomed with red, white and blue; public and
private buildings burst into a blaze of light that rivaled the
noon-day sun, while screaming whistles, booming cannon, pealing
bells, joyous music and brilliant fire-works made the midnight
which ushered in the centennial 1876, a never-to-be-forgotten hour.</p>

<p>Portraits of the presidents from Washington and Lincoln
laurel-crowned, to Grant, sword in hand, met the eye on every side.
Stars in flames of fire lighted the foreign flags of welcome to
other nations. Every window, door and roof-top was filled with gay
and joyous people. Carriages laden with men, women and children in
holiday attire enthusiastically waving the national flag and
singing its songs of freedom. Battalions of soldiers marched
through the streets; Roman candles, whizzing rockets, and
gaily-colored balloons shot upward, filling the sky with trails of
fire and adding to the brilliancy of the scene, while all minor
sounds were drowned in the martial music. Thus did the old world
and the new commemorate the birth of a nation founded on the
principle of self-government.</p>

<p>The prolonged preparations for the centennial celebration naturally
roused the women of the nation to new thought as to their status as
citizens of a republic, as well as to their rightful share in the
progress of the century. The oft-repeated declarations of the
fathers had a deeper significance for those who realized the
degradation of disfranchisement, and they queried with each other
as to what part, with becoming self-respect, they could take in the
coming festivities.<a name="FNanchor_1_1" id="FNanchor_1_1"></a><a href="#Footnote_1_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a> Woman's achievements in art, science and
industry would necessarily be recognized in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_3" id="Page_3">[Pg 3]</a></span> the Exposition; but
with the dawn of a new era, after a hundred years of education in a
republic, she asked more than a simple recognition of the products
of her hand and brain; with her growing intelligence, virtue and
patriotism, she demanded the higher ideal of womanhood that should
welcome her as an equal factor in government, with all the rights
and honors of citizenship fully accorded. During the entire
century, women who understood the genius of free institutions had
ever and anon made their indignant protests in both public and
private before State legislatures, congressional committees and
statesmen at their own firesides; and now, after discussing the
right of self-government so exhaustively in the late anti-slavery
conflict, it seemed to them that the time had come to make some
application of these principles to the women of the nation. Hence
it was with a deeper sense of injustice than ever before that the
National Suffrage Association issued the call for the annual
Washington Convention of 1876:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Call for the Eighth Annual Washington Convention.</span>&mdash;The National
Woman Suffrage Association will hold its Eighth Annual Convention
in Tallmadge Hall, Washington, D. C., January 27, 28, 1876. In
this one-hundredth year of the Republic, the women of the United
States will once more assemble under the shadow of the national
capitol to press their claims to self-government.</p>

<p>That property has its rights, was acknowledged in England long
before the revolutionary war, and this recognized right made "no
taxation without representation" the most effective battle-cry of
that period. But the question of property representation fades
from view beside the greater question of the right of each
individual, millionaire or pauper, to personal representation. In
the progress of the war our fathers grew in wisdom, and the
Declaration of Independence was the first national assertion of
the right of individual representation. That "governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
thenceforward became the watchword of the world. Our flag, which
beckons the emigrant from every foreign shore, means to him
self-government.</p>

<p>But while in theory our government recognizes the rights of all
people, in practice it is far behind the Declaration of
Independence and the national constitution. On what just ground
is discrimination made between men and women? Why should women,
more than men, be governed without their own consent? Why should
women, more than men, be denied trial by a jury of their peers?
On what authority are women taxed while unrepresented? By what
right do men declare themselves invested with power to legislate
for women? For the discussion of these vital questions friends
are invited to take part in the convention.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>President</i>, Fayetteville, N. Y.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Ch'n Ex. Com.</i>, Rochester, N. Y.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_4" id="Page_4">[Pg 4]</a></span></p>

<p>At the opening session of this convention the president, Matilda
Joslyn Gage, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I would remind you, fellow-citizens, that this is our first
convention in the dawn of the new century. In 1776 we inaugurated
our experiment of self-government. Unbelief in man's capacity to
govern himself was freely expressed by every European monarchy
except France. When John Adams was Minister to England, the
newspapers of that country were filled with prophecies that the
new-born republic would soon gladly return to British allegiance.
But these hundred years have taught them the worth of liberty;
the Declaration of Independence has become the alphabet of
nations; Europe, Asia, Africa, South America and the isles of the
sea, will unite this year to do our nation honor. Our flag is
everywhere on sea and land. It has searched the North Pole,
explored every desert, upheld religious liberty of every faith
and protected political refugees from every nation, but it has
not yet secured equal rights to women.</p>

<p>This year is to be one of general discussion upon the science of
government; its origin, its powers, its history. If our present
declaration cannot be so interpreted as to cover the rights of
women, we must issue one that will. I have received letters from
many of the Western States and from this District, urging us to
prepare a woman's declaration, and to celebrate the coming Fourth
of July with our own chosen orators and in our own way. I notice
a general awakening among women at this time. But a day or two
since the women of this District demanded suffrage for themselves
in a petition of 25,000 names. The men are quiet under their
disfranchisement, making no attempt for their rights&mdash;fit slaves
of a powerful ring. </p></blockquote>

<p>The following protest was presented by Mrs. Gage, adopted by the
convention, printed and extensively circulated:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Political Sovereigns of the United States in Independence
Hall assembled:</i></p>

<p>We, the undersigned women of the United States, asserting our
faith in the principles of the Declaration of Independence and in
the constitution of the United States, proclaiming it as the best
form of government in the world, declare ourselves a part of the
people of the nation unjustly deprived of the guaranteed and
reserved rights belonging to citizens of the United States;
because we have never given our consent to this government;
because we have never delegated our rights to others; because
this government is false to its underlying principles; because it
has refused to one-half its citizens the only means of
self-government&mdash;the ballot; because it has been deaf to our
appeals, our petitions and our prayers;</p>

<p>Therefore, in presence of the assembled nations of all the world,
we protest against this government of the United States as an
oligarchy of sex, and not a true republic; and we protest against
calling this a centennial celebration of the independence of the
people of the United States. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_5" id="Page_5">[Pg 5]</a></span></p>

<p>Letters<a name="FNanchor_2_2" id="FNanchor_2_2"></a><a href="#Footnote_2_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> were read and a series of resolutions were discussed and
adopted:</p>

<blockquote>
<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the demand for woman suffrage is but the
next step in the great movement which began with <i>Magna
Charta</i>, and which has ever since tended toward vesting
government in the whole body of the people.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we demand of the forty-fourth congress, in
order that it may adequately celebrate the centennial year,
the admission to the polls of the women of all the
territories, and a submission to the legislatures of the
several States of an amendment securing to women the
elective franchise.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the enfranchisement of women means wiser
and truer wedlock, purer and happier homes, healthier and
better children, and strikes, as nothing else does, at the
very roots of pauperism and crime.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That if Colorado would come into the Union in a
befitting manner for the celebration of the centennial of
the Declaration of Independence, she should give the ballot
to brothers and sisters, husbands and wives, and thus
present to the nation a truly free State.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the right of suffrage being vested in the
women of Utah by their constitutional and lawful
enfranchisement, and by six years of use, we denounce the
proposition about to be again presented to congress for the
disfranchisement of the women in that territory, as an
outrage on the freedom of thousands of legal voters and a
gross innovation of vested rights; we demand the abolition
of the system of numbering the ballots, in order that the
women may be thoroughly free to vote as they choose, without
supervision or dictation, and that the chair appoint a
committee of three persons, with power to add to their
number, to memorialize congress, and otherwise to watch over
the rights of the women of Utah in this regard during the
next twelve months. </p></blockquote>

<p><span class="smcap">Belva A. Lockwood</span> presented the annual report: The question of
woman suffrage is to be submitted to the people of Iowa during the
present centennial year, if this legislature ratifies the action of
the previous one. Colorado has not embodied the word "male" in her
constitution, and a vigorous effort is being made to introduce
woman suffrage there. In Minnesota women are allowed to vote on
school questions and to hold office by a recent constitutional
amendment. In Michigan, in 1874, the vote for woman suffrage was
40,000, about 1,000 more votes than were polled for the new
constitution. The Connecticut legislature, during the past year
appointed a committee to consider and report the expediency of
making women eligible to the position of electors for president and
vice-president. The committee made a unanimous report in its favor,
and secured for its passage 82 votes, while 101 votes were cast
against it. In Massachusetts, Governor Rice, in his inaugural
address, recommended to the legislature to secure to women the
right to vote for presidential electors. An address to the
legislature of New York by Mesdames Gage, Blake and Lozier upon
this question, was favorably received and extensively quoted by the
press. At an agricultural fair in Illinois the Hon. James R.
Doolittle advocated household suffrage. In the Senate of the
thirteenth legislature of the State of Texas, Senator Dohoney,
Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, made a report strongly
advocating woman suffrage; and in 1875, when a member<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_6" id="Page_6">[Pg 6]</a></span> of the
Constitutional Convention, he advocated the same doctrine, and was
ably assisted by Hon. W. G. L. Weaver. The governor of that State,
in his message, recommended that women school teachers should
receive equal pay for equal work. The word "male" does not occur in
the new constitution. In the territories of Wyoming and Utah, woman
suffrage still continues after five years' experiment, and we have
not learned that households have been broken up or that babies have
ceased to be rocked.</p>

<p>Women physicians, women journalists and women editors have come to
be a feature of our institutions. Laura De Force Gordon, a member
of our association, is editing a popular daily&mdash;the <i>Leader</i>&mdash;in
Sacramento, Cal. Women are now admitted to the bar in Kansas,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Utah, Wyoming and the District
of Columbia. They are eligible and are serving as school
superintendents in Kansas, Nebraska, Illinois, Iowa and Wisconsin.
Illinois allows them to be notaries public. As postmasters they
have proved competent, and one woman, Miss Ada Sweet, is pension
agent at Chicago. Julia K. Sutherland has been appointed
commissioner of deeds for the State of California. In England women
vote on the same terms as men on municipal, parochial and
educational matters. In Holland, Austria and Sweden, women vote on
a property qualification. The Peruvian Minister of Justice has
declared that Peru places women on the same footing as men. Thus
all over the world is the idea of human rights taking root and
cropping out in a healthful rather than a spasmodic outgrowth.</p>

<p>The grand-daughter of Paley, true to her ancestral blood, has
excelled all the young men in Cambridge in moral science. Julia J.
Thomas, of Cornell University, daughter of Dr. Mary F. Thomas, of
Indiana, in the recent inter-collegiate contest, took the first
prize of $300, over eight male competitors, in Greek. The recent
decision in the United States Supreme Court, of Minor <i>vs.</i>
Happersett, will have as much force in suppressing the
individuality and self-assertion of women as had the opinion of
Judge Taney, in the Dred-Scott case, in suppressing the
emancipation of slavery. The day has come when precedents are made
rather than blindly followed. The refusal of the Superior Court of
Philadelphia to allow Carrie S. Burnham to practice law, because
there was no precedent, was a weak evasion of common law and common
sense. One hundred years ago there was no precedent for a man
practicing law in the State of Pennsylvania, and yet we have not
learned that there was any difficulty in establishing a precedent.
I do not now remember any precedent for the Declaration of
Independence of the United Colonies, and yet during a century it
has not been overturned. The rebellion of the South had no
precedent, and yet, if I remember, there was an issue joined, and
the United States found that she had jurisdiction of the case.</p>

<p>The admission of women to Cornell University; their reception on
equal footing in Syracuse University, receiving in both equal
honorary degrees; the establishment of Wellesley College, with full
professorships and capable women to fill them; the agitation of the
question in Washington of the establishment of a university for
women, all show a mental awakening<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_7" id="Page_7">[Pg 7]</a></span> in the popular mind not
hitherto known. A new era is opening in the history of the world.
The seed sown twenty-five years ago by Mrs. Stanton and other brave
women is bearing fruit.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sara Andrews Spencer</span> said it was interesting to pair off the
objections and let them answer each other like paradoxes. Women
will be influenced by their husbands and will vote for bad men to
please them. Women have too much influence now, and if we give them
any more latitude they will make men all vote their way. Owing to
the composition and structure of the female brain, women are
incapable of understanding political affairs. If women are allowed
to vote they will crowd all the men out of office, and men will be
obliged to stay at home and take care of the children. That is,
owing to the composition and structure of the female brain, women
are so exactly adapted to political affairs that men wouldn't stand
any chance if women were allowed to enter into competition with
them. Women don't want it. Women shouldn't have it, for they don't
know how to use it. Grace Greenwood (who was one of the seventy-two
women who tried to vote) said men were like the stingy boy at
school with a cake. "Now," said he, "all you that don't ask for it
don't want it, and all you that do ask for it sha'n't have it."</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Rev. Olympia Brown</span>, pastor of the Universalist church in
Bridgeport, Conn., gave her views on the rights of women under the
constitution, and believed that they were entitled to the ballot as
an inalienable right. In this country, under existing rulings of
the courts as to the meaning of the constitution, no one appeared
likely to enjoy the ballot for all time except the colored men,
unless the clause, "previous condition of servitude," as a
congressman expressed it, referred to widows. That being true, the
constitution paid a premium only on colored men, and widows. If the
constitution did not guarantee suffrage, and congress did not
bestow it, then the republic was of no account and its boast devoid
of significance and meaning. Its life had been in vain&mdash;dead to the
interests for which it was created. She wanted congress to pass a
sixteenth amendment, declaring all its citizens enfranchised, or a
declaratory act setting forth that the constitution already
guaranteed to them that right.</p>

<p>Hon. <span class="smcap">Frederick Douglass</span> said he was not quite in accord with all
the sentiments that had been uttered during the afternoon, yet he
was willing that the largest latitude should be taken by the
advocates of the cause. He was not afraid that at some distant
period the blacks of the South would rise and disfranchise the
whites. While he was not willing to be addressed as the ignorant,
besotted creature that the negro is sometimes called, he was
willing to be a part of the bridge over which women should march to
the full enjoyment of their rights.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Ph&oelig;be Couzins</span> of St. Louis reviewed in an able manner the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Virginia L. Minor.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Devereux Blake</span> spoke on the rights and duties of citizenship.
She cited a number of authorities, including a recent decision of
the Supreme Court, to prove that women are citizens, although
deprived of the privileges of citizenship. Taking up the three
duties of citizenship&mdash;paying taxes, serving on jury, and military
service&mdash;she said<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_8" id="Page_8">[Pg 8]</a></span> woman had done her share of the first for a
hundred years; that the women of the country now contributed,
directly and indirectly, one-third of its revenues, and that the
House of Representatives had just robbed them of $500,000 to pay
for a centennial celebration in which they had no part. As for
serving on jury, they did not claim that as a privilege, as it was
usually regarded as a most disagreeable duty; but they did claim
the right of women, when arraigned in court, to be tried by a jury
of their peers, which was not accorded when the jury was composed
wholly of men. Lastly, as to serving their country in time of war,
it was a fact that women had actually enlisted and fought in our
late war, until their sex was discovered, when they were summarily
dismissed without being paid for their services. </p></blockquote>

<p>Hon. Aaron A. Sargent, of California, in the United States Senate,
and Hon. Samuel S. Cox, of New York, in the House of
Representatives, presented the memorial asking the enfranchisement
of the women of the District of Columbia, as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">In the Senate</span>, Tuesday, January 25, 1876.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span>: I present a memorial asking for the establishment of
a government in the District of Columbia which shall secure to
its women the right to vote. This petition is signed by many
eminent ladies of the country: Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage,
President of the National Woman Suffrage Association, and the
following officers of that society: Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Henrietta Payne Westbrook, Isabella
Beecher Hooker, Mathilde F. Wendt, Ellen Clark Sargent; also by
Mary F. Foster, President of the District of Columbia Woman's
Franchise Association; Susan A. Edson, M. D.; Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth, the distinguished authoress; Mrs. Dr. Caroline B.
Winslow; Belva A. Lockwood, a practicing lawyer in this District;
Sara Andrews Spencer, and Mrs. A. E. Wood.</p>

<p>These intelligent ladies set forth their petition in language and
with facts and arguments which I think should meet the ear of the
Senate, and I ask that it be read by the secretary in order that
their desires may be known.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: Is there objection? The chair hears
none, and the secretary will report the petition. The secretary
read:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
in Congress assembled:</i></p>

<p>Whereas the Supreme Court of the United States has affirmed the
decision of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia in the
cases of Spencer <i>vs.</i> The Board of Registration, and Webster
<i>vs.</i> The Judges of Election, and has decided that "by the
operation of the first section of the fourteenth amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, women have been advanced to
full citizenship and clothed with the capacity to become voters;
and further, that this first section of the fourteenth amendment
does not execute itself, but requires the supervision of
legislative power in the exercise of legislative discretion to
give it effect"; and whereas the congress of the United States is
the legislative body having exclusive jurisdiction over the
District of Columbia, and in enfranchising the colored men and
refusing to enfranchise women, white or colored, made an unjust
discrimination against sex, and did not give the intelligence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_9" id="Page_9">[Pg 9]</a></span>
and moral power of the citizens of said District a fair
opportunity for expression at the polls; and whereas woman
suffrage is not an experiment, but has had a fair trial in
Wyoming, where women hold office, where they vote, where they
have the most orderly society of any of the territories, where
the experiment is approved by the executive officers of the
United States, by their courts, by their press and by the people
generally, and where it has "rescued that territory from a state
of comparative lawlessness" and rendered it "one of the most
orderly in the Union"; and whereas upon the woman suffrage
amendment to Senate bill number 44 of the second session of the
forty-third congress, votes were recorded in favor of woman
suffrage by the two senators from Indiana, the two from Florida,
the two from Michigan, the two from Rhode Island, one from
Kansas, one from Louisiana, one from Massachusetts, one from
Minnesota, one from Nebraska, one from Nevada, one from Oregon,
one from South Carolina, one from Texas, and one from Wisconsin;
and whereas a fair trial of equal suffrage for men and women in
the District of Columbia, under the immediate supervision of
congress, would demonstrate to the people of the whole country
that justice to women is policy for men; and whereas the women of
the United States are governed without their own consent, are
denied trial by a jury of their peers, are taxed without
representation, and are subject to manifold wrongs resulting from
unjust and arbitrary exercise of power over an unrepresented
class; and whereas in this centennial year of the republic the
spirit of 1776 is breathing its influence upon the people,
melting away prejudices and animosities and infusing into our
national councils a finer sense of justice and a clearer
perception of individual rights; therefore,</p>

<p>We pray your honorable body to establish a government for the
District of Columbia which shall secure to its women the right to
vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargeant</span>: Even if this document were not accompanied by the
signatures of eminent ladies known throughout the land for their
virtues, intelligence and high character, the considerations which
it presents would be worthy of the attention of the senate. I have
no doubt that the great movement of which this is a part will
prevail. It is working its progress day by day throughout the
country. It is making itself felt both in social and political
life. The petitioners here well say that there has been a
successful experiment of the exercise of female suffrage in one of
our territories; that a territory has been redeemed from
lawlessness; that the judges, the press, the people generally of
Wyoming approve the results of this great experiment. I know of no
better place than the capital of a nation where a more decisive
trial can be made, if such is needed, to establish the expediency
of woman suffrage. As to its justice, who shall deny it? I ask, for
the purpose of due consideration, that this petition be referred to
the Committee on the District of Columbia, so that in preparing any
scheme for the government of the District which is likely to come
before this congress, due weight may be given to the considerations
presented.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The petition will be referred to the
Committee on the District of Columbia.</p>

<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">In the House of Representatives</span>, Friday, March 31, 1876.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Cox</span>: Mr. Speaker, I am requested to present a memorial, asking
for a form of government in the District of Columbia which shall
secure to its women the right to vote; and I ask the grace and
favor to have this memorial printed in the <i>Record</i>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_10" id="Page_10">[Pg 10]</a></span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Banks</span>: Mr. Speaker, I beg the privilege of saying a few words
in favor of the request made by the gentleman from New York who
presents this memorial. It is a hundred years this day since Mrs.
Abigail Adams, of Massachusetts, wrote to her husband, John Adams,
then a member of the continental convention, entreating him to give
to women the power to protect their own rights and predicting a
general revolution if justice was denied them. Mrs. Adams was one
of the noblest women of that period, distinguished by heroism and
patriotism never surpassed in any age. She was wife of the second
and mother of the sixth president of the United States, and her
beneficent influence was felt in political as well as in social
circles. It was perhaps the first demand for the recognition of the
rights of her sex made in this country, and is one of the
centennial incidents that should be remembered. It came from a good
quarter. This memorial represents half a million of American women.
They ask for the organization of a government in the District of
Columbia that will recognize their political rights. I voted some
years ago to give women the right to vote in this District, and
recalling the course of its government I think it would have done
no harm if they had enjoyed political rights.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kasson</span>: I suggest that the memorial be printed without the
names.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Cox</span>: There are no names appended except those of the officers
of the National Woman Suffrage Association; and I hope they will be
printed with the memorial.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hendee</span>: I trust the gentleman will allow this petition to be
referred to the committee of which I am a member: the Committee for
the District of Columbia. There being no objection, the memorial
was read and referred to the Committee for the District of
Columbia, and ordered to be printed in the <i>Record</i>. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the close of the convention a hearing was granted to the ladies
before the committees of the Senate and House of Representatives on
the District of Columbia.</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, of New York, said: <i>Mr. Chairman and
Gentlemen of the Committee</i>: On behalf of the National
Association, which has its officers in every State and territory
of the Union, and which numbers many thousands of members, and on
behalf of the Woman's Franchise Association of the District of
Columbia, we appear before you, asking that the right of suffrage
be secured equally to the men and women of this District. Art. 1,
sec. 8, clauses 17, 18 of the Constitution of the United States
reads:</p>

<blockquote><p>Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such district as may become the seat of
government of the United States, <span class="spacious">* * * * *</span> to make all laws which
shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the
foregoing powers. </p></blockquote>

<p>Congress is therefore constitutionally the special guardian of the
rights of the people of the District of Columbia. It possesses
peculiar rights, peculiar duties, peculiar powers in regard to this
District. At the present time the men and women are alike
disfranchised. Our memorial asks that in forming a new government
they may be alike enfranchised. It is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_11" id="Page_11">[Pg 11]</a></span> often said as an argument
against granting suffrage to women that they do not wish to vote;
do not ask for the ballot. This association, numbering thousands in
the United States, through its representatives, now asks you, in
this memorial, for suffrage in this District. Petitions from every
State in the Union have been sent to your honorable body. One of
these, signed by thirty-five thousand women, was sent to congress
in one large roll; but what is the value of a petition signed by
even a million of an unrepresented class?</p>

<p>The city papers of the national capital, once bitterly opposed to
all effort in this direction, now fully recognize the dignity of
the demand, and have ceased to oppose it. One of these said,
editorially, to-day, that the vast audiences assembling at our
conventions, the large majority being women, and evidently in
sympathy with the movement, were proof of the great interest women
take in this subject, though many are too timid to openly make the
demand. The woman's temperance movement began two years ago as a
crusade of prayer and song, and the women engaged therein have now
resolved themselves into a national organization, whose second
convention, held in October last, numbering delegates from
twenty-two States, almost unanimously passed a resolution demanding
the ballot to aid them in their temperance work. We who make our
constant demand for suffrage, knew that these women were in process
of education, and would soon be forced to ask for the key to all
reform.</p>

<p>The ballot says yes or no to all questions. Without it women are
prohibited from practically expressing their opinions. The very
fact that the women of this District make this demand of you more
urgently than men proves that they desire it more and see its uses
better. The men of this District who quietly remain disfranchised
have the spirit of slaves, and if asking for the ballot is any
proof of fitness for its use, then the women who do ask for it here
prove themselves in this respect superior to men, more alive to the
interests of this District, and better fitted to administer the
government. Women who are not interested in questions of reform
would soon become so if they possessed the ballot. They are now in
the condition we were when we heard of the famine in Persia two
years ago. Our sympathies were aroused for a brief while, but
Persia was far away, we could render it no certain aid, and the
sufferings of the people soon passed from our minds.</p>

<p>Our approaching centennial celebration is to commemorate the
Declaration of Independence, which was based on individual rights.
For ages it was a question where the governing power rightfully
belonged; patriarch, priest, and monarch each claimed it by divine
right. Our country declared it vested in the individual. Not only
was this clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, but the
same ground was maintained in the secret proceedings upon framing
the constitution. The old confederation was abandoned because it
did not secure the independence and safety of the people. It has
recently been asked in congressional debates, "What is the grand
idea of the centennial?" The answer was, "It is the illustration in
spirit and truth of the principles of the Declaration of
Independence and of the constitution."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_12" id="Page_12">[Pg 12]</a></span></p>

<p>These principles are:</p>

<p><i>First</i>&mdash;The natural rights of each individual.</p>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;The exact equality of these rights.</p>

<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;That rights not delegated are retained by the individual.</p>

<p><i>Fourth</i>&mdash;That no person shall exercise the rights of others
without delegated authority.</p>

<p><i>Fifth</i>&mdash;That non-use of rights does not destroy them.</p>

<p>Rights did not come new-born into the world with the revolution.
Our fathers were men of middle age before they understood their own
rights, but when they did they compelled the recognition of the
world, and now the nations of the earth are this year invited to
join you in the celebration of these principles of free government.</p>

<p>We have special reasons for asking you to secure suffrage to the
women of the District of Columbia. Woman Suffrage has been tried in
Wyoming, and ample testimony of its beneficial results has been
furnished, but it is a far distant territory, and those not
especially interested will not examine the evidence. It has been
tried in Utah, but with great opposition on account of the peculiar
religious belief and customs of the people. But the District of
Columbia is directly under the eye of congress. It is the capital
of the nation, and three-fifths of the property of the District
belongs to the United States. The people of the whole country would
therefore be interested in observing the practical workings of this
system on national soil. With 7,316 more women than men in this
District, we call your special attention to the inconsistency and
injustice of granting suffrage to a minority and withholding it
from a majority, as you have done in the past. If the District is
your special ward, then women, being in the majority here, have
peculiar claims upon you for a consideration of their rights. The
freedom of this country is only half won. The women of to-day have
less freedom than our fathers of the revolution, for they were
permitted local self-government, while women have no share in
local, State, or general government.</p>

<p>Our memorial calls your attention to the Pembina debate in 1874,
when senators from eighteen States recognized the right of
self-government as inhering in women. One senator said: "I believe
women never will enjoy equality with men in taking care of
themselves until they have the right to vote." Another, "that the
question was being considered by a large portion of the people of
the United States." When the discussion was concluded and the vote
taken, twenty-two senators recorded their votes for woman suffrage
in that distant territory. During the debate several senators
publicly declared their intention of voting for woman suffrage in
the District of Columbia whenever the opportunity was presented.
These senators recognize the fact that the ballot is not only a
right, but that it is opportunity for woman; that it is the one
means of helping her to help herself. In asking you to secure the
ballot to the women of the District we do not ask you to create a
right. That is beyond your power. We ask you to protect them in the
exercise of a right.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Sara Andrews Spencer</span>, Secretary of the District of Columbia
Woman's Franchise Association, said: For no legal or political
right I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_13" id="Page_13">[Pg 13]</a></span> have ever claimed in the District of Columbia do I ask a
stronger, clearer charter than the Declaration of Independence, and
the constitution of the United States as it stood before the
fourteenth amendment had entered the minds of men. A judicial
decision, rendered by nine men, upon the rights of ten millions of
women of this republic, need not, does not, change the convictions
of one woman in regard to her own heaven-endowed rights, duties,
and responsibilities.</p>

<p>We have resorted to all the measures dictated by those who rule
over us for securing the freedom to exercise rights which are
sacredly our own, rights which are ours by Divine inheritance, and
which men can neither confer nor take away. We are not only
daughters of our Father in heaven, and joint heirs with you there;
but we are daughters of this republic, and joint heirs with you
here. Every act of legislation which has been placed as a bar in
our way as citizens has been an act of injustice, and every
expedient to which we have resorted for securing recognition of
citizenship has been with protest against the existence of these
acts of unauthorized power.</p>

<p>When any man expresses doubt to me as to the use that I or any
other woman might make of the ballot if we had it, my answer is,
What is that to you? If you have for years defrauded me of my
rightful inheritance, and then, as a stroke of policy, or from late
conviction, concluded to restore to me my own domain, must I ask
you whether I may make of it a garden of flowers, or a field of
wheat, or a pasture for kine? If I choose I may counsel with you.
If experience has given you wisdom, even of this world, in managing
your property and mine, I should be wise to learn from you. But
injustice is not wont to yield wisdom; grapes do not grow of
thorns, nor figs of thistles.</p>

<p>Born of the unjust and cruel subjection of woman to man, we have in
these United States a harvest of 116,000 paupers, 36,000 criminals,
and such a mighty host of blind, deaf and dumb, idiotic, insane,
feeble-minded, and children with tendencies to crime, as almost to
lead one to hope for the extinction of the human race rather than
for its perpetuation after its own kind. The wisdom of man licenses
the dram-shop, and then rears station-houses, jails, and gibbets to
provide for the victims. In this District we have 135 teachers of
public schools and 238 police officers, and the last report shows
that public safety demands a police force of 900. We have 31,671
children of school age; 31,671 reasons why I want to vote. We have
here 7,000 more children of school age than there are seats in all
the public schools, and from the swarm of poor, ignorant, and
vagrant children, the lists of criminals and paupers are constantly
supplied. To provide for these evils there is an annual expenditure
of $350,000, not including expenses of courts, while for education
the annual expenditure is $280,000.</p>

<p>Will you say that the wives and the mothers, the house and
homekeepers of this small territory, have no interest in all these
things? If dram-shops are licensed and brothels protected, are not
our sons, our brothers, tempted and ruined, our daughters lured
from their homes, and lost to earth and heaven? Long and patiently
women have borne wrongs too deep to be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_14" id="Page_14">[Pg 14]</a></span> put into words; wrongs for
which men have provided no redress and have found no remedy. When
five years ago, with our social atmosphere poisoned with vices
which as women we had no power to remove, men in authority began a
series of attempts to fasten upon us by law the huge typical vice
of all the ages&mdash;the social evil&mdash;in a form so degrading to all
womanhood that no man, though he were the prince of profligates,
would submit to its regulations for a day; then we cried out so
that the world heard us. We know the plague is only stayed for a
brief while. The hydra-headed monster every now and then lifts a
new front, and must be smitten again. Four times in four successive
years a little company of women of the District have appeared
before committees and compelled the discussion and defeat of bills
designed to fasten these measures upon the community under the
guise of security for public health and morality. The last annual
report of the board of health speaks tenderly of the need of
protecting vicious men by these regulations, and says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The legalization of houses of ill-fame for so humane a purpose,
startling as it may be to the moral sense, has many powerful
advocates among the thoughtful, wise, and philanthropic of
communities. </p></blockquote>

<p>The report quotes approvingly Dr. Gross, of Philadelphia, who says
in behalf of laws to license the social evil:</p>

<blockquote><p>The prejudices which surround the subject must be swept away, and
men must march to the front and discharge their duty, however
much they may be reproached and abused by the ignorant and
foolish. </p></blockquote>

<p>Aside from the higher ground of our inherent right to
self-government, we declare here and now that the women of this
District are not safe without the ballot. Our firesides, our
liberties are in constant peril, while men who have no concern for
our welfare may legislate against our dearest interests. If we
would inaugurate any measure of protection for our own sex, we are
bound hand and foot by man. The law is his, the treasury is his,
the power is his, and he need not even hear our cry, except at his
good will and pleasure.</p>

<p>If man had legislated justly and wisely for the interests of this
District, if its financial condition was sound, its social and
moral atmosphere pure, and all was well, there would be some show
of reason in your refusing to hazard a new experiment, even though
we could demonstrate it to be founded upon eternal justice. But the
history of the successive forms of government in the District of
Columbia is a history of failures. So will it continue to be until
you adopt a plan founded upon truly republican principles. When, a
few years ago, you put the ballot into the hands of the swarming
masses of freedmen who had gathered here with the ignorance and
vices of slaves, and refused to enfranchise women, white or
colored, you gave this District no fair trial of a republican form
of government. You did not even protect the interests of the
colored race. You admitted that the colored man was not really free
until he held the ballot in his hand, and therefore you
enfranchised him and left the woman twice his slave. I know colored
women in Washington far the superiors, intellectually and morally,
of the masses of men, who declare that they now endure wrongs and
abuses unknown in slavery.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_15" id="Page_15">[Pg 15]</a></span></p>

<p>There is not an interest in this District that is not as vital to
me as to any man in Washington&mdash;that is not more vital to me than
it can be to any member of this honorable body. As a citizen,
seeking the welfare of this community, as a wife and mother
desiring the safety of my children, which of you can claim a deeper
interest than I in questions of markets, taxes, finance, banks,
railroads, highways, the public debt and interest thereon, boards
of health, sanitary and police regulations, station-houses (wherein
I find many a wreck of womanhood, ruined in her youth and beauty),
schools, asylums, and charities? Why deny me a voice in any or all
of these? Do you doubt that I would use the ballot in the interests
of order, retrenchment, and reform? Do you deny a right of mine,
which you will admit I know how to prize, because there are women
who do not appreciate its value, do not demand it, possibly might
not (any better than men) know how to use it? What a mockery of
justice! What a flagrant violation of individual rights! I would
cry out against it if no other woman in the land felt the wrong.
But among the 10,000,000 of mothers of 14,000,000 of children in
this country, vast numbers of thoughtful, philanthropic, and pure
women have come to see this truth, and desire to express their
mother love and home love at the ballot-box!</p>

<p>Frederick Douglass once said: "Whole nations have been bathed in
blood to establish the simplest possible propositions. For
instance, that a man's head is <i>his</i> head; his body is <i>his</i> body;
his feet are <i>his</i> feet, and if he chooses to run away with them it
is nobody's business"; and all honor to him, he added, "Now, these
propositions have been established for the colored man. Why does
not man establish them for woman, his wife, his mother?"</p>

<p>Determined to surround the colored man with every possible
guarantee of protection in the possession of his freedom, congress
stopped the wheels of legislation, and made the whole country wait,
while day after day and night after night his friends fought inch
by inch the ground for the civil rights bill. During that debate
Senator Frelinghuysen said:</p>

<blockquote><p>When I took the oath as senator, I took the oath to support the
Constitution of the United States, which declares equality for
all: and in advocating this bill I am doing my sworn duty in
endeavoring to secure equal rights for every citizen of the
United States. </p></blockquote>

<p>But where slept his "sworn duty" when he recorded his vote in the
Senate against woman suffrage? With marvelous inconsistency, as a
reason for opposing woman suffrage, during the Pembina debate, May
27, 1874, Senator Merrimon said of the relation of women to the
Constitution of the United States:</p>

<blockquote><p>They have sustained it under all circumstances with their love,
their hands, and their hearts; with their smiles and their tears
they have educated their children to live for it, and to die for
it. </p></blockquote>

<p>Therefore the honorable gentleman denies them the right to vote.</p>

<p>Upon the civil rights bill, Senator Howe said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I do not know but what the passage of this bill will break up the
common schools. I admit that I have some fear on that point.
Every step of this terrible march has been met with a threat; but
let justice be done although the common schools and the heavens
do fall. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_16" id="Page_16">[Pg 16]</a></span></p>

<p>In reply to the point made by Mr. Stockton that the people of the
United States would not accept this bill, Mr. Howe said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I would not turn back if I knew that of the forty million people
of the United States not one million would sustain it. If this
generation does not accept it there is a generation to come that
will accept it. What does this provide? Not that the black man
should be helped on his way; not at all; but only that, as he
staggers along, he shall not be retarded, shall not be tripped up
and made to fall. </p></blockquote>

<p>Brave and tender words these for our black brother; but see how
prone men are to invert truth, justice, and mercy in dealing with
women. During the Pembina debate, Senator Merrimon said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I know there are a few women in the country who complain; but
those who complain, compared with those who do not complain, are
as one to a million. </p></blockquote>

<p>As a literal fact, the women who have complained, have petitioned,
sued, reasoned, plead, have knocked at the doors of your
legislatures and courts, are as one to fifty in this country, as we
who watch the record know; and even that is a small proportion of
those who would, but dare not; who are bound hand and foot, and
will be bound until you make them free. But if no others feel the
wrong but those who have dared to complain; if the poor, the
ignorant, the betrayed, the ruined do not understand the question,
and the well-fed and comfortable "have all the rights they want,"
do you give that for answer to our just demand? What do we ask? Not
that poor woman "shall be helped on her way"&mdash;not at all; but only
that, "as she staggers along, she shall not be retarded, shall not
be tripped up, shall not be made to fall."</p>

<p>And here on this national soil, for the women of this District of
Columbia&mdash;your peculiar wards&mdash;I ask you to try the experiment of
exact, even-handed justice; to give us a voice in the laws under
which we must live, by which we are tried, judged and condemned. I
ask it for myself, that I may the better help other women. I ask it
for other women, that they may the better help themselves. As you
hope for justice and mercy in your hour of need, may you hear and
answer. </p></blockquote>

<p>Rev. Olympia Brown, of Connecticut; Belva A. Lockwood, of
Washington; and Phoebe Couzins, of St. Louis, also addressed the
committees; enforcing their arguments with wit, humor, pathos and
eloquence.</p>

<p>On her way home from Washington, Mrs. Gage stopped in Philadelphia
to secure rooms for the National Association during the centennial
summer, and decided upon Carpenter Hall, in case it could be
obtained. This hall belongs to the Carpenter Company of
Philadelphia, perhaps the oldest existing association of that city,
it having maintained an uninterrupted organization from the year
1724, about forty years after the establishment of the colonial
government by William Penn, and was much in use during the early
days of the revolution. The doors of the State House,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_17" id="Page_17">[Pg 17]</a></span> where the
continental congress intended to meet, were found closed against
it; but the Carpenter Company, numbering many eminent patriots,
offered its hall for their use; and here met the first continental
congress, September 5, 1774. John Adams, describing its opening
ceremonies, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Here was a scene worthy of the painter's art. Washington was
kneeling there, and Randolph, Rutledge, Lee and Jay; and by their
side there stood, bowed in reverence, the Puritan patriots of New
England, who at that moment had reason to believe that an armed
soldiery was wasting their humble households. It was believed
that Boston had been bombarded and destroyed.<a name="FNanchor_3_3" id="FNanchor_3_3"></a><a href="#Footnote_3_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> They prayed
fervently for America, for the congress, for the province of
Massachusetts Bay, and especially for the town of Boston. Who can
realize the emotions with which in that hour of danger they
turned imploringly to heaven for Divine interposition. It was
enough to melt a heart of stone. I saw the tears gush into the
eyes of old, gray, pacific Quakers of Philadelphia. </p></blockquote>

<p>The action of this congress, which sat but seven weeks, was
momentous in the history of the world. "From the moment of their
first debate," said De Tocqueville, "Europe was moved." The
convention which in 1781 framed the constitution of the United
States, also met in Carpenter Hall in secret session for four
months before agreeing upon its provisions. This hall seemed the
most appropriate place for establishing the centennial rooms of the
National Woman Suffrage Association, but the effort to obtain it
proved unavailing<a name="FNanchor_4_4" id="FNanchor_4_4"></a><a href="#Footnote_4_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a> as will be seen by the following
correspondence:</p>

<blockquote><p>
<i>To the President and Officers of the Carpenter Company of Philadelphia:</i></p>

<p>The National Woman Suffrage Association will hold its
headquarters in Philadelphia the centennial season of 1876, and
desires to secure your historic hall for that purpose. We know
your habit and custom of denying its use to all societies, yet we
make our request because our objects are in accord with the
principles which emanated from within its walls a hundred years
ago, and we shall use it in carrying out those principles of
liberty and equality upon which our government is based.</p>

<p>We design to advertise our headquarters to the world, and old
Carpenter Hall, if used by us, would become more widely
celebrated as the birth-place of liberty. Our work in it would
cause it to be more than ever held in reverence by future ages,
and pilgrimages by men and women would be made to it as to
another Mecca shrine.</p>

<p>We propose to place a person in charge, with pamphlets, speeches,
tracts, etc., and to hold public meetings for the enunciation of
our principles and the furtherance of our demands. Hoping you
will grant this request,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF60"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span><br />
<i>President of the National Woman Suffrage Association.</i></p>
<p class="ltr-left">I am respectfully yours,</p>
</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_18" id="Page_18">[Pg 18]</a></span></p>

<p class="break">Two months afterward, the following reply was received:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Hall, Carpenter Court</span>, 322 Chestnut St., }<br />
<span class="smcap">Philadelphia</span>, April 24, 1876. }</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>President of the Woman Suffrage
Association</i>:</p>

<p>Your communication asking permission to occupy Carpenter Hall for
your convention was duly received, and presented to the company
at a stated meeting held the 16th instant, when on motion it was
unanimously resolved to postpone the subject indefinitely.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">George Watson</span>, <i>Secretary</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0">[Extract of minutes].</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It was a matter of no moment to those men that women were soon to
assemble in Philadelphia, whose love of liberty was as deep, whose
patriotism was as pure as that of the fathers who met within its
walls in 1774, and whose deliberations had given that hall its
historic interest.</p>

<p>In the midst of these preparations the usual May anniversary was
held:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Call for the May Anniversary</span>, 1876.&mdash;The National Woman Suffrage
Association will hold its Ninth Annual Convention in Masonic
Hall, New York, corner of Sixth avenue and Twenty-third street,
May 10, 11, 1876.</p>

<p>This convention occuring in the centennial year of the republic,
will be a most important one. The underlying principles of
government will this year be discussed as never before; both
foreigners and citizens will query as to how closely this country
has lived up to its own principles. The long-debated question as
to the source of the governing power was answered a century ago
by the famous Declaration of Independence which shook to the
foundation all recognized power and proclaimed the right of the
individual as above all forms of government; but while thus
declaring itself, it has held the women of the nation accountable
to laws they have had no share in making, and taught as their one
duty, that doctrine of tyrants, unquestioning obedience. Liberty
to-day is, therefore, but the heritage of one-half the people,
and the centennial will be but the celebration of the
independence of one-half the nation. The men alone of this
country live in a republic, the women enter the second hundred
years of national life as political slaves.</p>

<p>That no structure is stronger than its weakest point is a law of
mechanics that will apply equally to government. In so far as
this government has denied justice to woman, it is weak, and
preparing for its own downfall. All the insurrections,
rebellions, and martyrdoms of history have grown out of the
desire for liberty, and in woman's heart this desire is as strong
as in man's. At every vital time in the nation's life, men and
women have worked together; everywhere has woman stood by the
side of father, brother, husband, son in defense of liberty;
without her aid the republic could never have been established;
and yet women are still suffering under all the oppressions
complained of in 1776; which can only be remedied by securing
impartial suffrage to all citizens without distinction of sex.</p>

<p>All persons who believe republican principles should be carried
out in spirit and in truth, are invited to be present at the May
convention.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>President</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This May anniversary, commencing on the same day with the opening
of the centennial exhibition, was marked with more than usual
earnestness. As popular thought naturally turned with increasing
interest at such an hour to the underlying principles<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_19" id="Page_19">[Pg 19]</a></span> of
government, woman's demand for political equality received a new
impulse. The famous Smith sisters, of Glastonbury, Connecticut,
attended this convention, and were most cordially welcomed. The
officers<a name="FNanchor_5_5" id="FNanchor_5_5"></a><a href="#Footnote_5_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a> for the centennial year were chosen and a campaign<a name="FNanchor_6_6" id="FNanchor_6_6"></a><a href="#Footnote_6_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a>
and congressional<a name="FNanchor_7_7" id="FNanchor_7_7"></a><a href="#Footnote_7_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> committee appointed to take charge of affairs
at Philadelphia and Washington. The resolutions show the general
drift of the discussions:<a name="FNanchor_8_8" id="FNanchor_8_8"></a><a href="#Footnote_8_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The right of self-government inheres in the individual
before governments are founded, constitutions framed, or courts
created; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Governments exist to protect the people in the enjoyment
of their natural rights, and when any government becomes
destructive of this end, it is the right of the people to resist
and abolish it; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The women of the United States, for one hundred years,
have been denied the exercise of their natural right of
self-government and self-protection; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the natural right and most sacred duty of
the women of these United States to rebel against the injustice,
usurpation and tyranny of our present government.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The men of 1776 rebelled against a government which did
not claim to be of the people, but, on the contrary, upheld the
"divine right of kings"; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The women of this nation to-day, under a government
which claims to be based upon individual rights, to be "of the
people, by the people, and for the people," in an infinitely
greater degree are suffering all the wrongs which led to the war
of the revolution; and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_20" id="Page_20">[Pg 20]</a></span> <span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The oppression is all the more
keenly felt because our masters, instead of dwelling in a foreign
land, are our husbands, our fathers, our brothers and our sons;
therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the women of this nation, in 1876, have greater
cause for discontent, rebellion and revolution, than the men of
1776.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That with Abigail Adams, in 1776, we believe that
"the passion for liberty cannot be strong in the breasts of those
who are accustomed to deprive their fellow-creatures of liberty";
that, as Abigail Adams predicted, "We are determined to foment a
rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by laws in which we
have no voice or representation."</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, We believe in the principles of the Declaration of
Independence and of the Constitution of the United States, and
believe a true republic is the best form of government in the
world; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, This government is false to its underlying principles in
denying to women the only means of self-government, the ballot;
and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, One-half of the citizens of this nation, after a century
of boasted liberty, are still political slaves; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we protest against calling the present
centennial celebration a celebration of the independence of the
people of the United States.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we meet in our respective towns and districts on
the Fourth of July, 1876, and declare ourselves no longer bound
to obey laws in whose making we have had no voice, and, in
presence of the assembled nations of the world gathered on this
soil to celebrate our nation's centennial, demand justice for the
women of this land.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The men of this nation have established for men of all
nations, races and color, on this soil, at the cost of countless
lives, the proposition (in the language of Frederick Douglass)
"that a man's head is his head, his body is his body, his feet
are his feet"; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That justice, equity and chivalry demand that man at
once establish for his wife and mother the corresponding
proposition, that a woman's head is her head, her body is her
body, her feet are her feet, and that all ownership and mastery
over her person, property, conscience, and liberty of speech and
action, are in violation of the supreme law of the land.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we rejoice in the resistance of Julia and Abby
Smith, Abby Kelly Foster, Sarah E. Wall and many more resolute
women in various parts of the country, to taxation without
representation.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of the National Woman Suffrage
Association are hereby tendered to Hon. A. A. Sargent, of
California, for his earnest words in behalf of woman suffrage on
the floor of the United States Senate, Jan. 25, 1876; and to Hon.
N. P. Banks, of Massachusetts, for his appeal in behalf of the
centennial woman suffrage memorial in the United States House of
Representatives, March 31, 1876.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the repeated attempts to license the social evil
are a practical confession of the weakness, profligacy and
general unfitness of men to legislate for women, and should be
regarded with alarm as a proof that their firesides and liberties
are in constant peril while men alone make and execute the laws
of this country.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, There are 7,000 more women than men in the District of
Columbia, and no form of government for said District has allowed
women any voice in making the laws under which they live;
therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in this centennial year the congress of the
United States having exclusive jurisdiction over that territory
should establish a truly republican form of government by
granting equal suffrage to the men and women of the District of
Columbia. </p></blockquote>

<p>Immediately at the close of the May convention Mrs. Gage again went
to Philadelphia to complete the arrangements in regard to the
centennial headquarters. Large and convenient<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_21" id="Page_21">[Pg 21]</a></span> rooms were soon
found upon Arch street, terms agreed upon and a lease drawn, when
it transpired that a husband's consent and signature must be
obtained, although the property was owned by a woman, as by the
laws of Pennsylvania a married woman's property is under her
husband's control. Although arrangements for this room had been
made with the real owner, the terms being perfectly satisfactory to
her, the husband refused his ratification, tearing up the lease,
with abuse of the women who claimed control of their own property,
and a general defiance of all women who dared work for the
enfranchisement of their sex. Thus again were women refused rooms
in Philadelphia in which to enter their protest against the tyranny
of this republic, and for the same reason&mdash;they were slaves. Had
the patriots of the revolutionary period asked rooms of King
George, in which to foster their treason to his government, the
refusal could have been no more positive than in these cases.</p>

<p>The quarters finally obtained were very desirable; fine large
parlors on the first floor, on Chestnut street, at the fashionable
west end, directly opposite the Young Men's Christian Association.
The other members of the committee being married ladies, Miss
Anthony, as a <i>feme sole</i>, was alone held capable of making a
contract, and was therefore obliged to assume the pecuniary
responsibility of the rooms. Thus it is ever the married women who
are more especially classed with lunatics, idiots and criminals,
and held incapable of managing their own business. It has always
been part of the code of slavery, that the slave had no right to
property; all his earnings and gifts belonging by law, to the
master. Married women come under this same civil code. The
following letter was extensively circulated and published in all
the leading journals:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">National Woman Suffrage Parlors</span>, }<br />
1,431 Chestnut Street, <span class="smcap">Philadelphia, Pa.</span> }
</p>

<p>The National Woman Suffrage Association has established its
centennial headquarters in Philadelphia, at 1,431 Chestnut
street. The parlors, in charge of the officers of the
association, are devoted to the special work of the year,
pertaining to the centennial celebration and the political party
conventions; also to calls, receptions, conversazioni, etc. On
the table a centennial autograph book receives the names of
visitors. Friends at a distance, both men and women, who cannot
call, are invited to send their names, with date and residence,
accompanied by a short expressive sentiment and a contribution
toward expenses. In the rooms are books, papers, reports and
decisions, speeches, tracts, and photographs of distinguished
women; also mottoes and pictures expressive of woman's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_22" id="Page_22">[Pg 22]</a></span>
condition. In addition to the parlor gatherings, meetings and
conventions will be held during the season in various halls and
churches throughout the city.</p>

<p>On July Fourth, while the men of this nation and the world are
rejoicing that "All men are free and equal" in the United States,
a declaration of rights for women will be issued from these
headquarters, and a protest against calling this centennial a
celebration of the independence of the people, while one-half are
still political slaves.</p>

<p>Let the women of the whole land, on that day, in meetings, in
parlors, in kitchens, wherever they may be, unite with us in this
declaration and protest. And, immediately thereafter, send full
reports, in manuscript or print, of their resolutions, speeches
and action, for record in our centennial book, that the world may
see that the women of 1876 know and feel their political
degradation no less than did the men of 1776.</p>

<p>The first woman's rights convention the world ever knew, called
by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton, met at Seneca Falls,
N. Y., July 19, 20, 1848. In commemoration of the twenty-eighth
anniversary of that event, the National Woman Suffrage
Association will hold in &mdash;&mdash; hall, Philadelphia, July 19, 20, of
the present year, a grand mass convention, in which eminent
reformers from the new and old world will take part. Friends are
especially invited to be present on this historic occasion.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>From these headquarters numberless documents were issued during the
month of June. As the presidential nominating conventions were soon
to meet, letters were addressed to both the Republican and
Democratic parties, urging them to recognize the political rights
of women in their platforms. Thousands of copies of these letters
were scattered throughout the nation:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To the President and Members of the National Republican
Convention, Cincinnati, O., June 14, 1876.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>: The National Woman Suffrage Association asks you to
place in your platform the following plank:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the right to the use of the ballot inheres in
every citizen of the United States; and we pledge ourselves to
secure the exercise of this right to all citizens, irrespective
of sex. </p></blockquote>

<p>In asking the insertion of this plank, we propose no change of
fundamental principles. Our question is as old as the nation. Our
government was framed on the political basis of the consent of the
governed. And from July 4, 1776, until the present year, 1876, the
nation has constantly advanced toward a fuller practice of our
fundamental theory, that the governed are the source of all power.
Your nominating convention, occurring in this centennial year of
the republic, presents a good opportunity for the complete
recognition of these first principles. Our government has not yet
answered the end for which it was framed, while one-half the people
of the United States are deprived of the right of self-government.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_23" id="Page_23">[Pg 23]</a></span>
Before the Revolution, Great Britain claimed the right to legislate
for the colonies in all cases whatsoever; the men of this nation
now as unjustly claim the right to legislate for women in all cases
whatsoever.</p>

<p>The call for your nominating convention invites the coöperation of
"all voters who desire to inaugurate and enforce the rights of
every citizen, including the full and free exercise of the right of
suffrage." Women are citizens; declared to be by the highest
legislative and judicial authorities; but they are citizens
deprived of "the full and free exercise of the right of suffrage."
Your platform of 1872 declared "the Republican party mindful of its
obligations to the loyal women of the nation for their noble
devotion to the cause of freedom." Devotion to freedom is no new
thing for the women of this nation. From the earliest history of
our country, woman has shown herself as patriotic as man in every
great emergency in the nation's life. From the Revolution to the
present hour, woman has stood by the side of father, husband, son
and brother in defense of liberty. The heroic and self-sacrificing
deeds of the women of this republic, both in peace and war, must
not be forgotten. Together men and women have made this country
what it is. And to-day, in this one-hundredth year of our
existence, the women&mdash;as members of the nation&mdash;as citizens of the
United States&mdash;ask national recognition of their right of suffrage.</p>

<p>The Declaration of Independence struck a blow at every existent
form of government, by declaring the individual the source of all
power. Upon this one newly proclaimed truth our nation arose. But
if States may deny suffrage to any class of citizens, or confer it
at will upon any class&mdash;as according to the Minor-Happersett
decision of the Supreme Court&mdash;a decision rendered under the
auspices of the Republican party against suffrage as a constituent
element of United States citizenship&mdash;we then possess no true
national life. If States can deny suffrage to citizens of the
United States, then States possess more power than the United
States, and are more truly national in the character of their
governments. National supremacy does not chiefly mean power "to
levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce";
it means national protection and security in the exercise of the
right of self-government, which comes alone, by and through the use
of the ballot.</p>

<p>Even granting the premise of the Supreme-Court decision that "the
Constitution of the United States does not confer suffrage on any
one"; our national life does not date from that instrument. The
constitution is not the original declaration of rights. It was not
framed until eleven years after our existence as a nation, nor
fully ratified until nearly fourteen years after the commencement
of our national life. This centennial celebration of our nation's
birth does not date from the constitution, but from the Declaration
of Independence. The declared purpose of the civil war was the
settlement of the question of supremacy between the States and the
United States. The documents sent out by the Republican party in
this present campaign, warn the people that the Democrats intend
another battle for State sovereignty, to be fought this year at the
ballot-box.</p>

<p>The National Woman Suffrage Association calls your attention to the
fact that the Republican party has itself reopened this battle, and
now<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_24" id="Page_24">[Pg 24]</a></span> holds the anomalous position of having settled the question of
State sovereignty in the case of black men, and again opened it,
through the Minor-Happersett decision, not only in the case of
women citizens, but also in the case of men citizens, for all other
causes save those specified in the fifteenth amendment. Your party
has yet one opportunity to retrieve its position. The political
power of this country has always shown itself superior to the
judicial power&mdash;the latter ever shaping and basing its decisions on
the policy of the dominant party. A pledge, therefore, by your
convention to secure national protection in the enjoyment of
perfect equality of rights, civil and political, to all citizens,
will so define the policy of the Republican party as to open the
way to a full and final adjustment of this question on the basis of
United States supremacy.</p>

<p>Aside from the higher motive of justice, we suggest your adoption
of this principle of equal rights to women, as a means of securing
your own future existence. The party of reform in this country is
the party that lives. The party that ceases to represent the vital
principles of truth and justice dies. If you would save the life of
the Republican party you should now take broad national ground on
this question of suffrage.</p>

<p>By this act you will do most to promote the general welfare, secure
the blessings of liberty to yourselves and your posterity, and
establish on this continent a genuine republic that shall know no
class, caste, race, or sex&mdash;where all the people are citizens, and
all citizens are equal before the law.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>.<br />
<i>Centennial Headquarters</i>, 1,431 Chestnut street, <i>Philadelphia</i>, June 10, 1876.</p>

<p class="hang break"><i>To the President and Members of the National Democratic Convention
assembled at St. Louis, June 27, 1876</i>:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>: In reading the call for your convention, the National
Woman Suffrage Association was gratified to find that your
invitation was not limited to voters, but cordially extended to all
citizens of the United States. We accordingly send delegates from
our association, asking for them a voice in your proceedings, and
also a plank in your platform declaring the political rights of
women.</p>

<p>Women are the only class of citizens still wholly unrepresented in
the government, and yet we possess every qualification requisite
for voters in the several States. Women possess property and
education; we take out naturalization papers and passports; we
preëmpt lands, pay taxes, and suffer for our own violation of the
laws. We are neither idiots, lunatics, nor criminals; and,
according to your State constitutions, lack but one qualification
for voters, namely, sex, which is an insurmountable qualification,
and therefore equivalent to a bill of attainder against one-half
the people; a power no State nor congress can legally exercise,
being forbidden in article 1, sections 9, 10, of our constitution.
Our rulers may have the right to regulate the suffrage, but they
can not abolish it altogether for any class of citizens, as has
been done in the case of the women of this republic, without a
direct violation of the fundamental law of the land.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_25" id="Page_25">[Pg 25]</a></span></p>

<p>As you hold the constitution of the fathers to be a sacred legacy
to us and our children forever, we ask you to so interpret that
<i>Magna Charta</i> of human rights as to secure justice and equality to
all United States citizens irrespective of sex. We desire to call
your attention to the violation of the essential principle of
self-government in the disfranchisement of the women of the several
States, and we appeal to you, not only because as a minority you
are in a position to consider principles, but because you were the
party first to extend suffrage by removing the property
qualification from all white men, and thus making the political
status of the richest and poorest citizen the same. That act of
justice to the laboring masses insured your power, with but few
interruptions, until the war.</p>

<p>When the District of Columbia suffrage bill was under discussion in
1866, it was a Democratic senator (Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania) who
proposed an amendment to strike out the word "male," and thus
extend the right of suffrage to the women, as well as the black men
of the District. That amendment gave us a splendid discussion on
woman suffrage that lasted three days in the Senate of the United
States. It was a Democratic legislature that secured the right of
suffrage to the women of Wyoming, and we now ask you in national
convention to pledge the Democratic party to extend this act of
justice to the women throughout the nation, and thus call to your
side a new political force that will restore and perpetuate your
power for years to come.</p>

<p>The Republican party gave us a plank in their platform in 1872,
pledging themselves to a "respectful consideration" of our demands.
But by their constitutional interpretations, legislative
enactments, and judicial decisions, so far from redeeming their
pledge, they have buried our petitions and appeals under laws in
direct opposition to their high-sounding promises and professions.
And now (1876) they give us another plank in their platform,
approving the "substantial advance made toward the establishment of
equal rights for women"; cunningly reminding us that the privileges
and immunities we now enjoy are all due to Republican
legislation&mdash;although, under a Republican dynasty, inspectors of
election have been arrested and imprisoned for taking the votes of
women; temperance women arrested and imprisoned for praying in the
streets; houses, lands, bonds, and stock of women seized and sold
for their refusal to pay unjust taxation&mdash;and, more than all, we
have this singular spectacle: a Republican woman, who had spoken
for the Republican party throughout the last presidential campaign,
arrested by Republican officers for voting the Republican ticket,
denied the right of trial by jury by a Republican judge, convicted
and sentenced to a fine of one hundred dollars and costs of
prosecution; and all this for asserting at the polls the most
sacred of all the rights of American citizenship&mdash;the right of
suffrage&mdash;specifically secured by recent Republican amendments to
the federal constitution.</p>

<p>Again, the Supreme Court of the United States, by its recent
decision in the Minor-Happersett case, has stultified its own
interpretation of constitutional law. A negro, by virtue of his
United States citizenship, is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_26" id="Page_26">[Pg 26]</a></span> declared under recent amendments a
voter in every State in the Union; but when a woman, by virtue of
her United States citizenship, applies to the Supreme Court for
protection in the exercise of this same right, she is remanded to
the State by the unanimous decision of the nine judges on the
bench, that "the Constitution of the United States does not confer
the right of suffrage upon any one."</p>

<p>All concessions of privileges or redress of grievances are but
mockery for any class that has no voice in the laws and lawmakers.
Hence we demand the ballot&mdash;that scepter of power&mdash;in our own
hands, as the only sure protection for our rights of person and
property under all conditions. If the few may grant or withhold
rights at their own pleasure, the many cannot be said to enjoy the
blessings of self-government. Jefferson said, "The God who gave us
life gave us liberty at the same time. The hand of force may
destroy, but cannot disjoin them." While the first and highest
motive we would urge on you is the recognition in all your action
of the great principles of justice and equality that underlie our
form of government, it is not unworthy to remind you that the party
that takes this onward step will reap its just reward.</p>

<p>Had you heeded our appeals made to you in Tammany Hall, New York,
in 1868, and again in Baltimore, in 1872, your party might now have
been in power, as you would have had, what neither party can boast
to-day, a live issue on which to rouse the enthusiasm of the
people. Reform is the watchword of the hour; but how can we hope
for honor and honesty in either party in minor matters, so long as
both consent to rob one-half the people&mdash;their own mothers,
sisters, wives and daughters&mdash;of their most sacred rights? As a
party you defended the right of self-government in Louisiana ably
and eloquently during the last session of congress. Are the rights
of women in all the Southern States, whose slaves are now their
rulers, less sacred than those of the men of Louisiana? "The whole
art of government," says Jefferson, "consists in being honest."</p>

<p>It needs but little observation to see that the tide of progress,
in all countries, is setting toward the emancipation and
enfranchisement of women; and this step in civilization is to be
taken in our day and generation. Whether the Democratic party will
take the initiative in this reform, and reap the glory of crowning
fifteen million women with the rights of American citizenship, and
thereby vindicate our theory of self-government, is the momentous
question we ask you to decide in this eventful hour, as we round
out the first century of our national life.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span>, <i>President</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0">
<span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee</i>.<br />
<span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>.<br />
<i>Centennial Headquarters</i>, 1,431 Chestnut street, <i>Philadelphia</i>, June 20, 1876.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>In addition to these letters delegates were sent to both the
Republican and Democratic conventions. Sara Andrews Spencer and
Elizabeth Boynton Harbert were present at the Republican convention
at Cincinnati; both addressed the committee on platform and
resolutions, and Mrs. Spencer, on motion of Hon.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_27" id="Page_27">[Pg 27]</a></span> George F. Hoar,
was permitted to address the convention. Mrs. Virginia L. Minor and
Miss Phoebe W. Couzins were the delegates to the Democratic
convention at St. Louis, and the latter addressed that vast
assembly.<a name="FNanchor_9_9" id="FNanchor_9_9"></a><a href="#Footnote_9_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p>

<p>For a long time there had been a growing demand for a woman's
declaration to be issued on July Fourth, 1876. "Let us then protest
against the falsehood of the nation"; "If the old Declaration does
not include women, let us have one that will"; "Let our rulers be
arraigned"; "A declaration of independence for women must be issued
on the Fourth of July, 1876," were demands that came from all parts
of the country. The officers of the association had long had such
action in view, having, at the Washington convention, early in
1875, announced their intention of working in Philadelphia during
the centennial season, and were strengthened in their determination
by the hearty indorsement they received. At the May convention in
New York, Matilda Joslyn Gage, in her opening speech, announced
that a declaration of independence for women would be issued on the
Fourth of July, 1876. In response to this general feeling, the
officers of the National Association prepared a declaration of
rights of the women of the United States, and articles of
impeachment against the government.</p>

<p>Application was made by the secretary, Miss Anthony, to General
Hawley, president of the centennial commission, for seats for fifty
officers of the association. General Hawley replied that "only
officials were invited"&mdash;that even his own wife had no place&mdash;that
merely representatives and officers of the government had seats
assigned them. "Then" said she, "as women have no share in the
government, they are to have no seats on the platform," to which
General Hawley assented; adding, however, that Mrs. Gillespie, of
the woman's centennial commission, had fifty seats placed at her
disposal, thus showing it to be in his power to grant places to
women whenever he so chose to do. Miss Anthony said: "I ask seats
for the officers of the National Woman Suffrage Association; we
represent one-half the people, and why should we be denied all part
in this centennial celebration?" Miss Anthony, however, secured a
reporter's ticket by virtue of representing her brother's paper,
<i>The Leavenworth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_28" id="Page_28">[Pg 28]</a></span> Times</i>, and, ultimately, cards of invitation were
sent to four others,<a name="FNanchor_10_10" id="FNanchor_10_10"></a><a href="#Footnote_10_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> representing the 20,000,000 disfranchised
citizens of the nation.</p>

<p>Mrs. Stanton, as president of the association, wrote General
Hawley, asking the opportunity to present the woman's protest and
bill of rights at the close of the reading of the Declaration of
Independence. Just its simple presentation and nothing more. She
wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p>We do not ask to read our declaration, only to present it to the
president of the United States, that it may become an historical
part of the proceedings. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Spencer, bearer of this letter, in presenting it to General
Hawley, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The women of the United States make a slight request on the
occasion of the centennial celebration of the birth of the
nation; we only ask that we may silently present our declaration
of rights.</p>

<p>General <span class="smcap">Hawley</span> replied: It seems a very slight request, but our
programme is published, our speakers engaged, our arrangements
for the day decided upon, and we can not make even so slight a
change as that you ask.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Spencer</span> replied: We are aware that your programme is
published, your speakers engaged, your entire arrangements
decided upon, without consulting with the women of the United
States; for that very reason we desire to enter our protest. We
are aware that this government has been conducted for one hundred
years without consulting the women of the United States; for this
reason we desire to enter our protest.</p>

<p>General <span class="smcap">Hawley</span> replied: Undoubtedly we have not lived up to our
own original Declaration of Independence in many respects. I
express no opinion upon your question. It is a proper subject of
discussion at the Cincinnati convention, at the St. Louis
convention,, in the Senate of the United States, in the State
legislatures, in the courts, wherever you can obtain a hearing.
But to-morrow we propose to celebrate what we have done the last
hundred years; not what we have failed to do. We have much to do
in the future. I understand the full significance of your very
slight request. If granted, it would be the event of the day&mdash;the
topic of discussion to the exclusion of all others. I am sorry to
refuse so slight a demand; we cannot grant it. </p></blockquote>

<p>General Hawley also addressed a letter to Mrs. Stanton:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><span class="smcap">Dear Madam</span>: I regret to say it is impossible for us to make any
change in our programme, or make any addition to it at this late
hour.</p>

<p class="ltr-closing">Yours very respectfully,</p>
<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Jos. R. Hawley</span>, <i>President U. S. C. C.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p>As General Grant was not to attend the celebration, the acting
vice-president, Thomas W. Ferry, representing the government,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_29" id="Page_29">[Pg 29]</a></span> was
to officiate in his place, and he, too, was addressed by note, and
courteously requested to make time for the reception of this
declaration. As Mr. Ferry was a well-known sympathizer with the
demands of woman for political rights, it was presumable that he
would render his aid. Yet he was forgetful that in his position
that day he represented, not the exposition, but the government of
a hundred years, and he too refused; thus this simple request of
woman for a half moment's recognition on the nation's centennial
birthday was denied by all in authority.<a name="FNanchor_11_11" id="FNanchor_11_11"></a><a href="#Footnote_11_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a> ] While the women of
the nation were thus absolutely forbidden the right of public
protest, lavish preparations were made for the reception and
entertainment of foreign potentates and the myrmidons of monarchial
institutions. Dom Pedro, emperor of Brazil, a representative of
that form of government against which the United States is a
perpetual defiance and protest, was welcomed with fulsome
adulation, and given a seat of honor near the officers of the day;
Prince Oscar of Sweden, a stripling of sixteen, on whose shoulder
rests the promise of a future kingship, was seated near. Count
Rochambeau of France, the Japanese commissioners, high officials
from Russia and Prussia, from Austria, Spain, England, Turkey,
representing the barbarism and semi-civilization of the day, found
no difficulty in securing recognition and places of honor upon that
platform, where representative womanhood was denied.</p>

<p>Though refused by their own countrymen a place and part in the
centennial celebration, the women who had taken this presentation
in hand were not to be conquered. They had respectfully asked for
recognition; now that it had been denied, they determined to seize
upon the moment when the reading of the Declaration of Independence
closed, to proclaim to the world the tyranny and injustice of the
nation toward one-half its people. Five officers of the National
Woman Suffrage Association, with that heroic spirit which has ever
animated lovers of liberty in resistance to tyranny, determined,
whatever the result, to present the woman's declaration of rights
at the chosen hour. They would not, they dared not sacrifice the
golden opportunity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_30" id="Page_30">[Pg 30]</a></span> to which they had so long looked forward; their
work was not for themselves alone, nor for the present generation,
but for all women of all time. The hopes of posterity were in their
hands and they determined to place on record for the daughters of
1976, the fact that their mothers of 1876 had asserted their
equality of rights, and impeached the government of that day for
its injustice toward woman. Thus, in taking a grander step toward
freedom than ever before, they would leave one bright remembrance
for the women of the next centennial.</p>

<p>That historic Fourth of July dawned at last, one of the most
oppressive days of that terribly heated season. Susan B. Anthony,
Matilda Joslyn Gage, Sara Andrews Spencer, Lillie Devereux Blake
and Phoebe W. Couzins made their way through the crowds under the
broiling sun to Independence Square, carrying the Woman's
Declaration of Rights. This declaration had been handsomely
engrossed by one of their number, and signed by the oldest and most
prominent advocates of woman's enfranchisement. Their tickets of
admission proved open sesame through the military and all other
barriers, and a few moments before the opening of the ceremonies,
these women found themselves within the precincts from which most
of their sex were excluded.</p>

<p>The declaration of 1776 was read by Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia,
about whose family clusters so much of historic fame. The close of
his reading was deemed the appropriate moment for the presentation
of the woman's declaration. Not quite sure how their approach might
be met&mdash;not quite certain if at this final moment they would be
permitted to reach the presiding officer&mdash;those ladies arose and
made their way down the aisle. The bustle of preparation for the
Brazilian hymn covered their advance. The foreign guests, the
military and civil officers who filled the space directly in front
of the speaker's stand, courteously made way, while Miss Anthony in
fitting words presented the declaration. Mr. Ferry's face paled, as
bowing low, with no word, he received the declaration, which thus
became part of the day's proceedings; the ladies turned, scattering
printed copies, as they deliberately walked down the platform. On
every side eager hands were stretched; men stood on seats and asked
for them, while General Hawley, thus defied and beaten in his
audacious denial to women the right to present their declaration,
shouted, "Order, order!"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_31" id="Page_31">[Pg 31]</a></span></p>

<p>Passing out, these ladies made their way to a platform erected for
the musicians in front of Independence Hall. Here on this old
historic ground, under the shadow of Washington's statue, back of
them the old bell that proclaimed "liberty to all the land, and all
the inhabitants thereof," they took their places, and to a
listening, applauding crowd, Miss Anthony read<a name="FNanchor_12_12" id="FNanchor_12_12"></a><a href="#Footnote_12_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a> the Declaration
of Rights for Women by the National Woman Suffrage Association,
July 4, 1876:</p>

<blockquote><p>While the nation is buoyant with patriotism, and all hearts are
attuned to praise, it is with sorrow we come to strike the one
discordant note, on this one-hundredth anniversary of our
country's birth. When subjects of kings, emperors, and czars,
from the old world join in our national jubilee, shall the women
of the republic refuse to lay their hands with benedictions on
the nation's head? Surveying America's exposition, surpassing in
magnificence those of London, Paris, and Vienna, shall we not
rejoice at the success of the youngest rival among the nations of
the earth? May not our hearts, in unison with all, swell with
pride at our great achievements as a people; our free speech,
free press, free schools, free church, and the rapid progress we
have made in material wealth, trade, commerce and the inventive
arts? And we do rejoice in the success, thus far, of our
experiment of self-government. Our faith is firm and unwavering
in the broad principles of human rights proclaimed in 1776, not
only as abstract truths, but as the corner stones of a republic.
Yet we cannot forget, even in this glad hour, that while all men
of every race, and clime, and condition, have been invested with
the full rights of citizenship under our hospitable flag, all
women still suffer the degradation of disfranchisement.</p>

<p>The history of our country the past hundred years has been a
series of assumptions and usurpations of power over woman, in
direct opposition to the principles of just government,
acknowledged by the United States as its foundation, which are:</p>

<p><i>First</i>&mdash;The natural rights of each individual.</p>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;The equality of these rights.</p>

<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;That rights not delegated are retained by the
individual.</p>

<p><i>Fourth</i>&mdash;That no person can exercise the rights of others
without delegated authority.</p>

<p><i>Fifth</i>&mdash;That the non-use of rights does not destroy them.</p>

<p>And for the violation of these fundamental principles of our
government, we arraign our rulers on this Fourth day of July,
1876,&mdash;and these are our articles of impeachment:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Bills of attainder</i> have been passed by the introduction of the
word "male" into all the State constitutions, denying to women
the right of suffrage, and thereby making<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_32" id="Page_32">[Pg 32]</a></span> sex a crime&mdash;an
exercise of power clearly forbidden in article I, sections 9, 10,
of the United States constitution.</p>

<p><i>The writ of habeas corpus</i>, the only protection against <i>lettres
de cachet</i> and all forms of unjust imprisonment, which the
constitution declares "shall not be suspended, except when in
cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety demands it," is
held inoperative in every State of the Union, in case of a
married woman against her husband&mdash;the marital rights of the
husband being in all cases primary, and the rights of the wife
secondary.</p>

<p><i>The right of trial by a jury of one's peers</i> was so jealously
guarded that States refused to ratify the original constitution
until it was guaranteed by the sixth amendment. And yet the women
of this nation have never been allowed a jury of their
peers&mdash;being tried in all cases by men, native and foreign,
educated and ignorant, virtuous and vicious. Young girls have
been arraigned in our courts for the crime of infanticide; tried,
convicted, hanged&mdash;victims, perchance, of judge, jurors,
advocates&mdash;while no woman's voice could be heard in their
defense. And not only are women denied a jury of their peers, but
in some cases, jury trial altogether. During the war, a woman was
tried and hanged by military law, in defiance of the fifth
amendment, which specifically declares: "No person shall be held
to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases ... of
persons in actual service in time of war." During the last
presidential campaign, a woman, arrested for voting, was denied
the protection of a jury, tried, convicted, and sentenced to a
fine and costs of prosecution, by the absolute power of a judge
of the Supreme Court of the United States.</p>

<p><i>Taxation without representation</i>, the immediate cause of the
rebellion of the colonies against Great Britain, is one of the
grievous wrongs the women of this country have suffered during
the century. Deploring war, with all the demoralization that
follows in its train, we have been taxed to support standing
armies, with their waste of life and wealth. Believing in
temperance, we have been taxed to support the vice, crime and
pauperism of the liquor traffic. While we suffer its wrongs and
abuses infinitely more than man, we have no power to protect our
sons against this giant evil. During the temperance crusade,
mothers were arrested, fined, imprisoned, for even praying and
singing in the streets, while men blockade the sidewalks with
impunity, even on Sunday, with their military parades and
political processions. Believing in honesty, we are taxed to
support a dangerous army of civilians, buying and selling the
offices of government and sacrificing the best interests of the
people. And, moreover, we are taxed to support the very
legislators and judges who make laws, and render decisions
adverse to woman. And for refusing to pay such unjust taxation,
the houses, lands, bonds, and stock of women have been seized and
sold within the present year, thus proving Lord Coke's assertion,
that "The very act of taxing a man's property without his consent
is, in effect, disfranchising him of every civil right."</p>

<p><i>Unequal codes for men and women.</i> Held by law a perpetual minor,
deemed incapable of self-protection, even in the industries of
the world, woman is denied equality of rights. The fact of sex,
not the quantity or quality of work, in most cases, decides the
pay and position; and because of this injustice thousands of
fatherless girls are compelled to choose between a life of shame
and starvation. Laws catering to man's vices have created two
codes of morals in which penalties are graded according to the
political status of the offender. Under such laws, women are
fined and imprisoned if found alone in the streets, or in public
places of resort, at certain hours. Under the pretense of
regulating public morals, police officers seizing the occupants
of disreputable houses, march the women in platoons to prison,
while the men, partners in their guilt, go free. While making a
show of virtue in forbidding the importation of Chinese women on
the Pacific coast for immoral purposes, our rulers, in many
States, and even under the shadow of the national capitol, are
now proposing to legalize the sale of American womanhood for the
same vile purposes.</p>

<p><i>Special legislation for woman</i> has placed us in a most anomalous
position. Women invested with the rights of citizens in one
section&mdash;voters, jurors, office-holders&mdash;crossing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_33" id="Page_33">[Pg 33]</a></span> an imaginary
line, are subjects in the next. In some States, a married woman
may hold property and transact business in her own name; in
others, her earnings belong to her husband. In some States, a
woman may testify against her husband, sue and be sued in the
courts; in others, she has no redress in case of damage to
person, property, or character. In case of divorce on account of
adultery in the husband, the innocent wife is held to possess no
right to children or property, unless by special decree of the
court. But in no State of the Union has the wife the right to her
own person, or to any part of the joint earnings of the
co-partnership during the life of her husband. In some States
women may enter the law schools and practice in the courts; in
others they are forbidden. In some universities girls enjoy equal
educational advantages with boys, while many of the proudest
institutions in the land deny them admittance, though the sons of
China, Japan and Africa are welcomed there. But the privileges
already granted in the several States are by no means secure. The
right of suffrage once exercised by women in certain States and
territories has been denied by subsequent legislation. A bill is
now pending in congress to disfranchise the women of Utah, thus
interfering to deprive United States citizens of the same rights
which the Supreme Court has declared the national government
powerless to protect anywhere. Laws passed after years of
untiring effort, guaranteeing married women certain rights of
property, and mothers the custody of their children, have been
repealed in States where we supposed all was safe. Thus have our
most sacred rights been made the football of legislative caprice,
proving that a power which grants as a privilege what by nature
is a right, may withhold the same as a penalty when deeming it
necessary for its own perpetuation.</p>

<p><i>Representation of woman</i> has had no place in the nation's
thought. Since the incorporation of the thirteen original States,
twenty-four have been admitted to the Union, not one of which has
recognized woman's right of self-government. On this birthday of
our national liberties, July Fourth, 1876, Colorado, like all her
elder sisters, comes into the Union with the invidious word
"male" in her constitution.</p>

<p><i>Universal manhood suffrage</i>, by establishing an aristocracy of
sex, imposes upon the women of this nation a more absolute and
cruel depotism than monarchy; in that, woman finds a political
master in her father, husband, brother, son. The aristocracies of
the old world are based upon birth, wealth, refinement,
education, nobility, brave deeds of chivalry; in this nation, on
sex alone; exalting brute force above moral power, vice above
virtue, ignorance above education, and the son above the mother
who bore him.</p>

<p><i>The judiciary above the nation</i> has proved itself but the echo
of the party in power, by upholding and enforcing laws that are
opposed to the spirit and letter of the constitution. When the
slave power was dominant, the Supreme Court decided that a black
man was not a citizen, because he had not the right to vote; and
when the constitution was so amended as to make all persons
citizens, the same high tribunal decided that a woman, though a
citizen, had not the right to vote. Such vacillating
interpretations of constitutional law unsettle our faith in
judicial authority, and undermine the liberties of the whole
people. </p></blockquote>

<p>These articles of impeachment against our rulers we now submit to
the impartial judgment of the people. To all these wrongs and
oppressions woman has not submitted in silence and resignation.
From the beginning of the century, when Abigail Adams, the wife of
one president and mother of another, said, "We will not hold
ourselves bound to obey laws in which we have no voice or
representation," until now, woman's discontent has been steadily
increasing, culminating nearly thirty years ago in a simultaneous
movement among the women of the nation, demanding the right of
suffrage. In making our just demands, a higher motive than the
pride of sex inspires us; we feel that national safety and
stability depend on<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_34" id="Page_34">[Pg 34]</a></span> the complete recognition of the broad
principles of our government. Woman's degraded, helpless position
is the weak point in our institutions to-day; a disturbing force
everywhere, severing family ties, filling our asylums with the
deaf, the dumb, the blind; our prisons with criminals, our cities
with drunkenness and prostitution; our homes with disease and
death. It was the boast of the founders of the republic, that the
rights for which they contended were the rights of human nature. If
these rights are ignored in the case of one-half the people, the
nation is surely preparing for its downfall. Governments try
themselves. The recognition of a governing and a governed class is
incompatible with the first principles of freedom. Woman has not
been a heedless spectator of the events of this century, nor a dull
listener to the grand arguments for the equal rights of humanity.
From the earliest history of our country woman has shown equal
devotion with man to the cause of freedom, and has stood firmly by
his side in its defense. Together, they have made this country what
it is. Woman's wealth, thought and labor have cemented the stones
of every monument man has reared to liberty.</p>

<p>And now, at the close of a hundred years, as the hour-hand of the
great clock that marks the centuries points to 1876, we declare our
faith in the principles of self-government; our full equality with
man in natural rights; that woman was made first for her own
happiness, with the absolute right to herself&mdash;to all the
opportunities and advantages life affords for her complete
development; and we deny that dogma of the centuries, incorporated
in the codes of all nations&mdash;that woman was made for man&mdash;her best
interests, in all cases, to be sacrificed to his will. We ask of
our rulers, at this hour, no special favors, no special privileges,
no special legislation. We ask justice, we ask equality, we ask
that all the civil and political rights that belong to citizens of
the United States, be guaranteed to us and our daughters
forever.<a name="FNanchor_13_13" id="FNanchor_13_13"></a><a href="#Footnote_13_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>The declaration was warmly applauded at many points, and after
scattering another large number of printed copies, the delegation
hastened to the convention of the National Association. A meeting
had been appointed for twelve, in the old historic First Unitarian
church, where Rev. Wm. H. Furness preached for fifty years, but
whose pulpit was then filled by Joseph May, a son of Rev. Samuel J.
May. To this place the ladies made their way to find the church
crowded with an expectant audience, which greeted them with thanks
for what they had just done; the first act of this historic day
taking place on the old centennial platform in Independence Square,
the last<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_35" id="Page_35">[Pg 35]</a></span> in a church so long devoted to equality and justice. The
venerable Lucretia Mott, then in her eighty-fourth year, presided.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton read the Declaration of Rights. Its
reception by the listening audience proclaimed its need and its
justice. The reading was followed by speeches upon the various
points of the declaration.</p>

<p>Belva A. Lockwood took up the judiciary, showing the way that body
lends itself to party politics. Matilda Joslyn Gage spoke upon the
writ of <i>habeas corpus</i>, showing what a mockery to married women
was that constitutional guarantee. Lucretia Mott reviewed the
progress of the reform from the first convention. Sara Andrews
Spencer illustrated the evils arising from two codes of morality.
Mrs. Devereux Blake spoke upon trial by jury; Susan B. Anthony upon
taxation without representation, illustrating her remarks by
incidents of unjust taxation of women during the present year.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton spoke upon the aristocracy of sex, and the
evils arising from manhood suffrage. Judge Esther Morris, of
Wyoming, said a few words in regard to suffrage in that territory.
Mrs. Margaret Parker, president of the woman suffrage club of
Dundee, Scotland, and of the newly-formed Christian Woman's
International Temperance Union, said she had seen nothing like this
in Great Britain&mdash;it was worth the journey across the Atlantic. Mr.
J. H. Raper, of Manchester, England, characterized it as the
historic meeting of the day, and said the patriot of a hundred
years hence would seek for every incident connected with it, and
the next centennial would be adorned by the portraits of the women
who sat upon that platform.</p>

<p>The Hutchinsons, themselves of historic fame, were present. They
were in their happiest vein, interspersing the speeches with
appropriate and felicitous songs. Lucretia Mott did not confine
herself to a single speech, but, in Quaker style, whenever the
spirit moved made many happy points. When she first arose to speak,
a call came from the audience for her to ascend the pulpit in order
that she might be seen. As she complied with this request,
ascending the long winding staircase into the old-fashioned octagon
pulpit, she said, "I am somewhat like Zaccheus of old who climbed
the sycamore tree his Lord to see; I climb this pulpit, not because
I am of lofty mind, but because I am short of stature that you may
see me." As her sweet and placid countenance appeared above the
pulpit, the Hutchinsons, by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_36" id="Page_36">[Pg 36]</a></span> happy inspiration, burst into "Nearer,
my God, to Thee." The effect was marvelous; the audience at once
arose, and spontaneously joined in the hymn.</p>

<p>Phoebe W. Couzins, with great pathos, referred to woman's work in
the war, and the parade of the Grand Army of the Republic the
preceding evening; she said:</p>

<blockquote><p>In such an hour as this, with my soul stirred to its deepest
depths, I feel unequal to the task of uttering words befitting
the occasion, and to follow the dear saint who has just spoken;
how can I? I am but a beginner, and to-day I feel that to sit at
the feet of these dear women who have borne the heat and burden
of this contest, and to learn of them is the attitude I should
assume. It is not the time for argument or rhetoric. It is the
time for introspection and prayer. We have come from Independence
Square, where the nation is celebrating its centennial birthday
of a masculine freedom. You have just heard from Mrs. Stanton the
reading of Woman's Declaration of Rights; that document has
already been presented in engrossed form, tied with the symbolic
red, white and blue, to the presiding officer of the day, Senator
Thomas W. Ferry, on their platform in yonder square; and the John
Hampden of our cause, the immortal Susan B. Anthony, rendered it
historic, by reading it from the steps of Independence Hall, to
an immense audience there gathered, that could not gain access to
the square or platform. [Great applause.] I cannot express to you
in fitting language the thoughts and feelings which stirred me as
I sat on the platform, awaiting the presentation of that
document.</p>

<p>We were about to commit an overt act. Gen. Hawley, president of
the centennial commission and manager of the programme, had
peremptorily forbidden its presentation. Yet in the face of
this&mdash;in the face of the assembled nation and representatives
from the crowned heads of Europe, a handful of women actuated by
the same high principles as our fathers, stirred by the same
desire for freedom, moved by the same impulse for liberty, were
to again proclaim the right of self-government; were again to
impeach the spirit of King George manifested in our rulers, and
declare that taxation without representation is tyranny, that the
divine right of one-half of the people to rule the other half is
also despotism. As I followed the reading of Richard Henry Lee,
and marked the wild enthusiasm of its reception, and remembered
that at its close, a document, as noble, as divine, as grand, as
historic as that, was to be presented <i>in silence</i>; an act, as
heroic, as worthy, as sublime, was to be performed in the face of
the contemptuous amazement of the assembled world, I trembled
with suppressed emotion. When Susan Anthony arose, with a look of
intense pain, yet heroic determination in her face, I silently
committed her to the Great Father who seëth not in part, to
strengthen and comfort her heroic heart, and then she was lost to
view in the sudden uprising caused by the burst of applause
instituted by General Hawley in behalf of the Brazilian emperor.
And thus at the close of the reading of a document which
repudiated kings and declared the right of every person to life,
to liberty<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_37" id="Page_37">[Pg 37]</a></span> and the pursuit of individual happiness, the American
people, applauding a crowned monarch, received <i>in silence</i> the
immortal document and protest of its discrowned queens!</p>

<p>Shall I recount the emotion that swayed me, as I thought of all
that woman had done to build up this country; to sustain its
unity, to perpetuate its principles; of its self-denying and
heroic Pilgrim and revolutionary mothers; of the work of woman in
the anti-slavery cause; the agony and death of her travail in its
second birth for freedom; sustaining the nation by prayers, by
self-sacrificing contributions, by patriotic endeavors, by
encouraging words; and, reviewing the programme, and all the
attendant pageants, remembered that in these grand centennial
celebrations, when the nation rounded out its first century, <i>not
a tribute</i>, not a recognition in any shape, form or manner was
paid to woman; that upon the platform, as honored guests, sat
those who had been false in the hour of our country's peril; that
upon this historic soil, stood the now freeman, once a slave,
whose liberty and life were given him at the hands of woman; that
the inhabitants of the far off isles of the sea, India, Asia,
Africa, Europe, were gladly welcomed as free citizens, while
woman, a suppliant beggar, pleaded of one man, invested with
autocratic power, for the simple boon of presenting a protest in
silence, against her degradation, and was <i>denied</i>!</p>

<p>I stood yesterday on the corner of Broad and Chestnut streets,
watching the march of the Grand Army of the Republic. As the torn
and tattered battle flags came by, all the terrors of that war
tragedy suddenly rushed over me, and I sat down and wept. Looking
again, I saw the car of wounded, soldiers; as in thought I was
suddenly transported to the banks of the Mississippi I felt the
air full of the horrors of the battle of Shiloh, and saw two
young girls waiting the landing of a steamer that had been
dispatched to succor the wounded on that terrible field. They
were watching for "mother"&mdash;who for the first time had left her
home charge, and hushing her own heart's pleadings, heard only
her country's call, and gone down to that field of carnage to
tenderly care for the soldier. As they boarded the steamer; what
a sight met their eyes! Maimed, bleeding, dying soldiers by the
hundreds, were on cots on deck, on boxes filled with amputated
limbs, and the dead were awaiting the last sad rites. Like
ministering angels walked two women, their mother and the now
sainted Margaret Breckenridge of Kentucky, amid these rows of
sufferers, with strong nerve and steady arm, comforting the
soldier boy, so far from friends and home; binding up the ghastly
wound, bathing the feverish brow, smoothing the dying pillow, and
with tender mother's prayer and tear, closing the eyes of the
dead. The first revelation of war; how it burned our youthful
brain! How it moved us to divine compassion, how it stirred us to
even give up our mother to the work for years, as we heard the
piteous pleading, "Don't leave us, mother"&mdash;"Oh, mother, we can
never forget." But alas they <i>did</i> forget! This scene repeated
again, and again, during that long conflict, with hundreds of
women offering a like service in camp and floating hospital,
leaving sweet homes, without money, price or thought of
emolument, going to these battle-fields and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_38" id="Page_38">[Pg 38]</a></span> tenderly nursing the
army of the republic to life again; while back of them were tens
of thousands other women of the great sanitary army, who, in
self-sacrifice at home, were sending lint, bandages, clothing,
delicacies of food and raiment of all kinds, by car-load and
ship-load, to comfort and ameliorate the sufferings of the grand
army of the republic, and yet as I watched its march in this
centennial year, its gala day&mdash;<i>not a tribute</i> marked its
gratitude to her who had proved its savior and friend, in the
hour of peril.</p>

<p>Again, came the colored man in rank and file&mdash;and in thought I
saw the fifteenth-amendment jubilee, which proclaimed his
emancipation. As banner after banner passed me, with the name of
Garrison, of Phillips, of Douglass, I looked in vain for the name
of Harriet Beecher Stowe, whose one book, "Uncle Tom's
Cabin"&mdash;did more to arouse the whole world to the horrors of
slavery, than did the words or works of any ten men. I searched
for a tribute to Lucretia Mott and other women of that conflict,
but none appeared. And so to-day, standing here with heart and
brain convulsed with all these memories and scenes, can you
wonder that we are stirred to profoundest depths, as we review
the base ingratitude of this nation to its women? It has taxed
its women, and asked the women, in whose veins flows the blood of
their Pilgrim and Revolutionary mothers, to assist by money,
individual effort and presence, to make it a year of jubilee for
the proclamation of a ransomed male nationality. Zenobia, in
gilded chains it may be, but chains nevertheless, marches through
the streets of Philadelphia to-day, an appendage of the chariot
wheels which proclaim the coming of her king, her lord, her
master, whether he be white or black, native or foreign-born,
virtuous or vile, lettered or unlettered. As the state-house
bell, with its inscription, "Proclaim liberty&mdash;throughout the
land, unto all the inhabitants thereof," pealed forth its
jubilant reiteration,&mdash;the daughters of Jefferson, of Hancock, of
Adams, and Patrick Henry, who have been politically outlawed and
ostracized by their own countrymen, here had no liberty
proclaimed for them; they are not inhabitants, only sojourners in
the land of their fathers, and as the slaves in meek subjection
to the will of the master placed the crown of sovereignty on the
alien from Europe, Asia, Africa, she is asked to sing in dulcet
strains: "The king is dead&mdash;long live the king!"</p>

<p>And thus to-day we round out the first century of a professed
republic,&mdash;with woman figuratively representing freedom&mdash;and yet
all free, save woman. </p></blockquote>

<p>For five long hours of that hot mid-summer's day, that crowded
audience listened earnestly to woman's demand for equality of
rights before the law. When the convention at last adjourned, the
Hutchinsons singing, "A Hundred Years Hence,"<a name="FNanchor_14_14" id="FNanchor_14_14"></a><a href="#Footnote_14_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a> it was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_39" id="Page_39">[Pg 39]</a></span> slowly
and reluctantly that the great audience left the house. Judged by
its immediate influence, it was a wonderful meeting. No elaborate
preparations had been made, for not until late on Friday evening
had it been decided upon, hoping still, as we did, for a
recognition in the general celebration on Independence Square.
Speakers were not prepared, hardly a moment of thought had been
given as to what should be said, but words fitting for the hour
came to lips rendered eloquent by the pressure of intense emotion.</p>

<p>Day after day visitors to the woman suffrage parlors referred to
this meeting in glowing terms. Ladies from distant States, in
Philadelphia to visit the exposition, said that meeting was worth
the whole expense of the journey. Young women with all the
attractions of the day and the exposition enticing them, yet said,
"The best of all I have seen in Philadelphia was that meeting."
Women to whom a dollar was of great value, said, "As much as I need
money, I would not have missed that meeting for a hundred dollars";
while in the midst of conversation visitors would burst forth, "Was
there <i>ever</i> such a meeting as that in Dr. Furness' church?" and
thus was Woman's Declaration of Rights joyously received.</p>

<p>The day was also celebrated by women in convocations of their own
all over the country.<a name="FNanchor_15_15" id="FNanchor_15_15"></a><a href="#Footnote_15_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_40" id="Page_40">[Pg 40]</a></span></p>

<p>An interesting feature of the centennial parlors was an immense
autograph book, in which the names of friends to the movement were
registered by the thousands, some penned on that historic day and
sent from the old world and the new, and others written on the spot
during these eventful months. From the tidings of all these
enthusiastic assemblies and immense number of letters<a name="FNanchor_16_16" id="FNanchor_16_16"></a><a href="#Footnote_16_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> received
in Philadelphia, unitedly demanding an extension of their rights,
it was evident that the thinking women of the nation were hopefully
waiting in the dawn of the new century for greater liberties to
themselves.</p>

<p>From "Aunt Lottie's Centennial Letters to her Nieces and Nephews,"
we give the one describing this occasion:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">My Dears</span>: I suppose I had best tell you in this letter about the
Fourth of July celebration at the centennial city&mdash;at least that
portion of it that I know about, and which I would not have
missed for the exhibition itself, and which I would not have you
miss for all the rest of my letters. I cannot expect you to be as
much interested in it as was I, but it is time you were becoming
interested in the subject; and, if you live a half century from
this time (in less than that, I hope,) you will see that what I
am about to relate was, as General Hawley admitted it would be,
"the event of the occasion."</p>

<p>At the commencement of the exhibition, Miss Susan B. Anthony and
Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage came to Philadelphia and procured the
parlors of 1,431 Chestnut street for the accommodation of the
National Woman Suffrage Association. These rooms were open to the
friends of the association, and public receptions were held and
well attended every Tuesday and Friday evening. During these
months these two ladies&mdash;assisted the latter part of the time by
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton&mdash;were engaged in preparing a history
of the suffrage movement and a declaration of rights to be
presented at the great centennial celebration of the Fourth of
July, 1876. This document is in form like the first declaration
of a hundred years ago, handsomely engrossed by Mrs. Sara Andrews
Spencer, of Washington&mdash;a lady delegate to the Cincinnati
Republican convention, June 12.</p>

<p>The celebration was held in Independence Square, just back of the
old state-house where the first declaration was signed. There was
a great crowd of people collected; a poem was read by Bayard
Taylor and a speech delivered by William M. Evarts. But I knew it
was useless to go there expecting to hear any portion of either;
so I waited until twelve o'clock and then rode down in the cars
to Dr. Furness' church, corner of Broad and Locust streets, where
these ladies were to hold their meeting. The church was full, and
the exercises were opened by Mrs. Mott&mdash;the venerable and
venerated president&mdash;a Quaker lady of slight form, attired in a
plain, light-silk gown, white muslin neckerchief and cap, after
that exquisitely neat and quaint fashion. Then the Hutchinsons
sang a hymn,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_41" id="Page_41">[Pg 41]</a></span> in which all were requested to join. Afterward Mrs.
Stanton came to the front of the pulpit, the house was hushed, to
a reverential stillness, and I never yet heard anything so solemn
and impressive as her reading of the Declaration of Rights of the
Women of the United States.</p>

<p>A printed copy had been given me the day before, when between the
sessions of the New England American Association in the Academy
of Music, where were Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, Rev. Antoinette
Brown Blackwell, Elizabeth K. Churchill and other pleasant-faced,
sweet-voiced ladies, I had called at the rooms on Chestnut street
and folded declarations, for half an hour with Mrs. Stanton,
which they were distributing by post and in every way all over
the land. When I read it at home that night I realized its
importance, but as the next day (the Fourth) was excessively
warm, I very nearly gave up going, and then I should have missed
the impressiveness of her reading. When she first commenced, her
voice seemed choked with emotion. She must have realized what she
was doing, as we all knew it was the grandest thing that had been
done in a hundred years. Thrill after thrill went through my
veins, and the whole scene formed a picture that will yet be the
subject of artists' pencils and poets' pens. I should have been
contented to have had the meeting closed then with that best song
of the Hutchinsons upon the progress of reform, where the young
gentleman was so much applauded for his solo, "When Women Shall
be Free." Still we were all interested in Mrs. Spencer's account
of her interview with General Hawley, and his refusal to permit
the silent handing-in of the declaration, which, after her
persistence, assuring him "it would not take three minutes," he
was obliged to confess was because he was "very well aware it
would be the event of the occasion." "Immediately," said Mrs.
Spencer, "you cannot imagine what an inspiration we all had to do
it; for," added the slight, fair-haired, fluent lady, in a
humorous manner that called forth laughter and applause, "I never
yet was forbidden by a man to do a thing, but that I resolved to
do it."</p>

<p>We were also pleased to hear from that earnest woman, Susan B.
Anthony, inspired by the immutable abstract truths of justice and
equity. Reports say that she has the air of a Catholic devotee.
She said that in defiance of "the powers that be" she took a
place on that platform in Independence square, and at the proper
time delivered the engrossed copy of the declaration to the Hon.
T. W. Ferry, who received it with a courteous bow; and afterward
on the steps of Independence Hall she read it to an assembled
multitude. She had done her centennial day's work for all time;
and small wonder that mind and body craved rest after such
tension. She is yet under a hundred dollars fine for voting at
Rochester, and although from her lectures the last six years she
has paid $10,000 indebtedness on <i>The Revolution</i>, she said she
never would have paid that fine had she been imprisoned till now.</p>

<p>Mrs. Lucretia Mott, whom the younger Hutchinson<a name="FNanchor_17_17" id="FNanchor_17_17"></a><a href="#Footnote_17_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a> assisted into
the pulpit&mdash;a beautiful sight to see cultured youth supporting
refined old age&mdash;stated that she went up there, "not because she
was higher-minded<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_42" id="Page_42">[Pg 42]</a></span> than the rest, but so that her enfeebled voice
might be better heard." The dear old soul is so much stronger
than her body, that it would seem that she must have greatly
overtasked herself; though an inspired soul has wonderful
recuperative forces at command for the temple it inhabits. A
goodly number of gentlemen were present at this meeting and that
of the day before&mdash;three or four of them making short speeches. A
Mr. Raper of England, strongly interested in the temperance and
woman suffrage cause, told us that in his country "all women
tax-payers voted for guardians of the poor, upon all educational
matters, and also upon all municipal affairs. In that respect she
was in advance of this professed republic. In England there is an
hereditary aristocracy, here, an aristocracy of sex"; or, as the
spirited Lillie Devereux Blake who was present once amusingly
termed it, of "the bifurcated garment." And now perhaps some
materially-minded person will ask, "What are you going to do
about it? You can't fight!" forgetting that we are now fighting
the greatest of all battles, and that the weapons of woman's
warfare, like her nature at its best development, are moral and
spiritual.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Lewise Oliver.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><i>Philadelphia</i>, July 13, 1876.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The press of the country commented extensively upon the action of
the women:</p>

<blockquote><p>At noon to-day, in the First Unitarian church, corner Tenth and
South, the National Woman Suffrage Association will present the
Woman's Declaration of Rights. The association will hold a
convention at the same time and place, at which Lucretia Mott is
announced to preside, and several ladies to make speeches. Most
of the ladies are known as women of ability and earnest apostles
of the creed they have espoused for the political enfranchisement
of women. Their declaration of rights, we do not doubt, will be
strongly enforced. These ladies, or some of them, have been
assigned places upon the platform at the grand celebration
ceremonies to take place in Independence Square to-day; and they
have requested leave to present their declaration of rights in
form on that occasion. They do not ask to have it read, we
believe, but simply that the statement of their case shall go on
file with the general archives of the day, so that the women of
1976 may see that their predecessors of 1876 did not let the
centennial year of independence pass without
protest.&mdash;[Philadelphia <i>Ledger</i>, July 4.</p>

<p>There was yet another incident of the Fourth, in Independence
Square. Immediately after the Declaration of Independence had
been read by Richard Henry Lee, and while the strains of the
"Greeting from Brazil" were rising upon the air, two ladies
pushed their way vigorously through the crowd and appeared upon
the speaker's platform. They were Susan B. Anthony and Matilda
Joslyn Gage. Hustling generals aside, elbowing governors, and
almost upsetting Dom Pedro in their charge, they reached
Vice-President Ferry, and handed him a scroll about three feet
long, tied with ribbons of various colors. He was seen to bow and
look bewildered; but they had retreated in the same vigorous
manner before the explanation was whispered about. It appears
that they demanded a change of programme for the sake of reading
their address; but if so, this was probably a mere form intended
for future effect. More than six months ago some of the advocates
of female suffrage began in this city their crusade against
celebrating the centennial anniversary of a nation wherein women
are not permitted to vote. The demand of Miss Anthony and Mrs.
Gage to be allowed to take part in a commemoration which many of
their associates discouraged and denounced, would have been a
cool proceeding had it been made in advance. Made, as it was,
through a very discourteous interruption, it pre-figures<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_43" id="Page_43">[Pg 43]</a></span> new
forms of violence and disregard of order which may accompany the
participation of women in active partisan politics.&mdash;[New York
<i>Tribune</i>.</p>

<p>The letter of a correspondent, printed in another column,
describing the presentation of a woman's bill of rights, in
Independence Square on the Fourth of July, will interest all
readers, whether or not they think with the correspondent, that
this little affair was the most important of the day's
proceedings. We have not a doubt that the persons who were
concerned in the affair enjoyed it heartily. Those of them who
made speeches naturally regarded their eloquence as a thing to
stir the nation. All persons who make speeches do. The day was a
warm one, and imagination, like the fire-cracker, was on fire. In
the heat of the occasion, of course, the women who want to vote
and who desire the protection of the writ of <i>habeas corpus</i>
against the tyranny of actual or possible husbands, felt that
they were making great folios of history; but the sagacity of the
press agents and reporters was not at fault. The gatherers of
news know very well what they are about; and when they decided to
omit this part of the proceedings from their reports, they simply
obeyed that instinct upon which their livelihood depends&mdash;the
instinct, namely, to write only of matters in which the public is
interested.</p>

<p>The good women who wrote and published this declaration, fancying
that they were throwing a bombshell into the gathered crowds of
American (male) citizens, are very much in earnest, doubtless,
and are entitled&mdash;we have platform authority for saying it&mdash;to
"respectful consideration"; but their movement scarcely rises, as
yet at least, to the dignity of a great historical event. There
is a prevailing indifference to their cause which is against it.
The public is not aroused to a fever heat of indignation over the
wrongs which women are everywhere suffering at the hands of the
tyrants called husbands. The popular mind is not yet awake to the
fact that men usually imprison their wives in back parlors and
maltreat them shamefully. The witnesses, wives to wit, refuse to
bear testimony to this effect, and the public placidly accepts
appearance for reality and believes that the gentlewomen who ride
about in their carriages or haunt the shops of our cities in gay
apparel are reasonably well contented with their lot in life. In
a word, it is not hostility so much as calm indifference with
which the advocates of woman suffrage have to contend, and
unluckily for them the indifference is very largely
feminine.&mdash;[New York <i>Evening Post</i>.</p>

<p>There is something awful in the thought that should the woman
suffragists be continually refused a voice in the affairs of the
nation they might at last in a fit of desperation, do what our
fathers did, and frame a declaration of independence, No, 2. Just
think of an army of crinolines willing to take arms against the
tyrant man, and sacrifice their lives, if need be, to carry out
their principles! It is easier to ridicule the woman suffrage
movement than to answer the arguments advanced by some of the
leading advocates of that question. It is only the innate
mildness of the position of women in general that has prevented a
revolution on this same subject long ago. One hundred thousand
such fire-eaters as Susan B. Anthony or Elizabeth Cady Stanton in
the land, could raise a rumpus which would cause the late
unpleasantness to pale into insignificance. Armed and equipped,
what a sight would be presented by an army of strong-minded
women! There would be no considering the question of whether the
cavalry should ride side-saddle, or <i>a la</i> clothes-pin. Such
detail would be of too small importance to receive the slightest
attention; the more vital questions would be, "How can we
slaughter the most men?" "How can we soonest convince the demons
that we have rights which must be respected?" The fact is, that
if these down-trodden women would take a firm stand in any thing
like respectable numbers, and assert their claims to suffrage at
the point of the bayonet, they would be allowed everything they
asked for. There is not a man in the land who would dare to take
up arms against a woman. Such a dernier resort on the part of the
women would be truly laughable, but the matter would cease to be
a joke, if General Susan B. Anthony, in command of a bloomer
regiment, should march into the halls of congress, armed
<i>cap-a-pie</i>, and demand the passage of a law in behalf of woman
suffrage, or the alternative of the general cleaning<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_44" id="Page_44">[Pg 44]</a></span> out of the
whole body. There is no immediate prospect of such an event, but
"hell hath no furies like a woman scorned." Long and loud have
been the appeals of the fair sex for recognition at the
ballot-box. With that faithful zeal so truly characteristic of
her sex, she has each time, for many years in the history of this
country, presented herself before the curious gaze of our
national conventions, asking, with no little stress of argument,
for a woman's plank in the platforms. If she has been heard at
all in the framed resolutions of the parties, the feeling
prevailing in the conventions has been rather to pacify and put
her off, than to grant her request through motives of political
policy. If perseverance is to be awarded, the agitators of the
woman question will yet carry off the prize they seek. Death
alone can silence such women as Susan B. Anthony and Cady
Stanton, and their teachings will live after them and unite
others of their sex into strong bands of sisterhood in a common
cause. It is safe to say, if events march on in the same
direction they have since the calling of the first National
Woman's Convention, another centennial will see woman in the
halls of legislation throughout the land, and so far as we are
concerned we have no objection, so long as she behaves
herself.&mdash;[St. Louis <i>Dispatch</i>, July 13.</p>

<p>It is a curious anomaly that the movement for national woman
suffrage in our country is most obstructed by women, and that
even where the men have doubts, their natural admiration for the
gentler sex almost converts them into champions. Certain it is
that the Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States
that the National Woman Suffrage Association presented to the
vice-president, Mr. Ferry, while he was surrounded by foreign
princes and potentates and by the governors of most of the States
of the union, faced at the same time by a countless mass of
American and foreign visitors&mdash;certain it is, we repeat, that
when this altogether unique paper was presented by Miss Susan B.
Anthony and her sisters, it became a record in the minds and
memory of all who witnessed the strange proceeding. And it is a
very well written statement, and no doubt one hundred years hence
it will be read with an interest not less ecstatic than the
enthusiasm of its present pioneers; for, in the interval, these
advanced women may have won for their withholding sisters the
entire list of male prerogatives. What adds to the force of the
present woman suffrage party is the dignity, intelligence and
purity of its participants. The venerable Lucretia Mott; the
honest, straightforward Susan B. Anthony; the cultivated Ellen
Clark Sargent (wife of the California senator); the beloved
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and indeed all the names attached to the
declaration command our respect. Whatever we may think of the
points of the declaration itself, with all our sincere admiration
of these gentlewomen, increased by the knowledge everywhere that
they are ardent republicans, we fear that their weakness, to
employ a paradox, consists in their strength, or, in other words,
that it is difficult to induce even the most benevolent and
sympathetic observer to believe that they are really as much
persecuted and oppressed as they claim to be. When the colored
man demanded his rights they were given to him because these
rights in republican constitutions were regarded as inherent, and
also because he had reciprocal duties to discharge, and heavy
burdens to carry, and when the Southern confederate demanded
restitution of his rights, he rested his claim upon the double
basis that he had earned forgiveness by his bravery, and that
political disfranchisement did not belong to a republican
example. Fortunately or unfortunately, it is very different with
the ladies; and so when they come forward insisting upon rights
heretofore accorded to men alone, they must encounter all the
differences created by the delicacy of their own sisters and the
reverence and love of the men, and the hard fact that these two
influences have made it heretofore impossible for women to
descend to the arena of politics. Having said this much, we
present a few of the cardinal points of the woman's declaration
of rights laid before the august memorial centennial celebration
last Tuesday, July 4, 1876.&mdash;[Philadelphia <i>Press</i>, July 15. </p></blockquote>

<p>On July 19, the Citizens' Suffrage Association, of Philadelphia,
joined with the National Association in commemorating the first<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_45" id="Page_45">[Pg 45]</a></span>
woman's rights convention called by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, at Seneca Falls, N. Y., July 19, 1848&mdash;thus
celebrating the twenty-eighth anniversary of that historic event.
The meeting was presided over by Edward M. Davis, president of the
association, son-in-law of Lucretia Mott, and one of the most
untiring workers in the cause. The venerable Lucretia Mott
addressed the meeting, and Miss Anthony read letters from several
of the earliest and most valued pioneers of the movement:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Tenafly</span>, New Jersey, July 19, 1876.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Lucretia Mott</span>&mdash;<i>Esteemed Friend</i>: It is twenty-eight years ago
to-day since the first woman's rights convention ever held
assembled in the Wesleyan chapel at Seneca Falls, N. Y. Could we
have foreseen, when we called that convention, the ridicule,
persecution, and misrepresentation that the demand for woman's
political, religious and social equality would involve; the long,
weary years of waiting and hoping without success; I fear we
should not have had the courage and conscience to begin such a
protracted struggle, nor the faith and hope to continue the work.
Fortunately for all reforms, the leaders, not seeing the
obstacles which block the way, start with the hope of a speedy
success. Our demands at the first seemed so rational that I
thought the mere statement of woman's wrongs would bring
immediate redress. I thought an appeal to the reason and
conscience of men against the unjust and unequal laws for women
that disgraced our statute books, must settle the question. But I
soon found, while no attempt was made to answer our arguments,
that an opposition, bitter, malignant, and persevering, rooted in
custom and prejudice, grew stronger with every new demand made,
with every new privilege granted.</p>

<p>How well I remember that July day when the leading ladies and
gentlemen of the busy town crowded into the little church;
lawyers loaded with books, to expound to us the laws; ladies with
their essays, and we who had called the convention, with our
declaration of rights, speeches, and resolutions. With what
dignity James Mott, your sainted husband, tall and stately, in
Quaker costume, presided over our novel proceedings. And your
noble sister, Martha C. Wright, was there. Her wit and wisdom
contributed much to the interest of our proceedings, and her
counsel in a large measure to what success we claimed for our
first convention. While so many of those early friends fell off
through indifference, fear of ridicule and growing conservatism,
she remained through these long years of trial steadfast to the
close of a brave, true life. She has been present at nearly every
convention, with her encouraging words and generous
contributions, and being well versed in Cushing's Manual, has
been one of our chief presiding officers. And my heart is filled
with gratitude, even at this late day, as I recall the
earnestness and eloquence with which Frederick Douglass advocated
our cause, though at that time he had no rights himself that any
white man was bound to respect. I marvel now, that in our
inexperience the interest was so well sustained through two
entire days, and that when the meeting adjourned everybody signed
the declaration and went home feeling that a new era had dawned
for woman. What had been done and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_46" id="Page_46">[Pg 46]</a></span> said seemed so preëminently
wise and proper that none of us thought of being ridiculed,
ostracised, or suspected of evil. But what was our surprise and
chagrin to find ourselves, in a few days, the target for the
press of the nation; the New York <i>Tribune</i> being our only strong
arm of defense.</p>

<p>Looking over these twenty-eight years, I feel that what we have
achieved, as yet, bears no proportion to what we have suffered in
the daily humiliation of spirit from the cruel distinctions based
on sex. Though our State laws have been essentially changed, and
positions in the schools, professions, and world of work secured
to woman, unthought of thirty years ago, yet the undercurrent of
popular thought, as seen in our social habits, theological
dogmas, and political theories, still reflects the same customs,
creeds, and codes that degrade women in the effete civilizations
of the old world. Educated in the best schools to logical
reasoning, trained to liberal thought in politics, religion and
social ethics under republican institutions, American women
cannot brook the discriminations in regard to sex that were
patiently accepted by the ignorant in barbarous ages as divine
law. And yet subjects of emperors in the old world, with their
narrow ideas of individual rights, their contempt of all
womankind, come here to teach the mothers of this republic their
true work and sphere. Such men as Carl Schurz, breathing for the
first time the free air of our free land, object to what we
consider the higher education of women, fitting them for the
trades and professions, for the sciences and arts, and
self-complacently point Lucretia Mott, Maria Mitchell, Harriet
Beecher Stowe, Susan B. Anthony, to their appropriate sphere, as
housekeepers with a string of keys, like Madam Bismark, dangling
around their waists.</p>

<p>The Rev. J. G. Holland, the Tupper of our American literature,
thanks his Creator that woman has no specialty. She was called
into being for man's happiness and interest&mdash;his helpmeet&mdash;to
wait and watch his movements, to second his endeavors, to fight
the hard battle of life behind him whose brain may be dizzy with
excess, whose limbs may be paralyzed, or if sound in body, may be
without aim or ambition, without plans or projects, destitute of
executive ability or good judgment in the business affairs of
life. And such sentimentalists, after demoralizing women with
their twaddle, discourage our demand for the right of suffrage by
pointing us to the fact that the majority of women are
indifferent to this movement in their behalf. Suppose they are;
have not the masses of all oppressed classes been apathetic and
indifferent until partial success crowned the enthusiasm of the
few? Carl Schurz would not have been exiled from his native land
could he have roused the majority of his countrymen to the same
love of liberty which burned in his own soul. Were his dreams of
freedom less real because the stolid masses were not awake to
their significance? Shall a soul that accepts martyrdom for a
principle be told he is sacrificing himself to a shadow because
the multitude can neither see nor appreciate the idea?</p>

<p>I do not feel like rejoicing over any privileges already granted
to my sex, until all our rights are conceded and secured and the
principle of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_47" id="Page_47">[Pg 47]</a></span> equality recognized and proclaimed, for every step
that brings us to a more equal plane with man but makes us more
keenly feel the loss of those rights we are still denied&mdash;more
susceptible to the insults of his assumptions and usurpations of
power. As I sum up the indignities toward women, as illustrated
by recent judicial decisions&mdash;denied the right to vote, denied
the right to practice in the Supreme Court, denied jury trial&mdash;I
feel the degradation of sex more bitterly than I did on that July
19, 1848, and never more than in listening to your speech in
Philadelphia on the Fourth of July, our nation's centennial
birthday, remembering that neither years nor wisdom, brave words
nor noble deeds, could secure political honor or call forth
national homage for women. Let it be remembered by our daughters
in future generations that Lucretia Mott, in the eighty-fourth
year of her age, asked permission, as the representative woman of
this great movement for the enfranchisement of her sex, to
present at the centennial celebration of our national liberties,
Woman's Declaration of Rights, and was refused! This was the
"respectful consideration" vouchsafed American women at the close
of the first century of our national life.</p>

<p>May we now safely prophesy justice, liberty, equality for our
daughters ere another centennial birthday shall dawn upon us!</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Sincerely yours,</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Detroit</span>, July 17, 1876.</p>

<p class="hang"><i>To Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Ann McClintock and
daughters, Amy Post, and all associated with them and myself in the
first Woman's Rights Convention, held in Seneca Falls, N. Y., July
19, 1848, as well as to our later and present associates,
Greeting:</i></p>

<p>Not able to be with you in your celebration of the nineteenth, I
will yet give evidence that I prize your remembrance of our first
assemblage and of our earliest work. That is, and will ever be as
the present is a memorable year; and may this be memorable too for
the same reason, a brave step in advance for human freedom. I would
that it could be a conclusive step in legislation for the political
freedom of the women of the nation. For it is only in harmony with
reason and experience to predict that the men as well as the women
of the near future will rejoice if this centennial year is thus
marked and glorified by so grand a deed.</p>

<p>We may well congratulate each other and have satisfaction in
knowing that we have changed the public sentiment and the laws of
many States by our advocacy and labors. We also know that while
helping the growth of our own souls, we have set many women
thinking and reading on this vital question, who in turn have
discussed it in private and public, and thus inspired others. So
that at this present time few who have examined can deny our claim.
But we are grateful to remember many women who needed no arguments,
whose clear insight and reason, pronounced in the outset that a
woman's soul was as well worth saving as a man's; that her
independence and free choice are as necessary and as valuable to
the public virtue and welfare; who saw and still see in both, equal
children of a Father who loves and protects all.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_48" id="Page_48">[Pg 48]</a></span></p>

<p>Men do not need to be convinced of the righteousness of entire
freedom for us; they have long been convinced of its justice; they
confess that it is only expediency which makes them withhold that
which they profess is precious to them. We await only an awakened
conscience and an enlarged statesmanship.</p>

<p>I bid you and the women of the republic God-speed, and close in the
language of one who went before us, Mary Wollstonecraft, who did so
much in a thoughtless age to bring both men and women back to
virtue and religion. She says: "Contending for the rights of woman,
my main argument is built on this simple principle, that if she be
not prepared by education to become the companion of man, she will
stop the progress of knowledge and virtue; for truth must be common
to all or it will be inefficacious with respect to its influence in
general practice. And how can woman be expected to coöperate unless
she know why she ought to be virtuous; unless freedom strengthen
her reason till she comprehends her duty and sees in what manner it
is connected with her real good? If children are to be educated to
understand the true principle of patriotism, their mother must be a
patriot; and the love of mankind from which an orderly train of
virtues spring, can only be produced by considering the moral and
civil interests of mankind; but the education and situation of
woman at present, shuts her out from such investigations."</p>

<p>With the greatest possible interest in your celebration and
deliberations, and assuring you that I shall be with you in thought
and spirit, I am most earnestly and cordially yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Catharine A. F. Stebbins.</p>

<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Rochester, N. Y.</span>, June 27, 1876.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Susan Anthony:</span> I thank thee most deeply for the assurance
of a welcome to your deliberative councils in our country's
centennial year, to reannounce our oft-repeated protest against
bondage to tyrant law. Most holy cause! Woman's equality, why so
long denied?... I was ready at the first tap of the drum that
sounded from that hub of our country, Seneca Falls, in 1848,
calling for an assembly of men and women to set forth and
remonstrate against the legal usurpation of our rights.... I cannot
think of anything that would give me as much pleasure as to be able
to meet with you at this time. I am exceedingly glad that you
appreciate the blessings of frequent visits and wise counsel from
our beloved and venerated pioneer, Lucretia Mott. I hope her health
and strength will enable her to see and enjoy the triumphant
victory of this work, and I wish you all the blessings of happiness
that belong to all good workers, and my love to them all as if
named.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Amy Post.</p>

<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Pomo</span>, Mendocino Co., California, June 26, 1876.</p>

<p>July 4, 1776, our revolutionary fathers&mdash;in convention
assembled&mdash;declared their independence of the mother country;
solemnly asserted the divine right of self-government and its
relation to constituted authority. With liberty their shibboleth,
the colonies triumphed in their long and fierce struggle with the
mother country, and established an independent government. They
adopted a "bill of rights" embodying their ideal of a free
government.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_49" id="Page_49">[Pg 49]</a></span></p>

<p>With singular inconsistency almost their first act, while it
secured to one-half the people of the body politic the right to tax
and govern themselves, subjected the other half to the very
oppression which had culminated in the rebellion of the colonies,
"taxation without representation," and the inflictions of an
authority to which they had not given their consent. The
constitutional provision which enfranchised the male population of
the new State and secured to it self-governing rights,
disfranchised its women, and eventuated in a tyrannical use of
power, which, exercised by husbands, fathers, and brothers, is
infinitely more intolerable than the despotic acts of a foreign
ruler.</p>

<p>As if left ignobly to illustrate the truths of their noble
declarations, no sooner did the enfranchised class enter upon the
exercise of their usurped powers than they proceeded to alienate
from the mothers of humanity rights declared to be inseparable from
humanity itself! Had they thrust the British yoke from the necks of
their wives and daughters as indignantly as they thrust it from
their own, the legal subjection of the women of to-day would not
stand out as it now does&mdash;the reproach of our republican
government. As if sons did not follow the condition of the
mothers&mdash;as if daughters had no claim to the birthright of the
fathers&mdash;they established for disfranchised woman a "dead line," by
retaining the English common law of marriage, which, unlike that of
less liberal European governments, converts the marriage altar into
an executioner's block and recognizes woman as a wife only when so
denuded of personal rights that in legal phrase she is said to
be&mdash;"dead in law"!</p>

<p>More considerate in the matter of forms than the highwayman who
kills that he may rob the unresisting dead, our gallant fathers
executed women who must need cross the line of human
happiness&mdash;legally; and administered their estate; and decreed the
disposition of their defunct personalities in legislative halls;
only omitting to provide for the matrimonial crypt the fitting
epitaph: "Here lies the relict of American freedom&mdash;taxed to
pauperism, loved to death!"</p>

<p>With all the modification of the last quarter, of a century, our
English law of marriage still invests the husband with a
sovereignty almost despotic over his wife. It secures to him her
personal service and savings, and the control and custody of her
person as against herself. Having thus reduced the wife to a dead
pauper owing service to her husband, our shrewd forefathers, to
secure the bond, confiscated her natural obligations as a child and
a mother. Whether married or single, only inability excuses a son
from the legal support of indigent and infirm parents. The married
daughter, in the discharge of her wifely duties, may tenderly care
and toil for her husband's infirm parents, or his children and
grandchildren by a prior marriage, while her own parents, or
children by a prior marriage&mdash;legally divested of any claim on her
or the husband who absorbs her personal services and earnings&mdash;are
sent to the poor-house, or pine in bitter privation; except with
consent of her husband, she can give neither her personal care nor
the avails of her industry, for their benefit. So, to be a wife,
woman ceases, in law, to be anything else&mdash;yields up the ghost of a
legal existence! That she escapes the extreme<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_50" id="Page_50">[Pg 50]</a></span> penalty of her legal
bonds in any case is due to the fact that the majority of men,
married or single, are notably better than their laws.</p>

<p>Our fathers taught the quality and initiated the form of free
government. But it was left to their posterity to learn from the
discipline of experience, that truths, old as the eternities, are
forever revealing new phases to render possible more perfect
interpretations; and to accumulate unanswerable reasons for their
extended application. That the sorest trials and most appreciable
failures of the government our fathers bequeathed, to us, have been
the direct and inevitable results of their departures from the
principles they enunciated, is so patent to all Christendom, that
free government itself has won from our mistakes material to
revolutionize the world&mdash;lessons that compel depotisms to change
their base and constitutional monarchies to make broader the
phylacteries of popular rights.</p>

<p>Is it not meet then, that on this one-hundredth anniversary of
American independence the daughters of revolutionary sires should
appeal to the sons to fulfill what the fathers promised but failed
to perform&mdash;should appeal to them as the constituted executors of
the father's will, to give full practical effect to the
self-evident truths, that "taxation without representation is
tyranny"&mdash;that "governments derive their just powers from the
consent of the governed"? With an evident common interest in all
the affairs of which government properly or improperly takes
cognizance, we claim enfranchisement on the broad ground of human
right, having proved the justice of our claim by the injustice
which has resulted to us and ours through our disfranchisement.</p>

<p>We ask enfranchisement in the abiding faith that with our
coöperative efforts free government would attain to higher averages
of intelligence and virtue; with an innate conviction, that the
sequestration of rights in the homes of the republic makes them
baneful nurseries of the monopolies, rings, and fraudulent
practices that are threatening the national integrity; and that so
long as the fathers sequester the rights of the mothers and train
their sons to exercise, and the daughters to submit to the
exactions of usurped powers, our government offices will be dens of
thieves and the national honor trail in the dust; and honest men
come out from the fiery ordeals of faithful service, denuded of the
confidence and respect justly their due. Give us liberty! We are
mothers, wives, and daughters of freemen.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">C. I. H. Nichols.</p>

<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">London,</span> Eng., July 4, 1876.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Susan:</span> I sincerely thank you for your kind letter. Many
times I have thought of writing to you, but I knew your time was
too much taken up with the good cause to have any to spare for
private correspondence. Occasionally I am pleased to see a good
account of you and your doings in the Boston <i>Investigator</i>. Oh,
how I wish I could be with you on this more than ordinarily
interesting and important occasion; or that I could at least send
my sentiments and views on human rights, which I have advocated for
over forty years, to the convention.</p>

<p>This being the centenary day of the proclamation of American
independence, I must write a few lines, if but to let the friends
know that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_51" id="Page_51">[Pg 51]</a></span> though absent in body I am with you in the cause for
which, in common with you, I have labored so long, and I hope not
labored in vain.</p>

<p>The glorious day upon which human equality was first proclaimed
ought to be commemorated, not only every hundred years, or every
year, but it ought to be constantly held before the public mind
until its grand principles are carried into practice. The
declaration that "All men [which means all human beings
irrespective of sex] have an equal right to life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness," is enough for woman as for man. We need no
other; but we must reassert in 1876 what 1776 so gloriously
proclaimed, and call upon the law-makers and the law-breakers to
carry that declaration to its logical consistency by giving woman
the right of representation in the government which she helps to
maintain; a voice in the laws by which she is governed, and all the
rights and privileges society can bestow, the same as to man, or
disprove its validity. We need no other declaration. All we ask is
to have the laws based on the same foundation upon which that
declaration rests, viz.: upon equal justice, and not upon sex.
Whenever the rights of man are claimed, moral consistency points to
the equal rights of woman.</p>

<p>I hope these few lines will fill a little space in the convention
at Philadelphia, where my voice has so often been raised in behalf
of the principles of humanity. I am glad to see my name among the
vice-presidents of the National Association. Keep a warm place for
me with the American people. I hope some day to be there yet. Give
my love to Mrs. Mott and Sarah Pugh. With kind regards from Mr.
Rose,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Ernestine L. Rose.</span></p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours affectionately,</p>

</blockquote>


<p>A new paper, <i>The Ballot-Box</i>, was started in the centennial year
at Toledo, Ohio, owned and published by Mrs. Sarah Langdon
Williams. The following editorial on the natal day of the republic
is from her pen:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">The Retrospect.</span>&mdash;Since our last issue the great centennial
anniversary of American independence has come and gone; it has
been greeted with rejoicing throughout the land; its events have
passed into history. The day in which the great principles
embodied in the Declaration of Independence were announced by the
revolutionary fathers to the world has been celebrated through
all this vast heritage, with pomp and popular glorification, and
the nation's finest orators have signalized the event in
"thoughts that breathe and words that burn." Everywhere has the
country been arrayed in its holiday attire&mdash;the gay insignia
which, old as the century, puts on fresh youth and brilliancy
each time its colors are unfurled. The successes which the
country has achieved have been portrayed with glowing eloquence,
the people's sovereignty has been the theme of congratulation and
the glorious principles of freedom and equal rights have been
enthusiastically proclaimed. In the magnificent oration of Mr.
Evarts delivered in Independence Square, the spot made sacred by
the signing of the Declaration of Independence which announced
that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of
the governed," these words occur: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_52" id="Page_52">[Pg 52]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>The chief concern in this regard, to us and the rest of the world
is, whether the proud trust, the profound radicalism, the wide
benevolence which spoke in the declaration and were infused into
the constitution at the first, have been in good-faith adhered to
by the people, and whether now the living principles supply the
living forces which sustain and direct government and society. He
who doubts needs but to look around to find all things full of
the original spirit and testifying to its wisdom and strength. </p></blockquote>

<p>Yet that very day in that very city was a large assemblage of women
convened to protest against the gross wrongs of their sex&mdash;the
representatives of twenty millions of citizens of the United
States, composing one-half of the population being governed without
their consent by the other half, who, by virtue of their superior
strength, held the reins of power and tyrannically denied them all
representation. At that very meeting at which that polished
falsehood was uttered had the women, but shortly before, been
denied the privilege of silently presenting their declaration of
rights. More forcibly is this mortifying disregard of the claims of
women thrust in their faces from the fact that, amid all this
magnificent triumph with which the growth of the century was
commemorated, amid the protestations of platforms all over the
country of the grand success of the principle of equal rights for
all, the possibility of the future according equal rights to women
as well as to men was, with the exception of one or two
praiseworthy instances, as far as reports have reached us, utterly
ignored. The women have no country&mdash;their rights are disregarded,
their appeals ignored, their protests scorned, they are treated as
children who do not comprehend their own wants, and as slaves whose
crowning duty is obedience.</p>

<p>Whether, on this great day of national triumph and national
aspiration, the possibilities of a better future for women were
forgotten; whether, from carelessness, willfulness, or wickedness,
their grand services and weary struggles in the past and hopes and
aspirations for the future were left entirely out of the account,
certain it is that our orators were too much absorbed in the good
done by men and for men, to once recur to the valuable aid,
self-denying patriotism and lofty virtues of the nation's
unrepresented women. There were a few exceptions: Col. Wm. M.
Ferry, of Ottawa county, Michigan, in his historical address
delivered in that county, July Fourth, took pains to make favorable
mention of the daughter of one of the pioneers, as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>Louisa Constant, or "Lisette," as she was called, became her
father's clerk when twelve years old, and was as well known for
wonderful faculties for business as she was for her personal
attractions. In 1828, when Lisette was seventeen years old, her
father died. She closed up his business with the British Company,
engaged with the American Fur Company, at Mackinaw, receiving
from them a large supply of merchandise, and for six years
conducted the most successful trading establishment in the
northwest. </p></blockquote>

<p>Think of it, ye who disparage the ability of woman! This little
tribute we record with gratification. Colonel Ferry remembered
woman. Henry Ward Beecher, in his oration, delivered at Peekskill,
is reported, to have said:</p>

<blockquote><p>And now there is but one step more&mdash;there is but one step more.
We permit the lame, the halt and the blind to go to the
ballot-box; we permit the foreigner and the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_53" id="Page_53">[Pg 53]</a></span> black man, the slave
and the freeman, to partake of the suffrage; there is but one
thing left out, and that is the mother that taught us, and the
wife that is thought worthy to walk side by side with us. It is
woman that is put lower than the slave, lower than the ignorant
foreigner. She is put among the paupers whom the law won't allow
to vote; among the insane whom the law won't allow to vote. But
the days are numbered in which this can take place, and she too
will vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>But these words are followed by others somewhat problematical, at
least in the respect rendered to women:</p>

<blockquote><p>As in a hundred years suffrage has extended its bounds till it
now includes the whole population, in another hundred years
everything will vote, unless it be the power of the loom, and the
locomotive, and the watch, and I sometimes think, looking at
these machines and their performances, that they too ought to
vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>But Mr. Evarts approached the close of his oration with these
words&mdash;and may they not be prophetic&mdash;may not the orator have
spoken with a deeper meaning than he knew?</p>

<blockquote><p>With these proud possessions of the past, with powers matured,
with principles settled, with habits formed, the nation passes as
it were from preparatory growth to responsible development of
character and the steady performance of duty. What labors await
it, what trials shall attend it, what triumphs for human nature,
what glory for itself, are prepared for this people in the coming
century, we may not assume to foretell. </p></blockquote>

<p>Whether the wise (?) legislators see it or not&mdash;whether the
undercurrent that is beating to the shore speaks with an utterance
that is comprehensible to their heavy apprehensions or not, the
coming century has in preparation for the country a truer humanity,
a better justice of which the protest and declaration of the
fathers pouring its vital current down through the departed
century, and surging on into the future, is, to the seeing eye, the
sure forerunner, the seed-time, of which the approaching harvest
will bring a better fruition for women&mdash;and they who scoff now will
be compelled to rejoice hereafter. But as Mr. Evarts remarked in
his allusions to future centennials:</p>

<blockquote><p>By the mere circumstance of this periodicity our generation will
be in the minds, in the hearts, on the lips of our countrymen at
the next centennial commemoration in comparison with their own
character and condition and with the great founders of the
nation. What shall they say of us? How shall they estimate the
part we bear in the unbroken line of the nation's progress? And
so on, in the long reach of time, forever and forever, our place
in the secular roll of the ages must always bring us into
observation and criticism. </p></blockquote>

<p>Shall it then be recorded of us that the demand and the protest of
the women were not made in vain? Shall it be told to future
generations that the cry for justice, the effort to sunder the
shackles with which woman has been oppressed from the dim ages of
the past, was heeded? Or, shall it be told of us, in the beginning
of this second centennial, that justice has been ignored, that only
liberty to men entered at this stage of progress, into the American
idea of self-government? Freedom to men and women alike is but a
question of time&mdash;is America now equal to the great occasion? Has
her development expanded to that degree where her legislators can
say in very truth, as of the colored man, "Let the oppressed go
free"? </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_54" id="Page_54">[Pg 54]</a></span></p>

<p>The woman's pavilion upon the centennial grounds was an
after-thought, as theologians claim woman herself to have been.<a name="FNanchor_18_18" id="FNanchor_18_18"></a><a href="#Footnote_18_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a>
The women of the country after having contributed nearly $100,000
to the centennial stock, found there had been no provision made for
the separate exhibition of their work. The centennial board, Mrs.
Gillespie, president, then decided to raise funds for the erection
of a separate building to be known as the Woman's Pavilion. It
covered an acre of ground and was erected at an expense of $30,000,
a small sum in comparison with the money which had been raised by
women and expended on the other buildings, not to speak of State
and national appropriations which the taxes levied on them had
largely helped to swell.</p>

<p>The pavilion was no true exhibit of woman's work. First, few women
are as yet owners of business which their industry largely makes
remunerative. Cotton factories in which thousands of women work,
are owned by men. The shoe business, in some branches of which
women are doing more than half, is under the ownership of men. Rich
embroideries from India, rugs of downy softness from Turkey, the
muslin of Dacca, anciently known as "The Woven Wind," the pottery
and majolica ware of P. Pipsen's widow, the cartridges and
envelopes of Uncle Sam, Waltham watches whose finest mechanical
work is done by women, and ten thousand other industries found no
place in the pavilion. Said United States Commissioner Meeker,<a name="FNanchor_19_19" id="FNanchor_19_19"></a><a href="#Footnote_19_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a>
of Colorado, "Woman's work comprises three-fourths of the
exposition; it is scattered through every building; take it away
and there would be no exposition."</p>

<p>But this pavilion rendered one good service to woman in showing her
capabilities as an engineer. The boiler which furnished the force
for running its work was under the management of a young Canadian
girl, Miss Alison, who from a child loved machinery, spending much
time in the large saw and grist mills of her father, run by engines
of two- and three-hundred horse-power, which she sometimes managed
for amusement. When her name was proposed for running the pavilion
machinery it brought much opposition. It was said the committee
would some day find the pavilion blown to atoms; that the woman
engineer would spend her time reading novels, instead of watching
the steam gauge;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_55" id="Page_55">[Pg 55]</a></span> that the idea was impracticable and should not be
thought of. But Miss Alison soon proved her own capabilities and
the falseness of these prophecies by taking her place in the
engine-room and managing its workings with the ease that a child
spins a top. Six power looms on which women wove carpets, webbing,
silks, etc., were run by this engine. At a later period the
printing of <i>The New Century for Women</i>, a paper published by the
centennial commission in the woman's building, was also done by its
means. Miss Alison declared the work to be more cleanly, more
pleasant, and infinitely less fatiguing than cooking over a kitchen
stove. "Since I have been compelled to earn my own livelihood," she
said, "I have never been engaged in work I liked so well. Teaching
school is much harder, and one is not paid as well." She expressed
confidence in her ability to manage the engine of an ocean steamer,
and said there were thousands of small engines in use in various
parts of the country, and no reason existed why women should not be
employed to manage them&mdash;following the profession of engineer as a
regular business&mdash;an engine requiring far less attention than is
given by a nurse-maid or mother to a child.</p>

<p>But to have made the woman's pavilion grandly historic, upon its
walls should have been hung the yearly protest of Harriet K. Hunt
against taxation without representation; the legal papers served
upon the Smith sisters when their Alderny cows were seized and sold
for their refusal to pay taxes while unrepresented; the papers held
by the city of Worcester for the forced sale of the house and lands
of Abby Kelly Foster, the veteran abolitionist, because she refused
to pay taxes, giving the same reason our ancestors gave when they
resisted taxation; a model of Bunker Hill monument, its foundation
laid by Lafayette in 1825, but which remained unfinished nearly
twenty years until the famous French <i>danseuse</i> Fanny Ellsler, gave
the proceeds of an exhibition for that purpose. With these should
have been exhibited framed copies of all the laws bearing unjustly
upon woman&mdash;those which rob her of her name, her earnings, her
property, her children, her person; also, the legal papers in the
case of Susan B. Anthony, who was tried and fined for seeking to
give consent to the laws which governed her; and the decision of
Mr. Justice Miller (Chief-Justice Chase dissenting) in the case of
Myra Bradwell, denying national protection for woman's civil
rights; and the later decision of Chief-Justice Waite of the
Supreme Court<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_56" id="Page_56">[Pg 56]</a></span> against Virginia L. Minor, denying to women national
protection for their political rights, decisions in favor of
state-rights which imperil the liberties not only of all women, but
of every white man in the nation.</p>

<p>Woman's most fitting contributions to the centennial exposition
would have been these protests, laws and decisions which show her
political slavery. But all this was left for rooms outside of the
centennial grounds, upon Chestnut street, where the National Woman
Suffrage Association hoisted its flag, made its protests, and wrote
the Declaration of Rights of the Women of the United States.</p>

<p>To many thoughtful people it seemed captious and unreasonable for
women to complain of injustice in this free land, amidst such
universal rejoicings. When the majority of women are seemingly
happy, it is natural to suppose that the discontent of the minority
is the result of their unfortunate individual idiosyncrasies, and
not of adverse influences in their established conditions.</p>

<p>But the history of the world shows that the vast majority in every
generation passively accept the conditions into which they are
born, while those who demand larger liberties are ever a small,
ostracised minority whose claims are ridiculed and ignored. From
our stand-point we honor the Chinese women who claim the right to
their feet and powers of locomotion, the Hindoo widows who refuse
to ascend the funeral pyre of their husbands, the Turkish women who
throw off their masks and veils and leave the harem, the Mormon
women who abjure their faith and demand monogamic relations; why
not equally honor the intelligent minority of American women who
protest against the artificial disabilities by which their freedom
is limited and their development arrested? That only a few under
any circumstances protest against the injustice of long established
laws and customs does not disprove the fact of the oppressions,
while the satisfaction of the many, if real, only proves their
apathy and deeper degradation. That a majority of the women of the
United States accept without protest the disabilities that grow out
of their disfranchisement, is simply an evidence of their ignorance
and cowardice, while the minority who demand a higher political
status clearly prove their superior intelligence and wisdom.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_1_1" id="Footnote_1_1"></a><a href="#FNanchor_1_1"><span class="label">[1]</span></a> Some suggested that the women in their various towns
and cities, draped in black, should march in solemn procession,
bells slowly tolling, bearing banners with the inscriptions:
"Taxation without representation is tyranny," "No just government
can be formed without the consent of the governed," "They who have
no voice in the laws and rulers are in a condition of slavery."
</p><p>
Others suggested that instead of women wearing crape during the
centennial glorification, the men should sit down in sackcloth and
ashes, in humiliation of spirit, as those who repented in olden
times were wont to do. The best centennial celebration, said they,
for the men of the United States, the one to cover them with glory,
would be to extend to the women of the nation all the rights,
privileges and immunities that they themselves enjoy.
</p><p>
Others proposed that women should monopolize the day, have their
own celebrations, read their own declarations and protests
demanding justice, liberty and equality. The latter suggestion was
extensively adopted, and the Fourth of July, 1876, was remarkable
for the large number of women who were "the orators of the day" in
their respective localities.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_2_2" id="Footnote_2_2"></a><a href="#FNanchor_2_2"><span class="label">[2]</span></a> Letters were read from the Hon. Alexander H. Stephens,
of Georgia; William J. Fowler, of Rochester, N. Y.; Isabella
Beecher Hooker, of Connecticut, and Susan B. Anthony.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_3_3" id="Footnote_3_3"></a><a href="#FNanchor_3_3"><span class="label">[3]</span></a> News of the cannonade of Boston had been received the
day previous.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_4_4" id="Footnote_4_4"></a><a href="#FNanchor_4_4"><span class="label">[4]</span></a> Though thus discourteously refused to an association
to secure equality of rights for women, it was subsequently rented
to "The International Peace Association."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_5_5" id="Footnote_5_5"></a><a href="#FNanchor_5_5"><span class="label">[5]</span></a> <i>President</i>&mdash;Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Tenafly, New
Jersey.
</p><p>
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>&mdash;Lucretia Mott, Pa.; Ernestine L. Rose, England;
Paulina Wright Davis, R. I.; Clarina I. H. Nichols, Cal.; Amelia
Bloomer, Iowa; Mathilde Franceska Anneke, Wis.; Virginia L. Minor,
Mo.; Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Mich.; Julia and Abby Smith, Conn.;
Abby P. Ela, N. H.; Mrs. W. H. H. Murray, Mass.; Ann T. Greely,
Me.; Eliza D. Stewart, Ohio; Mary Hamilton Williams, Ind.;
Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Ill.; Sarah Burger Stearns, Minn.; Ada
W. Lucas, Neb.; Helen E. Starrett, Kan.; Ann L. Quinby, Ky.;
Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Tenn.; Mrs. L. C. Locke, Texas; Emily
P. Collins, La.; Mary J. Spaulding, Ga.; Mrs. P. Holmes, Drake,
Ala.; Flora M. Wright, Fla.; Frances Annie Pillsbury, S. C.;
Cynthia Anthony, N. C.; Carrie F. Putnam, Va.; Anna Ella Carroll,
Md.; Abigail Scott Duniway, Oregon; Hannah H. Clapp, Nevada; Dr.
Alida C. Avery, Col.; Mary Olney Brown, Wash. Ter.; Esther A.
Morris, Wyoming Ter.; Annie Godbe, Utah.
</p><p>
<i>Advisory Committee</i>&mdash;Sarah Pugh, Pa.; Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Conn.; Charlotte B. Wilbour, N. Y.; Mary J. Channing, R. I.;
Elizabeth B. Schenck, Cal.; Judith Ellen Foster, Iowa; Lavinia
Goodell, Wis.; Annie R. Irvine, Mo.; Marian Bliss, Mich.; Mary B.
Moses, N. H.; Sarah A. Vibbart, Mass.; Lucy A. Snowe, Me.; Marilla
M. Ricker, N. H.; Mary Madden, Ohio; Emma Molloy, Ind.; Cynthia A.
Leonard, Ill.; Mrs. Dr. Stewart, Minn.; Julia Brown Bemis, Neb.;
Mrs. N. H. Cramer, Tenn.; Mrs. W. V. Tunstall, Tex.; Mrs. A.
Millspaugh, La.; Hannah M. Rogers, Fla.; Sally Holly, Va.; Sallie
W. Hardcastle, Md.; Mary P. Sautelle, Oregon; Mary F. Shields,
Col.; Amelia Giddings, Wash. Ter.; Amalia B. Post, Wyoming Ter.
</p><p>
<i>Corresponding Secretaries</i>&mdash;Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.;
Laura Curtis Bullard, New York; Jane Graham Jones, Chicago, Ill.
</p><p>
<i>Recording Secretary</i>&mdash;Lillie Devereux Blake, New York.
</p><p>
<i>Treasurer</i>&mdash;Ellen Clark Sargent, Washington, D. C.
</p><p>
<i>Executive Committee</i>&mdash;Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, N. Y.;
Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., Elizabeth B. Phelps, Mathilde F. Wendt,
Phebe H. Jones, New York; Rev. Olympia Brown, Connecticut; Sarah R.
L. Williams, Ohio; M. Adeline Thomson, Pennsylvania; Henrietta
Payne Westbrook, Pennsylvania; Nancy R. Allen, Iowa.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_6_6" id="Footnote_6_6"></a><a href="#FNanchor_6_6"><span class="label">[6]</span></a> <i>1876 Campaign Committee</i>&mdash;Susan B. Anthony, N. Y.;
Matilda Joslyn Gage, N. Y.; Phoebe W. Couzins, Mo.; Rev. Olympia
Brown, Conn.; Jane Graham Jones, Ill.; Abigail Scott Duniway,
Oregon; Laura De Force Gordon, Cal.; Annie C. Savery, Iowa.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_7_7" id="Footnote_7_7"></a><a href="#FNanchor_7_7"><span class="label">[7]</span></a> <i>Resident Congressional Committee</i>&mdash;Sara Andrews
Spencer, Ellen Clark Sargent, Ruth Carr Denison, Belva A. Lockwood,
Mrs. E. D. E. N. Southworth.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_8_8" id="Footnote_8_8"></a><a href="#FNanchor_8_8"><span class="label">[8]</span></a> Among those who took part in the discussions were Dr.
Clemence Lozier, Susan B. Anthony, Helen M. Slocum, Sarah Goodyear,
Helen M. Cook, Abby and Julia Smith, Sara Andrews Spencer, Miss
Charlotte Ray, Lillie Devereux Blake and Matilda Joslyn Gage.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_9_9" id="Footnote_9_9"></a><a href="#FNanchor_9_9"><span class="label">[9]</span></a> Letters were written to these conventions from
different States. Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans, La.;
Elizabeth A. Meriwether, Memphis, Tenn.; Mrs. Margaret V. Longley,
Cincinnati, O., all making eloquent appeals for some consideration
of the political rights of women.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_10_10" id="Footnote_10_10"></a><a href="#FNanchor_10_10"><span class="label">[10]</span></a> Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage, and Mrs.
Spencer.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_11_11" id="Footnote_11_11"></a><a href="#FNanchor_11_11"><span class="label">[11]</span></a> On the receipt of these letters a prolonged council
was held by the officers of the association at their headquarters,
as to what action they should take on the Fourth of July. Mrs. Mott
and Mrs. Stanton decided for themselves that after these rebuffs
they would not even sit on the platform, but at the appointed time
go to the church they had engaged for a meeting, and open their
convention. Others more brave and determined insisted that women
had an equal right to the glory of the day and the freedom of the
platform, and decided to take the risk of a public insult in order
to present the woman's declaration and thus make it an historic
document.&mdash;[E.C.S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_12_12" id="Footnote_12_12"></a><a href="#FNanchor_12_12"><span class="label">[12]</span></a> During the reading of the declaration to an immense
concourse of people, Mrs. Gage stood beside Miss Anthony, and held
an umbrella over her head, to shelter her friend from the intense
heat of the noonday sun; and thus in the same hour, on opposite
sides of old Independence Hall, did the men and women express their
opinions on the great principles proclaimed on the natal day of the
republic. The declaration was handsomely framed and now hangs in
the vice-president's room in the capitol at Washington.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_13_13" id="Footnote_13_13"></a><a href="#FNanchor_13_13"><span class="label">[13]</span></a> This document was signed by Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, Paulina Wright Davis, Ernestine L. Rose, Clarina I.
H. Nichols, Mary Ann McClintock, Mathilde Franceska Anneke, Sarah
Pugh, Amy Post, Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Susan B. Anthony, Matilda
Joslyn Gage, Clemence S. Lozier, Olympia Brown, Mathilde F. Wendt,
Adleline Thomson, Ellen Clark Sargent, Virginia L. Minor, Catherine
V. Waite, Elizabeth B. Schenck, Phoebe W. Couzins, Elizabeth
Boynton Harbert, Laura De Force Gordon, Sara Andrews Spencer,
Lillie Devereux Blake, Jane Graham Jones, Abigail Scott Duniway,
Belva A. Lockwood, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Sarah L. Williams, Abby
P. Ela.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_14_14" id="Footnote_14_14"></a><a href="#FNanchor_14_14"><span class="label">[14]</span></a>
</p>
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">One hundred years hence, what a change will be made,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">In politics, morals, religion and trade,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">In statesmen who wrangle or ride on the fence,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">These things will be altered <i>a hundred years hence</i>.<br /></span>
</div><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">Our laws then will be uncompulsory rules,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Our prisons converted to national schools.<br /></span>
<span class="i0">The pleasure of sinning 'tis all a pretense,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And the people will find it so, <i>a hundred years hence</i>.<br /></span>
</div><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">Lying, cheating and fraud will be laid on the shelf,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Men will neither get drunk, nor be bound up in self,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">But all live together, good neighbors and friends,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Just as <i>Christian folks</i> ought to, <i>a hundred years hence</i>.<br /></span>
</div><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">Then woman, man's partner, man's equal shall stand,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">While beauty and harmony govern the land,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">To think for oneself will be no offense,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">The world will be thinking <i>a hundred years hence</i>.<br /></span>
</div><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">Oppression and war will be heard of no more,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Nor the blood of a slave leave his print on our shore,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Conventions will then be a useless expense,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">For we'll all go <i>free-suffrage a hundred years hence</i>.<br /></span>
</div><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">Instead of speech-making to satisfy wrong,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">All will join the glad chorus to sing Freedom's song;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And if the Millenium is not a pretense,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">We'll all be good brothers <i>a hundred years hence</i>.<br /></span>
</div></div>
<p>
This song was written in 1852, at Cleveland, Ohio, by Frances Dana
Gage, expressly for John W. Hutchinson. Several of the friends were
staying with Mrs. Caroline M. Severance, on their way to the Akron
convention, where it was first sung.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_15_15" id="Footnote_15_15"></a><a href="#FNanchor_15_15"><span class="label">[15]</span></a> Protests and declarations were read by Mrs. Elizabeth
Boynton Harbert, in Evanston, Ill.; Sarah L. Knox, California; Mrs.
Rosa L. Segur, Toledo, Ohio; Mrs. Mary Olney Brown, Olympia,
Washington territory; Mrs. Henrietta Paine Westbrook, New York
city. In Maquoketa, Iowa; Mrs. Nancy R. Allen read the declaration
at the regular county celebration. Madam Anneke, Wis.; Elizabeth
Avery Meriwether, Tenn.; Lucinda B. Chandler, N. J.; Jane E.
Telker, Iowa; S. P. Abeel, D. C.; Mrs. J. A. Johns, Oregon;
Elizabeth Lisle Saxon, La.; Mrs. Elsie Stewart, Kan.; and many
others impossible to name, sent in protests and declarations.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_16_16" id="Footnote_16_16"></a><a href="#FNanchor_16_16"><span class="label">[16]</span></a> See <a href="#APPENDIX">Appendix.</a></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_17_17" id="Footnote_17_17"></a><a href="#FNanchor_17_17"><span class="label">[17]</span></a> Henry Hutchinson, the son of John.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_18_18" id="Footnote_18_18"></a><a href="#FNanchor_18_18"><span class="label">[18]</span></a> A German legend says, God first made a mouse, but
seeing he had made a mistake he made the cat as an afterthought,
therefore if woman is God's afterthought, man must be a mistake.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_19_19" id="Footnote_19_19"></a><a href="#FNanchor_19_19"><span class="label">[19]</span></a> Afterwards killed by the Indians in Colorado.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_57" id="Page_57">[Pg 57]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXVIII" id="CHAPTER_XXVIII"></a>CHAPTER XXVIII.</h2>

<h3>NATIONAL CONVENTIONS, HEARINGS AND REPORTS.</h3>

<h3>1877-1878-1879.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Renewed Appeal for a Sixteenth Amendment&mdash;Mrs. Gage Petitions for
Removal of Political Disabilities&mdash;Ninth Washington Convention,
1877&mdash;Jane Grey Swisshelm&mdash;Letters, Robert Purvis, Wendell
Phillips, Francis E. Abbott&mdash;10,000 Petitions Referred to the
Committee on Privileges and Elections by Special Request of the
Chairman, Hon. O. P. Morton, of Indiana&mdash;May Anniversary in New
York&mdash;Tenth Washington Convention, 1878&mdash;Frances E. Willard and
30,000 Temperance Women Petition Congress&mdash;40,000 Petition for a
Sixteenth Amendment&mdash;Hearing before the Committee on Privileges
and Elections&mdash;Madam Dahlgren's Protest&mdash;Mrs. Hooker's Hearing on
Washington's Birthday&mdash;Mary Clemmer's Letter to Senator
Wadleigh&mdash;His Adverse Report&mdash;Favorable Minority Report by
Senator Hoar&mdash;Thirtieth Anniversary, Unitarian Church, Rochester,
N. Y., July 19, 1878&mdash;The Last Convention Attended by Lucretia
Mott&mdash;Letters, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips&mdash;Church
Resolution Criticised by Rev. Dr. Strong&mdash;International Women's
Congress in Paris&mdash;Washington Convention, 1879&mdash;U.S. Supreme
Court Opened to Women&mdash;May Anniversary at St. Louis&mdash;Address of
Welcome by Phoebe Couzins&mdash;Women in Council Alone&mdash;Letter from
Josephine Butler, of England&mdash;Mrs. Stanton's Letter to <i>The
National Citizen and Ballot-Box</i>. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">With</span> the close of the centennial year the new departure under the
fourteenth amendment ended. Though defeated at the polls, in the
courts, in the national celebration, in securing a plank in the
platforms of the Republican and Democratic parties, and in our own
conventions&mdash;so far as the few were able to rouse the many to
simultaneous action&mdash;nevertheless a wide-spread agitation had been
secured by the presentation of this phase of the question.</p>

<p>Although the unanswerable arguments of statesmen and lawyers in the
halls of congress and the Supreme Court of the United States, had
alike proved unavailing in establishing the civil and political
rights of women on a national basis, their efforts had not been in
vain. The trials had brought the question before a new order of
minds, and secured able constitutional arguments which were
reviewed in many law journals. The equally able congressional
debates, reported verbatim, read by a large constituency in every
State of the Union, did an educational work on the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_58" id="Page_58">[Pg 58]</a></span> question of
woman's enfranchisement that cannot be overestimated.</p>

<p>But when the final decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Virginia L. Minor made all agitation in that direction hopeless,
the National Association returned to its former policy, demanding a
sixteenth amendment. The women generally came to the conclusion
that if in truth there was no protection for them in the original
constitution nor the late amendments, the time had come for some
clearly-defined recognition of their citizenship by a sixteenth
amendment.</p>

<p>The following appeal and petition were extensively circulated:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Women of the United States:</i></p>

<p>Having celebrated our centennial birthday with a national
jubilee, let us now dedicate the dawn of the second century to
securing justice to women. For this purpose we ask you to
circulate a petition to congress, just issued by the National
Association, asking an amendment to the United States
Constitution, that shall prohibit the several States from
disfranchising citizens on account of sex. We have already sent
this petition throughout the country for the signatures of those
men and women who believe in the citizen's right to vote.</p>

<p>To see how large a petition each State rolls up, and to do the
work as expeditiously as possible, it is necessary that some
person in each county should take the matter in charge, urging
upon all, thoroughness and haste. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> The petitions should be
returned before January 16, 17, 1877, when we shall hold our
Eighth Annual Convention at the capital, and ask a hearing before
congress.</p>

<p>Having petitioned our law-makers, State and national, for years,
many from weariness have vowed to appeal no more; for our
petitions, say they, by the tens of thousands, are piled up in
the national archives, unheeded and ignored. Yet it is possible
to roll up such a mammoth petition, borne into congress on the
shoulders of stalwart men, that we can no longer be neglected or
forgotten. Statesmen and politicians alike are conquered by
majorities. We urge the women of this country to make now the
same united effort for their own rights that they did for the
slaves at the South when the thirteenth amendment was pending.
Then a petition of over 300,000 was rolled up by the leaders of
the suffrage movement, and presented in the Senate by the Hon.
Charles Sumner. But the statesmen who welcomed woman's untiring
efforts to secure the black man's freedom, frowned down the same
demands when made for herself. Is not liberty as sweet to her as
to him? Are not the political disabilities of sex as grievous as
those of color? Is not a civil-rights bill that shall open to
woman the college doors, the trades and professions&mdash;that shall
secure her personal and property rights, as necessary for her
protection as for that of the colored man? And yet the highest
judicial authorities have decided that the spirit and letter of
our national constitution are not broad enough to protect woman
in her political rights; and for the redress of her wrongs<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_59" id="Page_59">[Pg 59]</a></span> they
remand her to the State. If our <i>Magna Charta</i> of human rights
can be thus narrowed by judicial interpretations in favor of
class legislation, then must we demand an amendment that, in
clear, unmistakable language, shall declare the equality of all
citizens before the law.</p>

<p>Women are citizens, first of the United States, and second of the
State wherein they reside; hence, if robbed by State authorities
of any right founded in nature or secured by law, they have the
same right to national protection against the State, as against
the infringements of any foreign power. If the United States
government can punish a woman for voting in one State, why has it
not the same power to protect her in the exercise of that right
in every State? The constitution declares it the duty of congress
to guarantee to every State a republican form of government, to
every citizen, equality of rights. This is not done in States
where women, thoroughly qualified, are denied admission into
colleges which their property is taxed to build and endow; where
they are denied the right to practice law and are thus debarred
from one of the most lucrative professions; where they are denied
a voice in the government, and thus, while suffering all the ills
that grow out of the giant evils of intemperance, prostitution,
war, heavy taxation and political corruption, stand powerless to
effect any reform. Prayers, tears, psalm-singing and
expostulation are light in the balance compared with that power
at the ballot-box that coins opinions into law. If women who are
laboring for peace, temperance, social purity and the rights of
labor, would take the speediest way to accomplish what they
propose, let them demand the ballot in their own hands, that they
may have a direct power in the government. Thus only can they
improve the conditions of the outside world and purify the home.
As political equality is the door to civil, religious and social
liberty, here must our work begin.</p>

<p>Constituting, as we do, one-half the people, bearing the burdens
of one-half the national debt, equally responsible with man for
the education, religion and morals of the rising generation, let
us with united voice send forth a protest against the present
political status of woman, that shall echo and reëcho through the
land. In view of the numbers and character of those making the
demand, this should be the largest petition ever yet rolled up in
the old world or the new; a petition that shall settle forever
the popular objection that "women do not want to vote."</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span>, <i>President.</i></p>
<p><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee.</i><br />
<span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Corresponding Secretary.</i></p>



<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-break"><i>Tenafly, N. J.</i>, November 10, 1876.</p>

<p><i>To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress
assembled:</i></p>

<p>The undersigned citizens of the United States, residents of the
State of &mdash;&mdash;, earnestly pray your honorable bodies to adopt
measures for so amending the constitution as to prohibit the
several States from disfranchising United States citizens on
account of sex.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>In addition to the general petition asking for a sixteenth
amendment, Matilda Joslyn Gage, this year (1877) sent an individual
petition, similar in form to those offered by disfranchised<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_60" id="Page_60">[Pg 60]</a></span> male
citizens, asking to be relieved from her political disabilities.
This petition was presented by Hon. Elias W. Leavenworth, of the
House of Representatives, member from the thirty-third New York
congressional district. It read as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
in Congress assembled:</i></p>

<p>Matilda Joslyn Gage, a native born citizen of the United States,
and of the State of New York, wherein she resides, most earnestly
petitions your honorable body for the removal of her political
disabilities and that she may be declared invested with full
power to exercise her right of self government at the ballot-box,
all State constitutions, or statute laws to the contrary
notwithstanding. </p></blockquote>

<p>The above petition was presented January 24, and the following bill
introduced February 5:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">An Act</span> <i>to relieve the political disabilities of Matilda Joslyn
Gage</i>:</p>

<p>Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in congress assembled, that all
political disabilities heretofore existing in reference to
Matilda Joslyn Gage, of Fayetteville, Onondaga county, State of
New York, be removed and she be declared a citizen of the United
States, clothed with all the political rights and powers of
citizenship, namely: the right to vote and to hold office to the
same extent and in the same degree that male citizens enjoy these
rights. This act to take effect immediately. </p></blockquote>

<p>The following year a large number of similar petitions were sent
from different parts of the country, the National Association
distributing printed forms to its members in the various States.
The power of congress to thus enfranchise women upon their
individual petitions is as undoubted as the power to grant
individual amnesty, to remove the political disabilities of men
disfranchised for crime against United States laws, or to clothe
foreigners, honorably discharged from the army, with the ballot.</p>

<p>The first convention<a name="FNanchor_20_20" id="FNanchor_20_20"></a><a href="#Footnote_20_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> after the all-engrossing events of the
centennial celebration assembled in Lincoln Hall, Washington,
January 16, with a good array of speakers, Mrs. Stanton presiding.
After an inspiring song by the Hutchinsons and reports from the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_61" id="Page_61">[Pg 61]</a></span>
various States, Sara Andrews Spencer, chairman of the congressional
committee, gave some encouraging facts in regard to the large
number of petitions being presented to congress daily, and read
many interesting letters from those who had been active in their
circulation. Over 10,000 were presented during this last session of
the forty-fourth congress. At the special request of the chairman,
Senator Morton of Indiana, they were referred to the Committee on
Privileges and Elections; heretofore they had always been placed in
the hands of the Judiciary Committee in both Senate and House. A
list of committees<a name="FNanchor_21_21" id="FNanchor_21_21"></a><a href="#Footnote_21_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> was reported by Mrs. Gage which was adopted.
Mrs. Swisshelm of Pennsylvania, was introduced. She said:</p>

<blockquote><p>In 1846 she inherited an estate from her parents, and then she
learned the injustice of the husband holding the wife's property.
In 1848, however, she got a law passed giving equal rights to
both men and women, and everybody decried her for the injury she
had done to all homes by thus throwing the apple of discord into
families. So in Pennsylvania women now hold property absolutely,
and can sell without the consent of the husband. But actually no
woman is free. As in the days of slavery the master owned the
services, not the body of his slaves, so it is with the wife. The
husband owns the services and all that can be earned by his wife.
It is quite possible, as things now stand, to legislate a woman
out of her home, and yet she cooks, and bakes, and works, and
saves, but it all belongs to the man, and if she dies the second
wife gets it all, for she always manages him. The extravagance of
dress is due alone to-day to the fact that from what woman saves
in her own expenses and those of her house she gets no benefit at
all, nor do her children, for it goes to the second wife, who,
perhaps, turns the children out of doors. </p></blockquote>

<p>The resolutions called out a prolonged discussion, especially the
one on compulsory education, and that finally passed with a few
dissenting voices:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span> one-half of the citizens of the republic being
disfranchised are everywhere subjects of legislative caprice, and
may be anywhere robbed of their most sacred rights; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the duty of the Congress of the United
States to submit a proposition for a sixteenth amendment to the
national constitution prohibiting the several States from
disfranchising citizens on account of sex.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span> a monarchial government lives only through the ignorance
of the masses, and a republican government can live only through
the intelligence of the people; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the duty of Congress to submit to the
State legislatures propositions to so amend the Constitution of
the United States as to make education compulsory, and to make
intelligence a qualification for citizenship and suffrage in the
United<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_62" id="Page_62">[Pg 62]</a></span> States; said amendments to take effect January 1, 1880,
when all citizens of legal age, without distinction of sex, who
can read and write the English language, may be admitted to
citizenship.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span> a century of experience has proven that the safety and
stability of free institutions and the protection of all United
States citizens in the exercise of their inalienable rights and
the proper expression of the will of the whole people, are not
guaranteed by the present form of the Constitution of the United
States; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the duty of the several States to call a
national convention to revise the Constitution of the United
States, which, notwithstanding its fifteen amendments, does not
establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, promote the
general welfare, nor secure the blessings of liberty to us and to
our posterity.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of the women of this nation are due
to the Rev. Isaac M. See, of the Presbytery of Newark, for his
noble stand in behalf of woman's right to preach.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the action of the Presbytery of Newark in
condemning the Rev. I. M. See for his liberal course is an
indication of the tyranny of the clergy over the consciences of
women, and a determination to fetter the spirit of freedom. </p></blockquote>

<p>Among the many letters to the convention we give the following:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, 16th January, 1877.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Friend:</span> These lines will not reach you in time to be of use.
I am sorry. But absence and cares must apologize for me. I think
you are on the right track&mdash;the best method to agitate the
question; and I am with you. I mean always to help everywhere and
every one.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Wendell Phillips.</p>
<p class="ltr-to">Miss <span class="smcap">Anthony</span>.</p>

<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Manchester</span>, Eng., January 3, 1877.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony:</span> It is with great pleasure that I write a word
of sympathy and encouragement, on the occasion of your Ninth Annual
Convention of the National Woman Suffrage Association.</p>

<p>Beyond wishing you a successful gathering, I will say nothing about
the movement in the United States. Women of either country can do
nothing directly in promoting the movement in the other; and if
they attempt to do so, there is danger that they may hinder and
embarrass those who are bearing the burden and heat of the day. The
only way in which mutual help can be given is through the women of
each nation working to gain ground in their own country. Then,
every step so gained, every actual advance of the boundaries of
civil and political rights for women is a gain, not only to the
country which has secured it, but to the cause of human freedom all
over the world.</p>

<p>This year marks the decennial of the movement in the United
Kingdom. In the current number of our journal, there is a sketch of
the political history of the movement here, which I commend to the
attention of your convention, and which I need not repeat. The
record will be seen to be one of great and rapid advance in the
political rights of women, but there has been an equally marked
change in other directions; women's interests in education, and
women's questions generally, are treated now with much more
respectful consideration than they were ten years ago. We are
gratified in believing that much of this consideration is due to
the attention roused by our energetic and persistent demand for the
suffrage, and in believing that infinitely greater benefits of the
same kind will accrue when women shall be in possession of the
franchise. Beyond the material gains in legislation, we find a
general improvement in the tone of feeling and thought toward
women&mdash;an approach, indeed, to the sentiment recently expressed by
Victor Hugo, that as man was the problem of the eighteenth century,
woman is the problem of the nineteenth century. May our efforts to
solve this problem lead to a happy issue.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Lydia E. Becker.</span></p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours truly,</p>


<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_63" id="Page_63">[Pg 63]</a></span></p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, Mass., January 10, 1877.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Mrs. Stanton:</span> It is with some little pain, I confess, that I
accept your very courteous invitation to write a letter for your
Washington convention on the 19th instant; for what I must say, if
I say anything at all, is what I know will be very unacceptable&mdash;I
fear very displeasing&mdash;to the majority of those to whom you will
read it. If you conclude that my letter will obstruct, and not
facilitate the advancement of the cause you have so faithfully
labored for these many years, you have my most cheerful consent to
deliver it over to that general asylum of profitless
productions&mdash;the waste-basket.</p>

<p>Running this risk, however, I have this brief message to send to
those who now meet on behalf of woman's full recognition as
politically the equal of man, namely: that every woman suffragist
who upholds Christianity, tears down with one hand what she seeks
to build up with the other&mdash;that the Bible sanctions the slavery
principle itself, and applies it to woman as the divinely ordained
subordinate of man&mdash;and that by making herself the great support
and mainstay of instituted Christianity, woman rivets the chain of
superstition on her own soul and on man's soul alike, and justifies
him in obeying this religion by keeping her in subjection to
himself. If Christianity and the Bible are true, woman is man's
servant, and ought to be. The Bible gave to negro-slavery its most
terrible power&mdash;that of summoning the consciences of the Christians
to its defense; and the Bible gives to woman-slavery the same
terrible power. So plain is this to me that I take it as a mere
matter of course, when all the eloquence of the woman-suffrage
platform fails to arouse the Christian women of this country to a
proper assertion of their rights. What else could one expect? Women
will remain contented subjects and subordinates just so long as
they remain devoted believers in Christianity; and no amount of
argument, or appeal, or agitation can change this fact. If you
cannot educate women as a whole out of Christianity, you cannot
educate them as a whole into the demand for equal rights.</p>

<p>The reason of this is short: Christianity teaches the rights of
God, not the rights of man or woman. You may search the Bible from
Genesis to Revelations, and not find one clear, strong, bold
affirmation of <i>human rights as such</i>; yet it is on human rights as
such&mdash;on the equality of all individuals, man or woman, with
respect to natural rights&mdash;that the demand for woman suffrage must
ultimately rest. I know I stand nearly alone in this, but I believe
from my soul that the woman movement is fundamentally
<i>anti-Christian</i>, and can find no deep justification but in the
ideas, the spirit, and the faith of free religion. Until women come
to see this too, and to give their united influence to this latter
faith, political power in their hands would destroy even that
measure of liberty which free-thinkers of both sexes have painfully
established by the sacrifices of many generations. Yet I should
vote for woman suffrage all the same, because it is woman's right.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Francis E. Abbot</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours very cordially,</p>



<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Washington, D. C.</span>, January 16, 1877</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Friends:</span> I thank you for your generous recognition of me as
an humble co-worker in the cause of equal rights, and regret deeply
my inability to be present at this anniversary of your association.
I tender to you, however, my hearty congratulations on the marked
progress of our cause. Wherever I have been, and with whomsoever I
have talked, making equal rights invariably the subject, I find no
opposing feeling to the simple and just demands we make for our
cause. The chief difficulty in the way is the indifference of the
people; they need an awakening. Some Stephen S. Foster or Anna
Dickinson should come forward, and with their thunder and
lightning, arouse the people from their deadly apathy. I am glad to
know that you are to have with you our valued friend, E. M. Davis,
of Philadelphia. We are indebted to him more than all besides for
whatever of life is found in the movement in Pennsylvania. He has
spared neither time, money, nor personal efforts. Hoping you will
have abundant success, I am, dear friends, with you and the cause
for which you have so nobly labored, a humble and sincere worker.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Robert Purvis.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_64" id="Page_64">[Pg 64]</a></span></p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Oakland</span>, Cal., January 9, 1877.</p>

<p><i>To the National Suffrage Convention, Washington, D. C.:</i></p>

<p>Our incorporated State society has deputed Mrs. Ellen Clark
Sargent, the wife of Hon. A. A. Sargent, our fearless champion in
the United States Senate, to represent the women of California in
your National Convention, and with one so faithful and earnest, we
know our cause will be well represented; but there are many among
us who would gladly have journeyed to Washington to participate in
your councils. Many and radical changes have taken place in the
past year favorable to our sex, not the least of which was the
nomination and election of several women to the office of county
superintendent of common schools, by both the Democratic and
Republican parties, in which, however, the Democrats led. Important
changes in the civil code favorable to the control of property by
married women, have been made by the legislatures during the last
four years, through the untiring efforts of Mrs. Sarah Wallis, Mrs.
Knox and Mrs. Watson, of Santa Clara county. In our schools and
colleges, in every avenue of industry, and in the general
liberalization of public opinion there has been marked improvement.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF60"><span class="smcap">Laura DeForce Gordon</span>,<br />
<i>Pres. California W. S. S.</i> (Incorporated).</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours very truly,</p>

</blockquote>


<p class="ltr-break">Mrs. Stanton's letter to <i>The Ballot-Box</i> briefly sums up the
proceedings of the convention:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Tenafly, N. J.</span>, January 24, 1877.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Editor:</span> If the little <i>Ballot-Box</i> is not already stuffed to
repletion with reports from Washington, I crave a little space to
tell your readers that the convention was in all points
successful. Lincoln Hall, which seats about fifteen hundred
people, was crowded every session. The speaking was good, order
reigned, no heart-burnings behind the scenes, and the press
vouchsafed "respectful consideration."</p>

<p>The resolutions you will find more interesting and suggestive
than that kind of literature usually is, and I ask especial
attention to the one for a national convention to revise the
constitution, which, with all its amendments, is like a kite with
a tail of infinite length still to be lengthened. It is evident a
century of experience has so liberalized the minds of the
American people, that they have outgrown the constitution adapted
to the men of 1776. It is a monarchial document with republican
ideas engrafted in it, full of compromises between antagonistic
principles. An American statesman remarked that "The civil war
was fought to expound the constitution on the question of
slavery." Expensive expounding! Instead of further amending and
expounding, the real work at the dawn of our second century is to
make a new one. Again, I ask the attention of our women to the
educational resolution. After much thought it seems to me we
should have education compulsory in every State of the Union, and
make it the basis of suffrage, a national law, requiring that
those who vote after 1880 must be able to read and write the
English language. This would prevent ignorant foreigners voting
in six months after landing on our shores, and stimulate our
native population to higher intelligence. It would dignify and
purify the ballot-box and add safety and stability to our free
institutions. Mrs. Jane Grey Swisshelm, who had just returned
from Europe, attended the convention, and spoke on this subject.</p>

<p>Belva A. Lockwood, who had recently been denied admission to the
Supreme Court of the United States, although a lawyer in good
practice<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_65" id="Page_65">[Pg 65]</a></span> for three years in the Supreme Court of the District,
made a very scathing speech, reviewing the decision of the Court.
It may seem to your disfranchised readers quite presumptuous for
one of their number to make those nine wise men on the bench,
constituting the highest judicial authority in the United States,
subjects for ridicule before an audience of the sovereign people;
but, when they learn the decision in Mrs. Lockwood's case, they
will be reassured as to woman's capacity to cope with their
wisdom. "To arrive at the same conclusion, with these judges, it
is not necessary," said Mrs. Lockwood, "to understand
constitutional law, nor the history of English jurisprudence, nor
the inductive or deductive modes of reasoning, as no such
profound learning or processes of thought were involved in that
decision, which was simply this: 'There is no precedent for
admitting a woman to practice in the Supreme Court of the United
States, hence Mrs. Lockwood's application cannot be considered.'"</p>

<p>On this point Mrs. Lockwood showed that it was the glory of each
generation to make its own precedents. As there was none for Eve
in the garden of Eden, she argued there need be none for her
daughters on entering the college, the church, or the courts.
Blackstone&mdash;of whose works she inferred the judges were
ignorant&mdash;gives several precedents for women in the English
courts. As Mrs. Lockwood&mdash;tall, well-proportioned, with dark hair
and eyes, regular features, in velvet dress and train, with
becoming indignation at such injustice&mdash;marched up and down the
platform and rounded out her glowing periods, she might have
fairly represented the Italian Portia at the bar of Venice. No
more effective speech was ever made on our platform.</p>

<p>Matilda Joslyn Gage, whose speeches are always replete with
historical research, reviewed the action of the Republican party
toward woman from the introduction of the word "male" into the
fourteenth amendment of the constitution down to the celebration
of our national birthday in Philadelphia, when the declaration of
the mothers was received in contemptuous silence, while Dom Pedro
and other foreign dignitaries looked calmly on. Mrs. Gage makes
as dark a chapter for the Republicans as Mrs. Lockwood for the
judiciary, or Mrs. Blake for the church. Mrs. B. had been an
attentive listener during the trial of the Rev. Isaac See before
the presbytery of Newark, N. J., hence she felt moved to give the
convention a chapter of ecclesiastical history, showing the
struggles through which the church was passing with the
irrepressible woman in the pulpit. Mrs. Blake's biblical
interpretations and expositions proved conclusively that Scott's
and Clark's commentaries would at no distant day be superceded by
standard works from woman's standpoint. It is not to be supposed
that women ever can have fair play as long as men only write and
interpret the Scriptures and make and expound the laws. Why would
it not be a good idea for women to leave these conservative
gentlemen alone in the churches? How sombre they would look with
the flowers, feathers, bright ribbons and shawls all gone&mdash;black
coats only kneeling and standing&mdash;and with the deep-toned organ
swelling up, the solemn bass voice heard only in awful solitude;
not one soprano note to rise above the low, dull wail to fill the
arched roof with triumphant melody! One such experiment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_66" id="Page_66">[Pg 66]</a></span> from
Maine to California would bring these bigoted presbyteries to
their senses.</p>

<p>Miss Phoebe Couzins, too, was at the convention, and gave her new
lecture, "A Woman without a Country," in which she shows all that
woman has done&mdash;from fitting out ships for Columbus, to sharing
the toils of the great exposition&mdash;without a place of honor in
the republic for the living, or a statue to the memory of the
dead. Hon. A. G. Riddle and Francis Miller spoke ably and
eloquently as usual; the former on the sixteenth amendment and
the presidential aspect, modestly suggesting that if twenty
million women had voted, they might have been able to find out
for whom the majority had cast their ballots. Mr. Miller
recommended State action, advising us to concentrate our forces
in Colorado as a shorter way to success than constitutional
amendments.</p>

<p>His speech aroused Susan B. Anthony to the boiling point; for, if
there is anything that exasperates her, it is to be remanded, as
she says, to John Morrissey's constituency for her rights. She
contends that if the United States authority could punish her for
voting in the State of New York, it has the same power to protect
her there in the exercise of that right. Moreover, she said, we
have two wings to our movement. The American Association is
trying the popular-vote method. The National Association is
trying the constitutional method, which has emancipated and
enfranchised the African and secured to that race all their civil
rights. To-day by this method they are in the courts, the
colleges, and the halls of legislation in every State in the
Union, while we have puttered with State rights for thirty years
without a foothold anywhere, except in the territories, and it is
now proposed to rob the women of their rights in those
localities. As the two methods do not conflict, and what is done
in the several States tells on the nation, and what is done by
congress reacts again on the States, it must be a good thing to
keep up both kinds of agitation.</p>

<p>In the middle of November the National Association sent out
thousands of petitions and appeals for the sixteenth amendment,
which were published and commented on extensively by the press in
every State in the Union. Early in January they began to pour
into Washington at the rate of a thousand a day, coming from
twenty-six different States. It does not require much wisdom to
see that when these petitions were placed in the hands of the
representatives of their States, a great educational work was
accomplished at Washington, and public sentiment there has its
legitimate effect throughout the country, as well as that already
accomplished in the rural districts by the slower process of
circulating and signing the petitions. The present uncertain
position of men and parties, has made politicians more ready to
listen to the demands of their constituents, and never has woman
suffrage been treated with more courtesy in Washington.</p>

<p>To Sara Andrews Spencer we are indebted, for the great labor of
receiving, assorting, counting, rolling-up and planning the
presentation of the petitions. It was by a well considered <i>coup
d'etat</i> that, with her brave coadjutors, she appeared on the
floor of the House at the moment of adjournment,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_67" id="Page_67">[Pg 67]</a></span> and there,
without circumlocution, gave each member a petition from his own
State. Even Miss Anthony, always calm in the hour of danger, on
finding herself suddenly whisked into those sacred enclosures,
amid a crowd of stalwart men, spittoons, and scrap-baskets, when
brought <i>vis-a-vis</i> with our champion, Mr. Hoar, hastily
apologized for the intrusion, to which the honorable gentleman
promptly replied, "I hope, Madam, yet to see you on this floor,
in your own right, and in business hours too." Then and there the
work of the next day was agreed on, the members gladly accepting
the petitions. As you have already seen, Mr. Hoar made the motion
for the special order, which was carried and the petitions
presented. Your readers will be glad to know, that Mr. Hoar has
just been chosen, by Massachusetts, as her next senator&mdash;that
gives us another champion in the Senate. As there are many
petitions still in circulation, urge your readers to keep sending
them until the close of the session, as we want to know how many
women are in earnest on this question. It is constantly said,
"Women do not want to vote." Ten thousand told our
representatives at Washington in a single day that they did! What
answer?</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span></p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours sincerely,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The press commented as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Sixteenth Amendment.</span>&mdash;The woman suffragists, who had a benefit in
the House of Representatives, on Friday, when their petitions
were presented, transferred their affections to the Senate on
Saturday to witness the presentation of a large number of
petitions in that body. It is impossible to tell whether the
results desired by the women will follow this concerted action,
but it is certain that they have their forces better organized
this year than they ever had before, and they have gone to work
on a more systematic plan.&mdash;[<i>National Republican.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sixteenth Amendment in the Senate&mdash;the Ten Thousand Petitioners
Royally Treated.</span>&mdash;That women will, by voting, lose nothing of
man's courteous, chivalric attention and respect is admirably
proven by the manner in which both houses of congress, in the
midst of the most anxious and perplexing presidential conflict in
our history, received their appeals from twenty-three States for
a sixteenth amendment protecting the rights of women.</p>

<p>In both houses, by unanimous consent, the petitions were
presented and read in open session. The speaker of the House
gallantly prepared the way yesterday, and the most prominent
senators to-day improved the occasion by impressing upon the
Senate the importance of the question. Mr. Sargent reminded the
senators that there were forty thousand more votes for woman
suffrage in Michigan than for the new State constitution, and Mr.
Dawes said, upon presenting the petition from Massachusetts, that
the question was attracting the attention of both political
parties in that State, and he commended it to the early and
earnest consideration of the Senate. Mr. Cockrell of Missouri,
merrily declared that his petitioners were the most beautiful and
accomplished daughters of the State, which of course he felt
compelled to do when Miss Couzins' bright eyes were watching the
proceedings from the gallery. Mr. Cameron of Pennsylvania,
suggested that it would have been better to put them all together
and not consume the time of the Senate with so many
presentations.</p>

<p>The officers of the National Woman Suffrage Association held a
caucus after the adjournment of the Senate, and decided to thank
Mr. Cameron for his suggestion, and while they had no anxiety
lest senators should consume too much time attending to the
interests of women whom they claim to represent, and might
reasonably anticipate that ten millions of disfranchised citizens
would trouble them considerably with petitions while this
injustice continued, yet they would promptly adopt the senator's
counsel and roll up such a mammoth petition as the Senate had not
yet seen from the thousands<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_68" id="Page_68">[Pg 68]</a></span> of women who had no opportunity to
sign these. Accordingly they immediately prepared the
announcement for the friends of woman suffrage to send on their
names to the chairman of the congressional committee. They
naturally feel greatly encouraged by the evident interest of both
parties in the proposed sixteenth amendment, and will work with
renewed strength to secure the coöperation of the women of the
country.&mdash;[<i>Washington Star.</i></p>

<p>The time has evidently arrived when demands for a recognition of
the personal, civil and political rights of
one-half&mdash;unquestionably the better half&mdash;of the people cannot be
laughed down or sneered down, and recent indications are that
they cannot much longer be voted down. It was quite clear on
Friday and Saturday, when petitions from the best citizens of
twenty-three States were presented in House and Senate, that the
leaders of the two political parties vied with each other in
doing honor to the grave subject proposed for their
consideration. The speaker of the House set a commendable example
of courtesy to women by proposing that the petitions be delivered
in open House, to which there was no objection. The early
advocates of equal rights for women&mdash;Hoar, Kelley, Banks, Kasson,
Lawrence, and Lapham&mdash;were, if possible, surpassed in courtesy by
those who are not committed, but are beginning to see that a
finer element in the body politic would clear the vision, purify
the atmosphere and help to settle many vexed questions on the
basis of exact and equal justice.</p>

<p>In the Senate the unprecedented courtesy was extended to women of
half an hour's time on the floor for the presentation of
petitions, exactly alike in form, from twenty-one States, and
while this kind of business this session has usually been
transacted with an attendance of from seven to ten senators, it
was observed that only two out of twenty-three senators who had
sixteenth amendment petitions to present were out of their seats.
Senator Sargent said the presence of women at the polls would
purify elections and give us a better class of public officials,
and the State would thus be greatly benefited. The subject was
receiving serious consideration in this country and in England.
Senator Dawes, in presenting the petition from Massachusetts,
said the subject was commanding the attention of both political
parties in his own State.</p>

<p>The officers of the National Association, who had been able to
give only a few days' time to securing the coöperation of the
women of the several States in their present effort, held a
caucus after the adjournment of the Senate, and decided to
immediately issue a new appeal for a mammoth petition, which
would even more decidedly impress the two houses with the
importance of protecting the rights of women by a constitutional
amendment. Considering the many long days and weeks consumed in
both houses in discussing the political rights of the colored
male citizens, there is an obvious propriety in giving full and
fair consideration to the protection of the rights of wives,
mothers and daughters.&mdash;[<i>The National Republican</i>, January 22,
1877. </p></blockquote>

<p>The National Association held its anniversary in Masonic Temple,
New York, May 24, 1877. Isabella Beecher Hooker, vice-president for
Connecticut, called the meeting to order and invited Rev. Olympia
Brown to lead in prayer. Mrs. Gage made the annual report of the
executive committee. Dr. Clemence S. Lozier of New York was elected
president for the coming year. Pledges were made to roll up
petitions with renewed energy; and resolutions were duly
discussed<a name="FNanchor_22_22" id="FNanchor_22_22"></a><a href="#Footnote_22_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> and adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Such minor matters as declaring peace and war, the
coining of money, the imposition of tariff, and the control of
the postal service, are forbidden the respective States; and
whereas, upon the framing of the constitution, it was wisely
held<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_69" id="Page_69">[Pg 69]</a></span> that these property rights would be unsafe under the
control of thirteen varying deliberative bodies; and whereas, by
a curious anomaly, power over suffrage, the basis and
corner-stone of the nation, is held to be under control of the
respective States; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the experience of a century has shown that the personal
right of self-government inhering in each individual, is wholly
insecure under the control of thirty-eight varying deliberative
bodies; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, the right of self-government by the use of the ballot
inheres in the citizen of the United States; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the immediate and most important duty of
the government to secure this right on a national basis to all
citizens, independent of sex.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the right of suffrage underlies all other
rights, and that in working to secure it women are doing the best
temperance, moral reform, educational, and religious work of the
age.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we solemnly protest against the recent memorial
to congress, from Utah, asking the disfranchisement of the women
of that territory, and that we ask of congress that this request,
made in violation of the spirit of our institutions, be not
granted.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of the National Woman Suffrage
Association are hereby tendered to the late speaker of the House
of Representatives, Hon. Samuel J. Randall, Pa.; and to
Representatives Banks, Mass.; Blair, N. H.: Bland, Mo.; Brown,
Kan.; Cox, N. Y.; Eames, R. I.; Fenn, Col.; Hale, Me.; Hamilton,
N. J.; Hendee, Vt.; Hoar, Mass.; Holman, Ind.; Jones, N. H.;
Kasson, Iowa; Kelley, Pa. Knott, Ky.; Lane, Oregon; Lapham, N.
Y.; Lawrence, O.; Luttrel, Cal.; Lynde, Wis.; McCrary, Iowa;
Morgan, Mo.; O'Neill, Pa.; Springer, Ill.; Strait, Minn.;
Waldron, Mich.; Warren, Conn.; Wm. B. Williams, Mich.; and
Senators Allison, Iowa; Bogy, Mo.; Burnside, R. I. (for Conn. and
R. I.); Cameron, Pa.; Cameron, Wis.; Chaffee, Col.; Christiancy,
Mich.; Cockrell, Mo.; Conkling, N. Y.; Cragin, N. H.; Dawes,
Mass.; Dorsey, Ark. (a petition from Me.); Edmunds, Vt.;
Frelinghuysen, N. J.; Hamlin, Me.; Kernan, N. Y.; McCreery, Ky.;
Mitchell, Oregon; Morrill, Vt.; Morton, Ind.; Oglesby, Ill.;
Sargent, Cal.; Sherman, Ohio; Spencer, Ala. (a petition from the
District); Thurman, Ohio (a petition from Kansas); Wadleigh, N.
H.; Wallace, Pa.; Windom, Minn.; Wright, Iowa, for representing
the women of the United States in the presentation of the
sixteenth amendment petitions from ten thousand citizens, in open
House and Senate, at the last session of congress.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we recognize with gratitude the opening of
many new avenues of labor and usefulness to women, and the
amelioration of their condition before the law in many States, we
still declare there can be no fair play for women in the world of
business until they stand on the same plane of citizenship with
their masculine competitors.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in entering the professions and other
departments of business heretofore occupied largely by men, the
women of to-day should desire to accept the same conditions and
tests of excellence with their brothers, and should demand the
same standard for men and women in business, art, education, and
morals.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of this association are hereby
tendered to the Hon. Geo. F. Hoar of Massachusetts, for rising in
his place in the Cincinnati presidential convention, and asking
in behalf of the disfranchised women of the United States that
the convention grant a hearing to Mrs. Spencer, of Washington,
the accredited delegate of the National Woman Suffrage
Association.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Great unanimity was reached in these sentiments and the enthusiasm
manifested gave promise of earnest labor and more hopeful results.
It was felt that there was reason to thank God and take courage.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_70" id="Page_70">[Pg 70]</a></span></p>

<p>The day before the opening of the Tenth Washington Convention a
caucus was held in the ladies' reception-room<a name="FNanchor_23_23" id="FNanchor_23_23"></a><a href="#Footnote_23_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> in the Senate
wing of the capitol. A roll-call of the delegates developed the
fact that every State in the Union would be represented by women
now here and <i>en route</i>, or by letter. Mrs. Spencer said she had
made a request in the proper quarter, that the delegates should be
allowed to go on the floor when the Senate was actually in session,
and present their case to the senators. She had been met with the
statement that such a proceeding was without precedent. Mrs. Hooker
suggested that inasmuch as there was a precedent for such a course
in the House, the delegates should meet the following Thursday to
canvass for votes in the House of Representatives. Another delegate
recalled the fact that Mrs. General Sherman and Mrs. Admiral
Dahlgren had been admitted upon the floor of the Senate while it
was in session, to canvass for votes against woman suffrage.</p>

<p>This agitation resulted in a resolution introduced by Hon. A. A.
Sargent, January 10:</p>

<blockquote>
<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Thousands of women of the United States have
petitioned congress for an amendment to the constitution
allowing women the right of suffrage; and whereas, many of
the representative women of the country favoring such
amendment are present in the city and have requested to be
heard before the Senate in advocacy of said amendment,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That at a session of the Senate, to be held on
&mdash;&mdash;, said representative women, or such of them as may be
designated for that purpose, may be heard before the Senate;
but for one hour only. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span> demanded the regular order.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span> advocated the resolution, and urged immediate action,
as delay would detain the women in the city at considerable expense
to them. He thought the question not so intricate that senators
require time for consideration whether or not the women should be
heard.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span> said there was a rule of long standing that forbids any
person appearing before the Senate. There was much to be said in
favor of the petitions, but it was against the logic of the
resolution that the petitioners required more than was accorded any
others. He, therefore, insisted on his demand for the regular
order.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span> gave notice that he would call up his resolution
to-morrow, and reminded the senators that no rule was so sacred
that it could not be set aside by unanimous consent. </p></blockquote>

<p>On the next day there was a lively discussion, Senators Edmunds,
Thurman and Conkling insisting there was no precedent; Mr. Sargent,
assisted by Senators Burnside, Anthony and Dawes,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_71" id="Page_71">[Pg 71]</a></span> reminding them
of several occasions when the Senate had extended similar
courtesies. The resolution was voted down&mdash;31 to 13.<a name="FNanchor_24_24" id="FNanchor_24_24"></a><a href="#Footnote_24_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a></p>

<p>Hon. Wm. D. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, performed like service in the
House:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelly</span> asked leave to offer a resolution, reciting that
petitions were about to be presented to the House of
Representatives from citizens of thirty-five States of the Union,
asking for the adoption of an amendment to the constitution to
prohibit the disfranchisement of any citizen of any State; and
that there be a session of the House on Saturday, January 12, at
which time the advocates of the constitutional amendment may be
heard at the bar. These petitions ask the House to originate a
movement which it cannot consumate, but which it can only submit
to the States for their action. The resolution only asks that the
House will hear a limited number of the advocates of this
amendment, who are now in the city, and on a day when there is
not likely to be a session for business. They only ask the
privilege of stating the grounds of their belief why the
constitution should be amended in the direction they indicate.
Many of these ladies who petition are tax-payers, and they
believe their rights have been infringed upon.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Crittenden</span> of Missouri, objected, and the resolution was not
entertained. </p></blockquote>

<p>This refusal to women pleading for their own freedom was the more
noticeable, as not only had Mesdames Sherman and Dahlgren been
heard upon the floor of the Senate in opposition, but the floor of
the House was shortly after granted to Charles Stewart Parnell, M.
P., that he might plead the cause of oppressed Ireland. The
Washington <i>Union</i> of January 11, 1878, largely sustained by
federal patronage, commented as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>To allow the advocates of woman suffrage to plead their cause on
the floor of the Senate, as proposed yesterday by Mr. Sargent,
would be a decided innovation upon the established usages of
parliamentary bodies. If the privilege were granted in this case
it would next be claimed by the friends and the enemies of the
silver bill, by the supporters and opponents of resumption, by
hard money men and soft money men, by protectionists and
free-traders, by labor-reformers, prohibitionists and the Lord
knows whom besides. In fact, the admission of the ladies to speak
on the floor of the Senate would be the beginning of lively times
in that body. </p></blockquote>

<p>The convention was held in Lincoln Hall, January, 8, 9, 1878. The
house was filled to overflowing at the first session. A large<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_72" id="Page_72">[Pg 72]</a></span>
number of representative women occupied the platform.<a name="FNanchor_25_25" id="FNanchor_25_25"></a><a href="#Footnote_25_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> In
opening the meeting the president, Dr. Clemence Lozier, gave a
résumé of the progress of the cause. Mrs. Stanton made an argument
on "National Protection for National Citizens."<a name="FNanchor_26_26" id="FNanchor_26_26"></a><a href="#Footnote_26_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a> Mrs. Lockwood
presented the following resolutions, which called out an amusing
debate on the "man idea"&mdash;that he can best represent the home, the
church, the State, the industries, etc., etc.:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the president of this convention appoint a
committee to select three intelligent women who shall be paid
commissioners to the Paris exposition; and also six other women
who shall be volunteer commissioners to said exposition to
represent the industries of American women.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That to further this object the committee be
instructed to confer with the President, the Secretary of State,
and Commissioner McCormick. </p></blockquote>

<p>A committee was appointed<a name="FNanchor_27_27" id="FNanchor_27_27"></a><a href="#Footnote_27_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a> and at once repaired to the
white-house, where they were pleasantly received by President
Hayes. After learning the object of their visit, the president
named the different classes of industries for which no
commissioners had been appointed, asked the ladies to nominate
their candidates, and assured them he would favor a representation
by women.</p>

<blockquote><p>Miss <span class="smcap">Julia Smith</span> of Glastonbury, Conn., the veteran defender of
the maxim of our fathers, "no taxation without representation,"
narrated the experience of herself and her sister Abby with the
tax-gatherers. They attended the town-meeting and protested
against unjust taxation, but finally their cows went into the
treasury to satisfy the tax-collector.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Boynton Harbert</span> of the Chicago <i>Inter-Ocean</i>, spoke on
the temperance work being done in Chicago, in connection with the
advocacy of the sixteenth amendment.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Lillie Devereux Blake</span> reviewed the work in New York in getting
the bill through the legislature to appoint women on school
boards, which was finally vetoed by Governor Robinson.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Mary Thompson</span> of Oregon, and Mrs. <span class="smcap">Cromwell</span> of Arkansas, gave
interesting reports from their States, relating many laughable
encounters with the opposition.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Robert Purvis</span> of Philadelphia, read a letter from the suffragists
of Pennsylvania, in which congratulations were extended to the
convention.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Mary A. S. Carey</span>, a worthy representative of the District of
Columbia, the first colored woman that ever edited a newspaper in
the United States, and who had been a worker in the cause for
twenty years, expressed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_73" id="Page_73">[Pg 73]</a></span> her views on the question, and said the
colored women would support whatever party would allow them their
rights, be it Republican or Democratic.</p>

<p>Rev. <span class="smcap">Olympia Brown</span> believed that a proper interpretation of the
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments did confer suffrage on women.
But men don't so understand it, and as a consequence when Mahomet
would not come to the mountain the mountain must go to Mahomet.
She said the day was coming, and rapidly, too, when women would
be given suffrage. There were very few now who did not
acknowledge the justice of it.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Isabella Beecher Hooker</span> gave her idea on "A Reconstructed
Police," showing how she would rule a police force if in her
control. Commencing with the location of the office, she
proceeded with her list of feminine and masculine officers, the
chief being herself. She would have a superintendent as aid, with
coördinate powers, and, besides the police force proper, which
she would form of men and women in equal proportions; she would
have matrons in charge of all station-houses. Her treatment of
vagrants would be to wash, feed, and clothe them, make them
stitch, wash and iron, take their history down for future
reference, and finally turn them out as skilled laborers. The
care of vagrant children would form an item in her system.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Lawrence</span> of Massachusetts, said the country is in danger,
and like other republics, unless taken care of, will perish by
its own vices. She said twelve hundred thousand men and women of
this country now stand with nothing to do, because their
legislators of wealth were working not for the many, but the few,
drunkenness and vice being superinduced by such a state of
things. She insisted that women were to blame for much of the
evil of the world&mdash;for bringing into life children who grow up in
vice from their inborn tendencies.</p>

<p>Dr. <span class="smcap">Caroline B. Winslow</span> of Washington, referred to the speech of
Mrs. Lawrence, saying she hoped God would bless her for having
the courage to speak as she did. There is no greater reform than
for man and woman to be true to the marital relations.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Belva A. Lockwood</span> said the only way for women to get their rights
is to take them. If necessary let there be a domestic
insurrection. Let young women refuse to marry, and married women
refuse to sew on buttons, cook, and rock the cradle until their
liege-lords acknowledge the rights they are entitled to. There
were more ways than one to conquer a man; and women, like the
strikers in the railroad riots, should carry their demands all
along the line. She dwelt at length upon the refusal of the
courts in allowing Lavinia Dundore to become a constable, and
asked why she should not be appointed.</p>

<p>The Rev. <span class="smcap">Olympia Brown</span> said that if they wanted wisdom and
prosperity in the nation, health and happiness in the home, they
must give woman the power to purify her surroundings; the right
to make the outside world fit for her children to live in. Who
are more interested than mothers in the sanitary condition of our
schools and streets, and in the moral atmosphere of our towns and
cities?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_74" id="Page_74">[Pg 74]</a></span></p>

<p>Marshal <span class="smcap">Frederick Douglass</span> said his reluctance to come forward
was not due to any lack of interest in the subject under
discussion. For thirty years he had believed in human rights to
all men and women. Nothing that has ever been proposed involved
such vital interests as the subject which now invites attention.
When the negro was freed the question was asked if he was capable
of voting intelligently. It was answered in this way: that if a
sober negro knows as much as a drunken white man he is capable of
exercising the elective franchise.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Lavinia C. Dundore</span>, introduced as the lady who had made
application for an appointment as a constable and been refused,
made a pithy address, in which she alluded to her recent
disappointment.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span> spoke of the influence of the church on
woman's liberties, and then referred to a large number of law
books&mdash;ancient and modern, ecclesiastical and lay&mdash;in which the
liberties of woman were more or less abridged; the equality of
sexes which obtained in Rome before the Christian era, and the
gradual discrimination in favor of men which crept in with the
growth of the church.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Devereux Blake</span> said there is no aspect of this question that
strikes us so forcibly as the total ignoring of women by public
men. However polite they may be in private life, when they come
to public affairs they seem to forget that women exist. The men
who framed the last amendment to the constitution seemed to have
wholly forgotten that women existed or had rights.... Huxley said
in reply to an inquiry as to woman suffrage, "Of course I'm in
favor of it. Does it become us to lay additional burdens on those
who are already overweighted?" It is always the little men who
oppose us; the big-hearted men help us along. All in this
audience are of the broad-shouldered type, and I hope all will go
out prepared to advocate our principles. In reply to the
objection that women do not need the right to vote because men
represent them so well, she asked if any man in the audience ever
asked his wife how he should vote, and told him to stand up if
there was such a one. [Here a young man in the back part of the
hall stood up amidst loud applause.]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The various resolutions were discussed at great length and
adopted, though much difference of opinion was expressed on the
last, which demands that intelligence shall be made the basis of
suffrage:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the National Constitution should be so amended
as to secure to United States citizens at home the same
protection for their individual rights against State tyranny, as
is now guaranteed everywhere against foreign aggressions.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the civil and political rights of the educated
tax-paying women of this nation should take precedence of all
propositions and debates in the present congress as to the future
status of the Chinese and Indians under the flag of the United
States.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The essential elements of justice are already recognized
in the constitution; and, whereas, our fathers proposed to
establish a purely secular government in which all forms of
religion should be equally protected, therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is preëminently unjust to tax the property of
widows and spinsters to its full value, while the clergy are made
a privileged class by exempting from taxation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_75" id="Page_75">[Pg 75]</a></span> $1,500 of their
property in some States, while in all States parsonages and other
church property, amounting to millions of dollars, are exempted,
which, if fairly taxed, would greatly lighten the national debt,
and thereby the burdens of the laboring masses.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That thus to exempt one class of citizens, one kind
of property, from taxation, at the expense of all others, is a
great national evil, in a moral as well as a financial point of
view. It is an assumption that the church is a more important
institution than the family; that the influence of the clergy is
of more vital consequence in the progress of civilization than
that of the women of this republic; from which we emphatically
dissent.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That universal education is the true basis of
universal suffrage; hence the several States should so amend
their constitutions as to make education compulsory, and, as a
stimulus to the rising generation, declare that after 1885 all
who exercise the right of suffrage must be able to read and write
the English language. For, while the national government should
secure the equal right of suffrage to all citizens, the State
should regulate its exercise by proper attainable qualifications. </p></blockquote>

<p>On January 10, 1878, our champion in the Senate, Hon. A. A.
Sargent, of California, by unanimous consent, presented the
following joint resolution, which was read twice and referred to
the Committee on Privileges and Elections:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Joint Resolution</span> <i>proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States</i>.&mdash;</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i> by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in congress assembled, two-thirds of
each House concurring therein, That the following article be
proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when
ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures, shall be
valid as part of the said constitution, namely:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Article 16, Sec. 1.</span>&mdash;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.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span>&mdash;Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Committee on Privileges and Elections granted hearings to the
National Association on January 11, 12, when the delegates,<a name="FNanchor_28_28" id="FNanchor_28_28"></a><a href="#Footnote_28_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a>
representing the several States, made their respective arguments
and appeals. Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., president of the
association, first addressed the committee and read the following
extract from a recent letter from Victor Hugo:</p>

<blockquote><p>Our ill-balanced society seems as if it would take from woman all
that nature had endowed her with. In our codes there is something
to recast. It is what I call the woman-law. Man has had his law;
he has made it for himself. Woman has only the law of man. She by
this law is civilly a minor and morally a slave. Her education is
embued with this twofold character of inferiority. Hence many
sufferings to her which man must justly share. There must be
reform here, and it will be to the benefit of civilization,
truth, and light.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_76" id="Page_76">[Pg 76]</a></span></p>

<p>In concluding, Dr. Lozier said: I have now the honor to introduce
Miss Julia E. Smith, of Glastonbury, Conn., who will speak to you
concerning the resistance of her sister and herself to the
payment of taxes in her native town, on the ground that they are
unrepresented in all town meetings, and therefore have no voice
in the expenditure of the taxes which they are compelled to pay.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Smith</span> said: <i>Gentlemen of the Committee</i>&mdash;This is the first
time in my life that I have trod these halls, and what has
brought me here? I say, oppression&mdash;oppression of women by men.
Under the law they have taken from us $2,000 worth of
meadow-land, and sold it for taxes of less than $50, and we were
obliged to redeem it, for we could not lose the most valuable
part of our farm. They have come into our house and said, "You
must pay so much; we must execute the laws"; and we are not
allowed to have a voice in the matter, or to modify laws that are
odious.</p>

<p>I have come to Washington, as men cannot address you for us. We
have no power at all; we are totally defenseless. [Miss Smith
then read two short letters written by her sister Abby to the
Springfield <i>Republican</i>.] These tell our brief story, and may I
not ask, gentlemen, that they shall so plead with you that you
will report to the Senate unanimously in favor of the sixteenth
amendment, which we ask in order that the women of these United
States who shall come after us may be saved the desecration of
their homes which we have suffered, and our country may be
relieved from the disgrace of refusing representation to that
half of its people that men call the better half, because it
includes their wives and daughters and mothers?</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Boynton Harbert</span>, vice-president for Illinois:
<i>Gentlemen of the Committee</i>&mdash;We recognize your duty as men
intrusted with the control and guidance of the government to
carefully weigh every phase of this momentous question. Has the
time arrived when it will be safe and expedient to make a
practical application of these great principles of our government
to one-half of the governed, one-half of the citizens of the
United States? The favorite argument of the opposition has been
that women are represented by men, hence have no cause for
complaint. Any careful student of the progress of liberty must
admit that the only possible method for securing justice to the
represented is for their representatives to be made entirely
responsible to their constituents, and promptly removable by
them. We are only secure in delegating power when we can dictate
its use, limit the same, or revoke it. How many of your honorable
committee would vote to make the presidency an office for life,
said office to descend to the heirs in a male line forever, with
no reserved power of impeachment? Yet you would be more fairly
represented than are American women, since they have never
elected their representatives. So far as women are concerned you
are self-constituted rulers. We cannot hope for complete
representation while we are powerless to recall, impeach, or
punish our representatives. We meet with a case in point in the
history of Virginia. Bancroft gives us the following quotation
from the official records: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_77" id="Page_77">[Pg 77]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>The freedom of elections was further impaired by "frequent false
returns," made by the sheriffs. Against these the people had no
sufficient redress, for the sheriffs were responsible neither to
them nor to officers of their appointment. And how could a more
pregnant cause of discontent exist in a country where the
elective franchise was cherished as the dearest civil
privilege?&mdash;If land is to be taxed, none but landholders should
elect the legislature.&mdash;The other freemen, who are the more in
number, may refuse to be bound by those laws in which they have
no representation, and we are so well acquainted with the temper
of the people that we have reason to believe they had rather pay
their taxes than lose that privilege. </p></blockquote>

<p>Would those statesmen have dared to tax those landholders and yet
deny them the privilege of choosing their representatives? And if,
forsooth, they had, would not each one of you have declared such
act unconstitutional and unjust? We are the daughters of those
liberty-loving patriots. Their blood flows in our veins, and in
view of the recognized physiological fact that special
characteristics are transmitted from fathers to daughters, do you
wonder that we tax-paying, American-born citizens of these United
States are here to protest in the name of liberty and justice? We
recognize, however, that you are not responsible for the present
political condition of women, and that the question confronting
you, as statesmen called to administer justice under existing
conditions, is, "What are the capacities of this great class for
self-government?" You have cautiously summoned us to adduce proof
that the ballot in the hands of women would prove a help, not a
hindrance; would bring wings, not weights.</p>

<p>First, then, we ask you in the significant name of history to read
the record of woman as a ruler from the time when Deborah judged
Israel, and the land had rest and peace forty years, even down to
this present when Victoria Regina, the Empress Queen, rules her
vast kingdom so ably that we sometimes hear American men talk about
a return "to the good old ways of limited monarchy," with woman for
a ruler. John Stuart Mill, after studious research, testifies as
follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>When to queens and emperors we add regents and viceroys of
provinces, the list of women who have been eminent rulers of
mankind swells to a great length. The fact is so undeniable that
some one long ago tried to retort the argument by saying that
queens are better than kings, because under kings women govern,
but under queens, men. Especially is her wonderful talent for
governing evinced in Asia. If a Hindoo principality is strongly,
vigilantly, and economically governed; if order is preserved
without oppression; if cultivation is extending, and the people
prosperous, in three cases out of four that principality is under
a woman's rule. This fact, to me an entirely unexpected one, I
have collected from a long official knowledge of Hindoo
governments. There are many such instances; for though by Hindoo
institutions a woman cannot reign, she is the legal regent of a
kingdom during the minority of the heir&mdash;and minorities are
frequent, the lives of the male rulers being so often prematurely
terminated through their inactivity and excesses. When we
consider that these princesses have never been seen in public,
have never conversed with any man not of their own family, except
from behind a curtain; that they do not read, and if they did,
there is no book in their languages which can give them the
smallest instruction on political affairs, the example they
afford of the natural capacity of women for government is very
striking. </p></blockquote>

<p>In view of these facts, does it not appear that if there is any one
distinctively feminine characteristic, it is the mother-instinct
for government?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_78" id="Page_78">[Pg 78]</a></span> But now with clearer vision we reread the record
of the past. True, we find no Raphael or Beethoven, no Phidias or
Michael Angelo among women. No woman has painted the greatest
picture, carved the finest statue, composed the noblest oratorio or
opera. Not many women's names appear after Joan of Arc's in the
long list of warriors; but, as a ruler, woman stands to-day the
peer of man.</p>

<p>While man has rendered such royal service in the realm of art,
woman has not been idle. Infinite wisdom has intrusted to her the
living, breathing marble or canvas, and with smiles and tears,
prayers and songs has she patiently wrought developing the latent
possibilities of the divine Christ-child, the infant Washington,
the baby Lincoln. Ah! since God and men have intrusted to woman the
weightiest responsibility known to earth, the development and
education of the human soul, need you fear to intrust her with
citizenship? Is the ballot more precious than the soul of your
child? If it is safe in the home, in the school-room, the
Sunday-school, to place in woman's hands the education of your
children, is it not safe to allow that mother to express her choice
in regard to which one of these sons, her boys whom she has taught
and nursed, shall make laws for her guidance?</p>

<p>Just here, in imagination, is heard the question, "How much help
could we expect from women on financial questions?" We accept the
masculine idea of woman's mathematical deficiencies. We have had
slight opportunity for discovering the best proportions of a silver
dollar, owing to the fact that the family specimens have been
zealously guarded by the male members; and yet, we may have some
latent possibilities in that direction, since already the
"brethren" in our debt-burdened churches wail out from the depths
of masculine indebtedness and interest-tables, "Our sisters, we
pray you come over and help us!" And, in view of the fact of the
present condition of finances, in view of the fact of the enormous
taxes you impose upon us, can you look us calmly in the face and
assert that matters might, would, should, or could have been worse,
even though Julia Ward Howe, Mary A. Livermore, or Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, had voted on the silver bill?</p>

<p>A moment since I referred to the great responsibilities of
motherhood, and doubtless your mental comment was, "Yes, that is
woman's peculiar sphere; there she should be content to remain." It
<i>is</i> our sphere&mdash;beautiful, glorious, almost infinite in its
possibilities. We accept the work; we only ask for opportunity to
perform it. The sphere has enlarged, that is all. There has been a
new revelation. That historic "first gun" proclaimed a wonderful
message to the daughters of America; for, when the smoke of the
cannonading had lifted, the entire horizon of woman was broadened,
illuminated, glorified. On that April morn, when a nation of
citizens suddenly sprang into an army of warriors, with a
patriotism as intense, a consecration as true, American women
quietly assumed their vacated places and became citizens. New
boundaries were defined. A Mary Somerville or Maria Mitchell seized
the telescope and alone with God and the stars, cast a new
horoscope for woman. And the new truth, electrifying, glorifying
American womanhood to-day, is the discovery that the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_79" id="Page_79">[Pg 79]</a></span> State is but
the larger family, the nation the old homestead, and that in this
national home there is a room and a corner and a duty for "mother."
A duty recognized by such a statesman as John Adams, who wrote to
his wife in regard to her mother:</p>

<blockquote><p>Your mother had a clear and penetrating understanding and a
profound judgment, as well as an honest, a friendly and
charitable heart. There is one thing, however, which you will
forgive me if I hint to you. Let me ask you rather if you are not
of my opinion. Were not her talents and virtues too much confined
to private, social and domestic life? My opinion of the duties of
religion and morality comprehends a very extensive connection
with society at large and the great interests of the public. Does
not natural morality and, much more, Christian benevolence make
it our indispensable duty to endeavor to serve our
fellow-creatures to the utmost of our power in promoting and
supporting those great political systems and general regulations
upon which the happiness of multitudes depends? The benevolence,
charity, capacity and industry which exerted in private life
would make a family, a parish or a town happy, employed upon a
larger scale and in support of the great principles of virtue and
freedom of political regulations, might secure whole nations and
generations from misery, want and contempt. </p></blockquote>

<p>Intense domestic life is selfish. The home evidently needs fathers
as much as mothers. Tender, wise fatherhood is beautiful as
motherhood, but there are orphaned children to be cared for. These
duties to the State and nation as mothers, true to the highest
needs of our children, we dare not ignore; and the nation cannot
much longer afford to have us ignore them.</p>

<p>As statesmen, walking on the shore piled high with the "drift-wood
of kings," the wrecks of nations and governments, you have
discovered the one word emblazoned as an epitaph on each and every
one, "Luxury, luxury, luxury!" You have hitherto placed a premium
upon woman's idleness, helplessness, dependence. The children of
most of our fashionable women are being educated by foreign nurses.
How can you expect them to develop into patriotic American
statesmen? For the sake of country I plead&mdash;for the sake of a
responsible, exalted womanhood; for the sake of a purer womanhood;
for home and truth, and native land. As a daughter, with holiest,
tenderest, most grateful memories clinging to the almost sacred
name of father; as a wife, receiving constant encouragement,
support, and coöperation from one who has revealed to her the
genuine nobility of true manhood; as a mother, whose heart still
thrills at the first greeting from her little son; and as a sister,
watching with intense interest the entrance of a brother into the
great world of work, I could not be half so loyal to woman's cause
were it not a synonym for the equal rights of humanity&mdash;a diviner
justice for all!</p>

<p>With one practical question I rest my case. The world objected to
woman's entrance into literature, the pulpit, the lyceum, the
college, the school. What has she wrought? Our wisest thinkers and
historians assert that literature has been purified. Poets and
judges at international collegiate contests award to woman's
thought the highest prize. Miss Lucia Peabody received upon the
occasion of her second election to the Boston school board the
highest vote ever polled for any candidate. Since woman has proved
faithful over a few things, need you fear to summon her to your
side to assist you in executing the will of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_80" id="Page_80">[Pg 80]</a></span> the nation? And now,
yielding to none in intense love of womanhood; standing here
beneath the very dome of the national capitol overshadowed by the
old flag; with the blood of the revolutionary patriots coursing
through my veins; as a native-born, tax-paying American citizen, I
ask equality before the law.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span> said: <i>Gentlemen of the Committee</i>: In
appearing before you to ask for a sixteenth amendment to the United
States Constitution, permit me to say that with the Hon. Charles
Sumner, we believe that our constitution, fairly interpreted,
already secures to the humblest individual all the rights,
privileges and immunities of American citizens. But as statesmen
differ in their interpretations of constitutional law as widely as
they differ in their organizations, the rights of every class of
citizens must be clearly defined in concise, unmistakable language.
All the great principles of liberty declared by the fathers gave no
protection to the black man of the republic for a century, and
when, with higher light and knowledge his emancipation and
enfranchisement were proclaimed, it was said that the great truths
set forth in the prolonged debates of thirty years on the
individual rights of the black man, culminating in the fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments to the constitution, had no significance
for woman. Hence we ask that this anomalous class of beings, not
recognized by the supreme powers as either "persons" or "citizens"
may be defined and their rights declared in the constitution.</p>

<p>In the adjustment of the question of suffrage now before the people
of this country for settlement, it is of the highest importance
that the organic law of the land should be so framed and construed
as to work injustice to none, but secure as far as possible perfect
political equality among all classes of citizens. In determining
your right and power to legislate on this question, consider what
has been done already.</p>

<p>As the national constitution 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," it is evident: <i>First</i>&mdash;That the immunities
and privileges of American citizenship, however defined, are
national in character, and paramount to all State authority.
<i>Second</i>&mdash;That while the constitution leaves the qualification of
electors to the several States, it nowhere gives them the right to
deprive any citizen of the elective franchise; the State may
regulate but not abolish the right of suffrage for any class.
<i>Third</i>&mdash;As the Constitution of the United States expressly
declares that no State shall make or enforce any law that shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States, those provisions of the several State constitutions that
exclude citizens from the franchise on account of sex, alike
violate the spirit and letter of the Federal constitution.
<i>Fourth</i>&mdash;As the question of naturalization is expressly withheld
from the States, and as the States would clearly have no right to
deprive of the franchise naturalized citizens, among whom women are
expressly included, still more clearly have they no right to
deprive native-born women-citizens of the right.</p>

<p>Let me give you a few extracts from the national constitution upon
which these propositions are based: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_81" id="Page_81">[Pg 81]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><i>Preamble:</i> We, the people of the United States, in order to form
a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic
tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do ordain and establish this constitution. </p></blockquote>

<p>This is declared to be a government "of the people." All power, it
is said, centers in the people. Our State constitutions also open
with the words, "We, the people." Does any one pretend to say that
men alone constitute races and peoples? When we say parents, do we
not mean mothers as well as fathers? When we say children, do we
not mean girls as well as boys? When we say people, do we not mean
women as well as men? When the race shall spring, Minerva-like,
from the brains of their fathers, it will be time enough thus to
ignore the fact that one-half the human family are women.
Individual rights, individual conscience and judgment are our great
American ideas, the fundamental principles of our political and
religious faith. Men may as well attempt to do our repenting,
confessing, and believing, as our voting&mdash;as well represent us at
the throne of grace as at the ballot-box.</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article 1, Sec. 9.</span>&mdash;No bill of attainder, or <i>ex post facto</i> law
shall be passed; no title of nobility shall be granted by the
United States.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 10.</span>&mdash;No State shall pass any bill of attainder, <i>ex post
facto</i> law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or
grant any title of nobility. </p></blockquote>

<p>Notwithstanding these provisions of the constitution, bills of
attainder have been passed by the introduction of the word "male"
into all the State constitutions denying to woman the right of
suffrage, and thereby making sex a crime. A citizen disfranchised
in a republic is a citizen attainted. When we place in the hands of
one class of citizens the right to make, interpret and execute the
law for another class wholly unrepresented in the government, we
have made an order of nobility.</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article 4, Sec. 2.</span>&mdash;The citizens of each State shall be entitled
to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
States. </p></blockquote>

<p>The elective franchise is one of the privileges secured by this
section approved in Dunham <i>vs.</i> Lamphere (3 Gray Mass. Rep., 276),
and Bennett <i>vs.</i> Boggs (Baldwin's Rep., p. 72, Circuit Court U.
S.).</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article 4, Sec. 4.</span>&mdash;The United States shall guarantee to every
State in the Union a republican form of government. </p></blockquote>

<p>How can that form of government be called republican in which
one-half the people are forever deprived of all participation in
its affairs?</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article 6.</span>&mdash;This Constitution, and the laws of the United States
which shall be made in pursuance thereof, ... shall be the
supreme law of the land; and the judges in every State shall be
bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State
to the contrary notwithstanding.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Article 14, Sec. 1.</span>&mdash;All persons born or naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States.... No State shall make or enforce
any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of
citizens of the United States. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the discussion of the enfranchisement of woman, suffrage is now
claimed by one class of thinkers as a privilege based upon
citizenship and secured by the Constitution of the United States,
as by lexicographers as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_82" id="Page_82">[Pg 82]</a></span> well as by the constitution itself, the
definition of citizen includes women as well as men. No State can
rightfully deprive a woman-citizen of the United States of any
fundamental right which is hers in common with all other citizens.
The States have the right to regulate, but not to prohibit the
elective franchise to citizens of the United States. Thus the
States may determine the qualifications of electors. They may
require the elector to be of a certain age&mdash;to have had a fixed
residence&mdash;to be of sane mind and unconvicted of crime,&mdash;because
these are qualifications or conditions that all citizens, sooner or
later, may attain. But to go beyond this, and say to one-half the
citizens of the State, notwithstanding you possess all of these
qualifications, you shall never vote, is of the very essence of
despotism. It is a bill of attainder of the most odious character.</p>

<p>A further investigation of the subject will show that the
constitutions of all the States, with the exception of Virginia and
Massachusetts, read substantially alike. "White male citizens"
shall be entitled to vote, and this is supposed to exclude all
other citizens. There is no direct exclusion except in the two
States above named. Now the error lies in supposing that an
enabling clause is necessary at all. The right of the people of a
State to participate in a government of their own creation requires
no enabling clause, neither can it be taken from them by
implication. To hold otherwise would be to interpolate in the
constitution a prohibition that does not exist.</p>

<p>In framing a constitution, the people are assembled in their
sovereign capacity, and being possessed of all rights and powers,
what is not surrendered is retained. Nothing short of a direct
prohibition can work a deprivation of rights that are fundamental.
In the language of John Jay to the people of New York, urging the
adoption of the constitution of the United States: "Silence and
blank paper neither give nor take away anything." And Alexander
Hamilton says (<i>Federalist</i>, No. 83):</p>

<blockquote><p>Every man of discernment must at once perceive the wide
difference between silence and abolition. The mode and manner in
which the people shall take part in the government of their
creation may be prescribed by the constitution, but the right
itself is antecedent to all constitutions. It is inalienable, and
can neither be bought nor sold nor given away. </p></blockquote>

<p>But even if it should be held that this view is untenable, and that
women are disfranchised by the several State constitutions,
directly or by implication, then I say that such prohibitions are
clearly in conflict with the Constitution of the United States and
yield thereto.</p>

<p>Another class of thinkers, equally interested in woman's
enfranchisement, maintain that there is, as yet, no power in the
United States Constitution to protect the rights of all United
States citizens, in all latitudes and longitudes, and in all
conditions whatever. When the constitution was adopted, the fathers
thought they had secured national unity. This was the opinion of
Southern as well as Northern statesmen. It was supposed that the
question of State rights was then forever settled. Hon. Charles
Sumner, speaking on this point in the United States Senate, March
7, 1866, said the object of the constitution was to ordain, under
the authority of the people, a national government possessing unity
and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_83" id="Page_83">[Pg 83]</a></span> power. The confederation had been merely an agreement "between
the States," styled, "a league of firm friendship." Found to be
feeble and inoperative through the pretension of State rights, it
gave way to the constitution which, instead of a "league," created
a "union," in the name of the people of the United States.
Beginning with these inspiring and enacting words, "We, the
people," it was popular and national. Here was no concession to
State rights, but a recognition of the power of the people, from
whom the constitution proceeded. The States are acknowledged; but
they are all treated as component parts of the Union in which they
are absorbed under the constitution, which is the supreme law.
There is but one sovereignty, and that is the sovereignty of the
United States. On this very account the adoption of the
constitution was opposed by Patrick Henry and George Mason. The
first exclaimed, "That this is a consolidated government is
demonstrably clear; the question turns on that poor little thing,
'We, the people,' instead of the States." The second exclaimed,
"Whether the constitution is good or bad, it is a national
government, and no longer a confederation." But against this
powerful opposition the constitution was adopted in the name of the
people of the United States. Throughout the discussions, State
rights was treated with little favor. Madison said: "The States are
only political societies, and never possessed the right of
sovereignty." Gerry said: "The States have only corporate rights."
Wilson, the philanthropic member from Pennsylvania, afterward a
learned Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States and author
of the "Lectures on Law," said: "Will a regard to State rights
justify the sacrifice of the rights of men? If we proceed on any
other foundation than the last, our building will neither be solid
nor lasting."</p>

<p>Those of us who understand the dignity, power and protection of the
ballot, have steadily petitioned congress for the last ten years to
secure to the women of the republic the exercise of their right to
the elective franchise. We began by asking a sixteenth amendment to
the national constitution. March 15, 1869, the Hon. George W.
Julian submitted a joint resolution to congress, to enfranchise the
women of the republic, by proposing a sixteenth amendment:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article 16.</span>&mdash;The right of suffrage in the United States shall be
based on citizenship, and shall be regulated by Congress, and all
citizens of the United States, whether native or naturalized,
shall enjoy this right equally, without any distinction or
discrimination whatever founded on sex. </p></blockquote>

<p>While the discussion was pending for the emancipation and
enfranchisement of the slaves of the South, and popular thought led
back to the consideration of the fundamental principles of our
government, it was clearly seen that all the arguments for the
civil and political rights of the African race applied to women
also. Seeing this, some Republicans stood ready to carry these
principles to their logical results. Democrats, too, saw the drift
of the argument, and though not in favor of extending suffrage to
either black men, or women, yet, to embarrass Republican
legislation, it was said, they proposed amendments for woman
suffrage to all bills brought forward for enfranchising the
negroes.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_84" id="Page_84">[Pg 84]</a></span></p>

<p>And thus, during the passage of the thirteenth, fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments, and the District suffrage bill, the question
of woman suffrage was often and ably discussed in the Senate and
House, and received both Republican and Democratic votes in its
favor. Many able lawyers and judges gave it as their opinion that
women as well as Africans were enfranchised by the fourteenth and
fifteenth Amendments. Accordingly, we abandoned, for the time
being, our demand for a sixteenth amendment, and pleaded our right
of suffrage, as already secured by the fourteenth amendment&mdash;the
argument lying in a nut-shell. For if, as therein asserted, all
persons born or naturalized in the United States are citizens of
the United States; and if a citizen, according to the best
authorities, is one possessed of all the rights and privileges of
citizenship, namely, the right to make laws and choose lawmakers,
women, being persons, must be citizens, and therefore entitled to
the rights of citizenship, the chief of which is the right to vote.</p>

<p>Accordingly, women tested their right, registered and voted&mdash;the
inspectors of election accepting the argument, for which inspectors
and women alike were arrested, tried and punished; the courts
deciding that although by the fourteenth amendment they were
citizens, still, citizenship did not carry with it the right to
vote. But granting the premise of the Supreme Court decision, "that
the constitution does not confer suffrage on any one," then it
inhered with the citizen before the constitution was framed. Our
national life does not date from that instrument. The constitution
is not the original declaration of rights. It was not framed until
eleven years after our existence as a nation, nor fully ratified
until nearly fourteen years after the inauguration of our national
independence.</p>

<p>But however the letter and spirit of the constitution may be
interpreted by the people, the judiciary of the nation has
uniformly proved itself the echo of the party in power. When the
slave power was dominant the Supreme Court decided that a black man
was not a citizen, because he had not the right to vote; and when
the constitution was so amended as to make all persons citizens,
the same high tribunal decided that a woman, though a citizen, had
not the right to vote. An African, by virtue of his United States
citizenship, is declared, under recent amendments, a voter in every
State of the Union; but when a woman, by virtue of her United
States citizenship, applies to the Supreme Court for protection in
the exercise of this same right, she is remanded to the State, by
the unanimous decision of the nine judges on the bench, that "the
Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of
suffrage upon any one." Such vacillating interpretations of
constitutional law must unsettle our faith in judicial authority,
and undermine the liberties of the whole people. Seeing by these
decisions of the courts that the theory of our government, the
Declaration of Independence, and recent constitutional amendments,
have no significance for woman, that all the grand principles of
equality are glittering generalities for her, we must fall back
once more to our former demand of a sixteenth amendment to the
federal constitution, that, in clear, unmistakable language, shall
declare the status of woman in this republic.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_85" id="Page_85">[Pg 85]</a></span></p>

<p>The Declaration of Independence struck a blow at every existent
form of government by making the individual the source of all
power. This is the sun, and the one central truth around which all
genuine republics must keep their course or perish. National
supremacy means something more than power to levy war, conclude
peace, contract alliances, establish commerce. It means national
protection and security in the exercise of the right of
self-government, which comes alone by and through the use of the
ballot. Women are the only class of citizens still wholly
unrepresented in the government, and yet we possess every requisite
qualification for voters in the United States. Women possess
property and education; we take out naturalization-papers and
passports and register ships. We preëmpt lands, pay taxes (women
sometimes work out the road-tax with their own hands) and suffer
for our own violation of laws. We are neither idiots, lunatics, nor
criminals, and according to our State constitution lack but one
qualification for voters, namely, sex, which is an insurmountable
qualification, and therefore equivalent to a bill of attainder
against one-half the people, a power neither the States nor the
United States can legally exercise, being forbidden in article 1,
sections 9, 10, of the constitution. Our rulers have the right to
regulate the suffrage, but they cannot abolish it for any class of
citizens, as has been done in the case of the women of this
republic, without a direct violation of the fundamental law of the
land. All concessions of privileges or redress of grievances are
mockery for any class that have no voice in the laws, and
law-makers; hence we demand the ballot, that scepter of power in
our own hands, as the only sure protection for our rights of person
and property under all conditions. If the few may grant and
withhold rights at their pleasure, the many cannot be said to enjoy
the blessings of self-government.</p>

<p>William H. Seward said in his great speech on "Freedom and Union,"
in the United States Senate, February 29, 1860:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mankind have a natural right, a natural instinct, and a natural
capacity for self-government; and when, as here, they are
sufficiently ripened by culture, they will and must have
self-government, and no other. </p></blockquote>

<p>Jefferson said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; the
hand of freedom may destroy, but cannot disjoin them. </p></blockquote>

<p>Few people comprehend the length and breadth of the principle we
are advocating to-day, and how closely it is allied to everything
vital in our system of government. Our personal grievances, such as
being robbed of property and children by unjust husbands; denied
admission into the colleges, the trades and professions; compelled
to work at starving prices, by no means round out this whole
question. In asking for a sixteenth amendment to the United States
Constitution, and the protection of congress against the injustice
of State law, we are fighting the same battle as Jefferson and
Hamilton fought in 1776, as Calhoun and Clay in 1828, as Abraham
Lincoln and Jefferson Davis in 1860, namely, the limit of State
rights and federal power. The enfranchisement of woman involves the
same vital principle of our government that is dividing and
distracting the two great political parties at this hour.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_86" id="Page_86">[Pg 86]</a></span></p>

<p>There is nothing a foreigner coming here finds it so difficult to
understand as the wheel within a wheel in our national and State
governments, and the possibility of carrying them on without
friction; and this is the difficulty and danger we are fast finding
out. The recent amendments are steps in the right direction toward
national unity, securing equal rights to all citizens, in every
latitude and longitude. But our congressional debates, judicial
decisions, and the utterances of campaign orators, continually
falling back to the old ground, are bundles of contradictions on
this vital question. Inasmuch as we are, first, citizens of the
United States, and second, of the State wherein we reside, the
primal rights of all citizens should be regulated by the national
government, and complete equality in civil and political rights
everywhere secured. When women are denied the right to enter
institutions of learning, and practice in the professions, unjust
discriminations made against sex even more degrading and
humiliating than were ever made against color, surely woman, too,
should be protected by a civil-rights bill and a sixteenth
amendment that should make her political status equal with all
other citizens of the republic.</p>

<p>The right of suffrage, like the currency of the post-office
department, demands national regulation. We can all remember the
losses sustained by citizens in traveling from one State to another
under the old system of State banks. We can imagine the confusion
if each State regulated its post-offices, and the transit of the
mails across its borders. The benefits we find in uniformity and
unity in these great interests would pervade all others where equal
conditions were secured. Some citizens are asking for a national
bankrupt law, that a person released from his debts in one State
may be free in every other. Some are for a religious freedom
amendment that shall forever separate church and State; forbidding
a religious test as a condition of suffrage or a qualification for
office; forbidding the reading of the Bible in the schools and the
exempting of church property and sectarian institutions of learning
or charity from taxation. Some are demanding a national marriage
law, that a man legally married in one State may not be a bigamist
in another. Some are asking a national prohibitory law, that a
reformed drunkard who is shielded from temptation in one State may
not be environed with dangers in another. And thus many individual
interests point to a growing feeling among the people in favor of
homogeneous legislation. As several of the States are beginning to
legislate on the woman suffrage question, it is of vital moment
that there should be some national action.</p>

<p>As the laws now are, a woman who can vote, hold office, be tried by
a jury of her own peers&mdash;yea, and sit on the bench as justice of
the peace in the territory of Wyoming, may be reduced to a
political pariah in the State of New York. A woman who can vote and
hold office on the school board, and act as county superintendent
in Kansas and Minnesota, is denied these rights in passing into
Pennsylvania. A woman who can be a member of the school board in
Maine, Wisconsin, Iowa, and California, loses all these privileges
in New Jersey, Maryland, and Delaware. When representatives from
the territories are sent to congress by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_87" id="Page_87">[Pg 87]</a></span> votes of women, it is
time to have some national recognition of this class of citizens.</p>

<p>This demand of national protection for national citizens is fated
to grow stronger every day. The government of the United States, as
the constitution is now interpreted, is powerless to give a just
equivalent for the supreme allegiance it claims. One sound
democratic principle fully recognized and carried to its logical
results in our government, declaring all citizens equal before the
law, would soon chase away the metaphysical mists and fogs that
cloud our political views in so many directions. When congress is
asked to put the name of God in the constitution, and thereby
pledge the nation to some theological faith in which some United
States citizens may not believe and thus subject a certain class to
political ostracism and social persecution, it is asked not to
protect but to oppress the citizens of the several States in their
most sacred rights&mdash;to think, reason, and decide all questions of
religion and conscience for themselves, without fear or favor from
the government. Popular sentiment and church persecution is all
that an advanced thinker in science and religion should be called
on to combat. The State should rather throw its shield of
protection around those uttering liberal, progressive ideas; for
the nation has the same interest in every new thought as it has in
the invention of new machinery to lighten labor, in the discovery
of wells of oil, or mines of coal, copper, iron, silver or gold. As
in the laboratory of nature new forms of beauty are forever
revealing themselves, so in the world of thought a higher outlook
gives a clearer vision of the heights man in freedom shall yet
attain. The day is past for persecuting the philosophers of the
physical sciences. But what a holocaust of martyrs bigotry is still
making of those bearing the richest treasures of thought, in
religion and social ethics, in their efforts to roll off the
mountains of superstition that have so long darkened the human
mind!</p>

<p>The numerous demands by the people for national protection in many
rights not specified in the constitution, prove that the people
have outgrown the compact that satisfied the fathers, and the more
it is expounded and understood the more clearly its monarchical
features can be traced to its English origin. And it is not at all
surprising that, with no chart or compass for a republic, our
fathers, with all their educational prejudices in favor of the
mother country, with her literature and systems of jurisprudence,
should have also adopted her ideas of government, and in drawing up
their national compact engrafted the new republic on the old
constitutional monarchy, a union whose incompatibility has involved
their sons in continued discussion as to the true meaning of the
instrument. A recent writer says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Constitution of the United States is the result of a fourfold
compromise: <i>First</i>&mdash;Of unity with individual interests; of
national sovereignty with the so-called sovereignty of States;
<i>Second</i>&mdash;Of the republic with monarchy; <i>Third</i>&mdash;Of freedom with
slavery; <i>Fourth</i>&mdash;Of democracy with aristocracy. </p></blockquote>

<p>It is founded, therefore, on the fourfold combination of principles
perfectly incompatible and eternally excluding each other; founded
for the purpose of equally preserving these principles in spite of
their incompatibility,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_88" id="Page_88">[Pg 88]</a></span> and of carrying out their practical
results&mdash;in other words, for the purpose of making an impossible
thing possible. And a century of discussion has not yet made the
constitution understood. It has no settled interpretation. Being a
series of compromises, it can be expounded in favor of many
directly opposite principles.</p>

<p>A distinguished American statesman remarked that the war of the
rebellion was waged "to expound the constitution." It is a
pertinent question now, shall all other contradictory principles be
retained in the constitution until they, too, are expounded by
civil war? On what theory is it less dangerous to defraud twenty
million women of their inalienable rights than four million
negroes? Is not the same principle involved in both cases? We ask
congress to pass a sixteenth amendment, not only for woman's
protection, but for the safety of the nation. Our people are filled
with unrest to-day because there is no fair understanding of the
basis of individual rights, nor the legitimate power of the
national government. The Republican party took the ground during
the war that congress had the right to establish a national
currency in every State; that it had the right to emancipate and
enfranchise the slaves; to change their political status in
one-half the States of the union; to pass a civil rights bill,
securing to the freedman a place in the schools, colleges, trades,
professions, hotels, and all public conveyances for travel. And
they maintained their right to do all these as the best measures
for peace, though compelled by war.</p>

<p>And now, when congress is asked to extend the same protection to
the women of the nation, we are told they have not the power, and
we are remanded to the States. They say the emancipation of the
slave was a war measure, a military necessity; that his
enfranchisement was a political necessity. We might with propriety
ask if the present condition of the nation, with its political
outlook, its election frauds daily reported, the corrupt action of
men in official position, governors, judges, and boards of
canvassers, has not brought us to a moral necessity where some new
element is needed in government. But, alas! when women appeal to
congress for the protection of their natural rights of person and
property, they send us for redress to the courts, and the courts
remand us to the States. You did not trust the Southern freedman to
the arbitrary will of courts and States! Why send your mothers,
wives and daughters to the unwashed, unlettered, unthinking masses
that carry popular elections?</p>

<p>We are told by one class of philosophers that the growing tendency
to increase national power and authority is leading to a dangerous
centralization; that the safety of the republic rests in local
self-government. Says the editor of the Boston <i>Index</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>What is local self-government? Briefly, that without any
interference from without, every citizen should manage his own
personal affairs in his own way, according to his own pleasure;
that every town should manage its own town affairs in the same
manner and under the same restriction; every county its own
county affairs, every State its own State affairs. But the
independent exercise of this autonomy, by personal and corporate
individuals, has one fundamental condition, viz.: the maintenance
of all these individualities intact, each in its own sphere of
action, with its rights uninfringed and its freedom uncurtailed
in that sphere, yet each also preserving its just relation to all
the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_89" id="Page_89">[Pg 89]</a></span> rest in an all comprehensive social organization. Every
citizen would thus stand, as it were, in the center of several
concentric and enlarging circles of relationship to his kind; he
would have duties and rights in each relation, not only as an
individual but also as a member of town, county, State and
national organization. His local self-government will be at his
highest possible point of realization, when in each of these
relations his individual duties are discharged and his rights
maintained. </p></blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, what is centralization?</p>

<blockquote><p>It is such a disorganization of this well-balanced, harmonious
and natural system as shall result in the absorption of all
substantial power by a central authority, to the destruction of
the autonomy of the various individualities above mentioned; such
as was produced, for instance, when the <i>municipia</i> of the Roman
empire lost their corporate independence and melted into the vast
imperial despotism which prepared the way for the collapse of
society under the blows of Northern barbarism. Such a
centralization must inevitably be produced by decay of that
stubborn stickling for rights, out of which local self-government
has always grown. That is, if individual rights in the citizen,
the town, the county, the State, shall not be vindicated as
beyond all price, and defended with the utmost jealousy, at
whatever cost, the spirit of liberty must have already died out,
and the dreary process of centralization be already far advanced.
It will thus be evident that the preservation of individual
rights is the only possible preventative of centralization, and
that free society has no interest to be compared for an instant
in importance with that of preserving these individual rights. No
nation is free in which this is not the paramount concern. Woe to
America when her sons and her daughters begin to sneer at rights!
Just so long as the citizens are protected individually in their
rights, the towns and counties and States cannot be stripped; but
if the former lose all love for their own liberties as equal
units of society, the latter will become the empty shells of
creatures long perished. The nation as such, therefore, if it
would be itself free and non-centralized, must find its own
supreme interest in the protection of its individual citizens in
the fullest possible enjoyment of their equal rights and
liberties. </p></blockquote>

<p>As this question of woman's enfranchisement is one of national
safety, we ask you to remember that we are citizens of the United
States, and, as such, claim the protection of the national flag in
the exercise of our national rights, in every latitude and
longitude, on sea, land, at home as well as abroad; against the
tyranny of States, as well as against foreign aggressions. Local
authorities may regulate the exercise of these rights; they may
settle all minor questions of property, but the inalienable
personal rights of citizenship should be declared by the
constitution, interpreted by the Supreme Court, protected by
congress and enforced by the arm of the executive. It is nonsense
to talk of State rights until the graver question of personal
liberties is first understood and adjusted. President Hayes, in
reply to an address of welcome at Charlottesville, Va., September
25, 1877, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Equality under the laws for all citizens is the corner-stone of
the structure of the restored harmony from which the ancient
friendship is to rise. In this pathway I am going, the pathway
where your illustrious men led&mdash;your Jefferson, your Madison,
your Monroe, your Washington. </p></blockquote>

<p>If, in this statement, President Hayes is thoroughly sincere, then
he will not hesitate to approve emphatically the principle of
national protection for national citizens. He will see that the
protection of all the national citizens in all their rights, civil,
political, and religious&mdash;not by the muskets of United States
troops, but by the peaceable authority of United<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_90" id="Page_90">[Pg 90]</a></span> States courts&mdash;is
not a principle that applies to a single section of the country,
but to all sections alike; he will see that the incorporation of
such a principle in the constitution cannot be regarded as a
measure of force imposed upon the vanquished, since it would be law
alike to the vanquished and the victor. In short, he will see that
there is no other sufficient guarantee of that equality of all
citizens, which he well declares to be the "corner-stone of the
structure of restored harmony." The Boston <i>Journal</i> of July 19,
said:</p>

<blockquote><p>There are cases where it seems as if the constitution should
empower the federal government to step in and protect the citizen
in the State, when the local authorities are in league with the
assassins; but, as it now reads, no such provision exists. </p></blockquote>

<p>That the constitution does not make such provision is not the fault
of the president; it must be attributed to the leading Republicans
who had it in their power once to change the constitution so as to
give the most ample powers to the general government. When
Attorney-General Devens was charged last May with negligence in not
prosecuting the parties accused of the Mountain Meadow massacre,
his defense was, that this horrible crime was not against the
United States, but against the territory of Utah. Yet, it was a
great company of industrious, honest, unoffending United States
citizens who were foully and brutally murdered in cold blood. When
Chief-Justice Waite gave his charge to the jury in the Ellentown
conspiracy cases, at Charleston, S. C., June 1, 1877, he said:</p>

<blockquote><p>That a number of citizens of the United States have been killed,
there can be no question; but that is not enough to enable the
government of the United States to interfere for their
protection. Under the constitution that duty belongs to the State
alone. But when an unlawful combination is made to interfere with
any of the rights of natural citizenship secured to citizens of
the United States by the national constitution, then an offense
is committed against the laws of the United States, and it is not
only the right but the absolute duty of the national government
to interfere and afford the citizens that protection which every
good government is bound to give. </p></blockquote>

<p>General Hawley, in an address before a college last spring, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Why, it is asked, does our government permit outrages in a State
which it would exert all its authority to redress, even at the
risk of war, if they were perpetrated under a foreign government?
Are the rights of American citizens more sacred on the soil of
Great Britain or France than on the soil of one of our own
States? Not at all. But the government of the United States is
clothed with power to act with imperial sovereignty in the one
case, while in the other its authority is limited to the degree
of utter impotency, in certain circumstances. The State
sovereignty excludes the Federal over most matters of dealing
between man and man, and if the State laws are properly enforced
there is not likely to be any ground of complaint, but if they
are not, the federal government, if not specially called on
according to the terms of the constitution, is helpless. Citizen
A.B., grievously wronged, beaten, robbed, lynched within a hair's
breadth of death, may apply in vain to any and all prosecuting
officers of the State. The forms of law that might give him
redress are all there; the prosecuting officers, judges, and
sheriffs, that might act, are there; but, under an oppressive and
tyrannical public sentiment, they refuse to move. In such an
exigency the government of the United States can do no more than
the government of any neighboring State; that is, unless the
State concerned calls for aid, or unless the offense rises to the
dignity of insurrection or rebellion. The reason is, that the
framers of our governmental system left to the several States the
sole guardianship of the personal and relative private rights of
the people. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_91" id="Page_91">[Pg 91]</a></span></p>

<p>Such is the imperfect development of our own nationality in this
respect that we have really no right as yet to call ourselves a
nation in the true sense of the word, nor shall we have while this
state of things continues. Thousands have begun to feel this
keenly, of which a few illustrations may suffice. A communication
to the New York <i>Tribune</i>, June 9, signed "Merchant," said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Before getting into a quarrel and perhaps war with Mexico about
the treatment of our flag and citizens, would it not be as well,
think you, for the government to try and make the flag a
protection to the citizens on our own soil? </p></blockquote>

<p>That is what it has never been since the foundation of our
government in a large portion of our common country. The kind of
government the people of this country expect and intend to
have&mdash;State rights or no State rights, no matter how much blood and
treasure it may cost&mdash;is a government to protect the humblest
citizen in the exercise of all his rights.</p>

<p>When the rebellion of the South against the government began, one
of the most noted secessionists of Baltimore asked one of the
regular army officers what the government expected to gain by
making war on the South. "Well," the officer replied, laying his
hand on the cannon by which he was standing, "we intend to use
these until it is as safe for a Northern man to express his
political opinions in the South, as it is for a Southern man to
express his in the North." Senator Blaine, at a banquet in Trenton,
N. J., July 2, declared that a "government which did not offer
protection to every citizen in every State had no right to demand
allegiance." Ex-Senator Wade, of Ohio, in a letter to the
Washington <i>National Republican</i> of July 16, said of the
president's policy:</p>

<blockquote><p>I greatly fear this policy, under cover of what is called local
self-government, is but an ignominious surrender of the
principles of nationality for which our armies fought and for
which thousands upon thousands of our brave men died, and without
which the war was a failure and our boasted government a myth. </p></blockquote>

<p>Behind the slavery of the colored race was the principle of State
rights. Their emancipation and enfranchisement were important, not
only as a vindication of our great republican idea of individual
rights, but as the first blow in favor of national unity&mdash;of a
consistent, homogeneous government. As all our difficulties, State
and national, are finally referred to the constitution, it is of
vital importance that that instrument should not be susceptible of
a different interpretation from every possible standpoint. It is
folly to spend another century in expounding the equivocal language
of the constitution. If under that instrument, supposed to be the
<i>Magna Charta</i> of American liberties, all United States citizens do
not stand equal before the law, it should without further delay be
so amended as in plain, unmistakable language to declare what are
the rights, privileges, and immunities that belong to citizens of a
republic.</p>

<p>There is no reason why the people of to-day should be governed by
the laws and constitutions of men long since dead and buried.
Surely those who understand the vital issues of this hour are
better able to legislate for the living present than those who
governed a hundred years ago. If the nineteenth century is to be
governed by the opinions of the eighteenth,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_92" id="Page_92">[Pg 92]</a></span> and the twentieth by
the nineteenth, the world will always be governed by dead men....</p>

<p>The cry of centralization could have little significance if the
constitution were so amended as to protect all United States
citizens in their inalienable rights. That national supremacy that
holds individual freedom and equality more sacred than State rights
and secures representation to all classes of people, is a very
different form of centralization from that in which all the forces
of society are centered in a single arm. But the recognition of the
principle of national supremacy, as declared in the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments, has been practically nullified and the
results of the war surrendered, by remanding woman to the States
for the protection of her civil and political rights. The Supreme
Court decisions and the congressional reports on this point are in
direct conflict with the idea of national unity, and the principle
of States rights involved in this discussion must in time remand
all United States citizens alike to State authority for the
protection of those rights declared to inhere in the people at the
foundation of the government.</p>

<p>You may listen to our demands, gentlemen, with dull ears, and smile
incredulously at the idea of danger to our institutions from
continued violation of the civil and political rights of women, but
the question of what citizens shall enjoy the rights of suffrage
involves our national existence; for, if the constitutional rights
of the humblest citizen may be invaded with impunity, laws
interpreted on the side of injustice, judicial decisions based not
on reason, sound argument, nor the spirit and letter of our
declarations and theories of government, but on the customs of
society and what dead men are supposed to have thought, not what
they said&mdash;what will the rights of the ruling powers even be in the
future with a people educated into such modes of thought and
action? The treatment of every individual in a community&mdash;in our
courts, prisons, asylums, of every class of petitioners before
congress&mdash;strengthens or undermines the foundations of that temple
of liberty whose corner-stones were laid one century ago with
bleeding hands and anxious hearts, with the hardships, privations,
and sacrifices of a seven years' war. He who is able from the
conflicts of the present to forecast the future events, cannot but
contemplate with anxiety the fate of this republic, unless our
constitution be at once subjected to a thorough emendation, making
it more comprehensively democratic.</p>

<p>A review of the history of our nation during the century will show
the American people that all the obstacles that have impeded their
political, moral and material progress from the dominion of slavery
down to the present epidemic of political corruptions, are directly
and indirectly traceable to the federal constitution as their
source and support. Hence the necessity of prompt and appropriate
amendments. Nothing that is incorrect in principle can ever be
productive of beneficial results, and no custom or authority is
able to alter or overrule this inviolate law of development. The
catch-phrases of politicians, such as "organic development," "the
logic of events," and "things will regulate themselves," have
deceived the thoughtless long enough. There is just one road to
safety,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_93" id="Page_93">[Pg 93]</a></span> and that is to understand the law governing the situation
and to bring the nation in line with it. Grave political problems
are solved in two ways&mdash;by a wise forethought, and reformation; or
by general dissatisfaction, resistance, and revolution.</p>

<p>In closing, let me remind you, gentlemen, that woman has not been a
heedless spectator of all the great events of the century, nor a
dull listener to the grand debates on human freedom and equality.
She has learned the lesson of self-sacrifice, self-discipline, and
self-government in the same school with the heroes of American
liberty.<a name="FNanchor_29_29" id="FNanchor_29_29"></a><a href="#Footnote_29_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, of New York, corresponding secretary of the
association, said: <i>Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
Committee</i>&mdash;You have heard the general argument for woman from Mrs.
Stanton, but there are women here from all parts of the Union, and
each one feels that she must say a word to show how united we
stand. It is because we have respect for law that we come before
you to-day. We recognize the fact that in good law lies the
security of all our rights, but as woman has been denied the
constructive rights of the declaration and constitution, she is
obliged to ask for a direct recognition in the adoption of a
sixteenth amendment.</p>

<p>The first principle of liberty is division of power. In the country
of the czar or the sultan there is no liberty of thought or action.
In limited monarchies power is somewhat divided, and we find larger
liberty and a broader civilization. Coming to the United States we
find a still greater division of power, a still more extended
liberty&mdash;civil, religious, political. No nation in the world is as
respected as our own; no title so proud as that of American
citizen; it carries with it abroad a protection as large as did
that of Rome two thousand years ago. But as proud as is this name
of American citizen, it brings with it only shame and humiliation
to one-half of the nation. Woman has no part nor lot in the matter.
The pride of citizenship is not for her, for woman is still a
political slave. While the form of our government seems to include
the whole people, one-half of them are denied a right to
participate in its benefits, are denied the right of
self-government. Woman equally with man has natural rights; woman
equally with man is a responsible being.</p>

<p>It is said women are not fit for freedom. Well, then, secure us
freedom and make us fit for it. Macaulay said many politicians of
his time were in the habit of laying it down as a self-evident
proposition that no people were fit to be free till they were in a
condition to use their freedom;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_94" id="Page_94">[Pg 94]</a></span> "but," said Macaulay, "this maxim
is worthy of the fool in the old story, who resolved not to go into
the water till he had learned to swim. If men [or women] are to
wait for liberty till they become good and wise in slavery, they
may indeed wait forever."</p>

<p>There has been much talk about precedent. Many women in this
country vote upon school questions, and in England at all municipal
elections. I wish to call your attention a little further back, to
the time that the Saxons first established free government in
England. Women, as well as men, took part in the Witenagemote, the
great national council of our Saxon ancestors in England. When
Whightred, king of Kent, in the seventh century, assembled the
national legislature at Baghamstead to enact a new code of laws,
the queen, abbesses, and many ladies of quality signed the decrees.
Also, at Beaconsfield, the abbesses took part in the council. In
the reign of Henry III. four women took seats in parliament, and in
the reign of Edward I. ten ladies were called to parliament and
helped to govern Great Britain. Also, in 1252, Henry left his Queen
Elinor as keeper of the great seal, or lord chancellor, while he
went abroad. She sat in the Aula Regia, the highest court of the
kingdom, holding the highest judicial power in great Britain. Not
only among our forefathers in Britain do we find that women took
part in government, but, going back to the Roman Empire, we find
the Emperor Heliogabalus introducing his mother into the senate,
and giving her a seat near the consuls. He also established a
senate of women, which met on the Collis Quirinalis. When Aurelian
was emperor he favored the representation of women, and determined
to revive this senate, which in lapse of time had fallen to decay.
Plutarch mentions that women sat and deliberated in councils, and
on questions of peace and war. Hence we have precedents extending
very far back into history.</p>

<p>It is sometimes said that women do not desire freedom. But I tell
you the desire for freedom lives in every heart. It may be hidden
as the water of the never-freezing, rapid-flowing river Neva is
hidden. In the winter the ice from Lake Lagoda floats down till it
is met by the ice setting up from the sea, when they unite and form
a compact mass over it. Men stand upon it, sledges run over it,
splendid palaces are built upon it; but beneath all the Neva still
rapidly flows, itself unfrozen. The presence of these women before
you shows their desire for freedom. They have come from the North,
from the South, from the East, from the West, and from the far
Pacific slope, demanding freedom for themselves and for all women.</p>

<p>Our demands are often met by the most intolerable tyranny. The
Albany <i>Law Journal</i>, one of the most influential legal journals of
the great State of New York, had the assurance a few years ago to
tell Miss Anthony and myself if we were not suited with "our laws"
we could leave the country. What laws did they mean? Men's laws. If
we were not suited with these men's laws, made by them to protect
themselves, we could leave the country. We were advised to
expatriate ourselves, to banish ourselves. But we shall not do it.
It is our country, and we shall stay here and change the laws. We
shall secure their amendment, so that under them there shall be
exact and permanent political equality<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_95" id="Page_95">[Pg 95]</a></span> between men and women.
Change is not only a law of life; it is an essential proof of the
existence of life. This country has attained its greatness by ever
enlarging the bounds of freedom.</p>

<p>In our hearts we feel that there is a word sweeter than mother,
home, or heaven. That word is <span class="smcap">liberty</span>. We ask it of you now. We say
to you, secure to us this liberty&mdash;the same liberty you have
yourselves. In doing this you will not render yourselves poor, but
will make us rich indeed.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Stewart</span> of Delaware, in illustrating the folly of adverse
arguments based on woman's ignorance of political affairs, gave an
amusing account of her colored man servant the first time he voted.
He had been full of bright anticipations of the coming election
day, and when it dawned at last, he asked if he could be spared
from his work an hour or so, to vote. "Certainly, Jo," said she,
"by all means; go to the polls and do your duty as a citizen."
Elated with his new-found dignity, Jo ran down the road, and with a
light heart and shining face deposited his vote. On his return Mrs.
Stewart questioned him as to his success at the polls. "Well," said
he, "first one man nabbed me and gave me the tickets he said I
ought to vote, and then another man did the same. I said yes to
both and put the tickets in my pocket. I had no use for those
Republican or Democratic bits of paper." "Well, Jo," said Mrs.
Stewart, "what did you do?" "Why I took that piece of paper that I
paid $2.50 for and put it in the box. I knew that was worth
something." "Alas! Jo," said his mistress, "you voted your tax
receipt, so your first vote has counted nothing." Do you think,
gentlemen, said Mrs. Stewart, that such women as attend our
conventions, and speak from our platform, could make so ludicrous a
blunder? I think not.</p>

<p>The Rev. <span class="smcap">Olympia Brown</span>, a delegate from Connecticut, addressed the
committee as follows: <i>Gentlemen of the Committee</i>&mdash;I would not
intrude upon your time and exhaust your patience by any further
hearing upon this subject if it were not that men are continually
saying to us that we do not want the ballot; that it is only a
handful of women that have ever asked for it; and I think by our
coming up from these different States, from Delaware, from Oregon,
from Missouri, from Connecticut, from New Hampshire, and giving our
testimony, we shall convince you that it is not a few merely, but
that it is a general demand from the women in all the different
States of the Union; and if we come here with stammering tongues,
causing you to laugh by the very absurdity of the manner in which
we advocate our opinions, it will only convince you that it is not
a few "gifted" women, but the rank and file of the women of our
country unaccustomed to such proceedings as these, who come here to
tell you that we all desire the right of suffrage. Nor shall our
mistakes and inability to advocate our cause in an effective manner
be an argument against us, because it is not the province of voters
to conduct meetings in Washington. It is rather their province to
stay at home and quietly read the proceeding of members of
congress, and if they find these proceedings correct, to vote to
return them another year. So that our very mistakes shall argue for
us and not against us.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_96" id="Page_96">[Pg 96]</a></span></p>

<p>In the ages past the right of citizenship meant the right to enjoy
or possess or attain all those civil and political rights that are
enjoyed by any other citizen. But here we have a class who can bear
the burdens and punishments of citizens, but cannot enjoy their
privileges and rights. But even the meanest may petition, and so we
come with our thousands of petitions, asking you to protect us
against the unjust discriminations imposed by State laws. Nor do we
find that there is any conflict between the duties of the national
government and the functions of the State. The United States
government has to do with general interests, but everything that is
special, has to do with sectional interests, belongs to the State.
Said Charles Sumner:</p>

<blockquote><p>The State exercises its proper functions when it makes local
laws, promotes local charities, and by its local knowledge brings
the guardianship of government to the homes of its citizens; but
the State transcends its proper functions when in any manner it
interferes with those equal rights recorded in the Declaration of
Independence. </p></blockquote>

<p>The State is local, the United States is universal. And, says
Charles Sumner, "What can be more universal than the rights of
man?" I would add, "What can be more universal than the rights of
woman?" extending further than the rights of man, because woman is
the heaven-appointed guardian of the home; because woman by her
influence and in her office as an educator makes the character of
man; because women are to be found wherever men are to be found, as
their mothers bringing them into the world, watching them, teaching
them, guiding them into manhood. Wherever there is a home, wherever
there is a human interest, there is to be felt the interest of
women, and so this cause is the most universal of any cause under
the sun; and, therefore, it has a claim upon the general
government. Therefore we come petitioning that you will protect us
in our rights, by aiding us in the passage of the sixteenth
amendment, which will make the constitution plain in our favor, or
by such actions as will enable us to cast our ballots at the polls
without being interfered with by State authorities. And we hope you
will do this at no distant day. I hope you will not send my sister,
the honorable lady from Delaware, to the boy, Jo, to ask him to
define her position in the republic. I hope you will not bid any of
these women at home to ask ignorant men whether they may be allowed
to discharge their obligations as citizens in the matter of
suffrage. I hope you will not put your wives and mothers in the
power of men who have never given a half hour's consideration to
the subject of government, and who are wholly unfit to exercise
their judgment as to whether women should have the right of
suffrage.</p>

<p>I will not insult your common sense by bringing up the old
arguments as to whether we have the right to vote. I believe every
man of you knows we have that right&mdash;that our right to vote is
based upon the same authority as yours. I believe every man
understands that, according to the declaration and the
constitution, women should be allowed to exercise the right of
suffrage, and therefore it is not necessary for me to do more than
bear my testimony from the State of Connecticut, and tell you that
the women from the rank and file, the law-abiding women, desire
the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_97" id="Page_97">[Pg 97]</a></span> ballot; not only that they desire it, but they mean to have
it. And to accomplish this result I need not remind you that they
will work year in and year out, that they will besiege members of
congress everywhere, and that they will come here year after year
asking you to protect them in their rights and to see that justice
is done in the republic. Therefore, for your own peace, we hope you
will not keep us waiting a long time. The fact that some States
have made, temporarily, some good laws, does not weaken our demand
upon you for the protection which the ballot gives to every
citizen. Our interests are still uncared for, and we do not wish to
be thus sent from pillar to post to get our rights. We wish to take
our stand as citizens of the United States, as we have been
declared to be by the Supreme Court, and we wish to be protected in
the rights of citizenship. We hope the day is at hand when our
prayers will be heard by you. Let us have at an early day in the
<i>Congressional Record</i>, a report of the proceedings of this
committee, and the action of the Senate in favor of woman's right
to vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>Brief remarks were also made by Mrs. Lawrence of Massachusetts,
Mary A. Thompson, M. D., of Oregon, Mary Powers Filley of New
Hampshire, Mrs. Blake of New York, Mrs. Hooker of Connecticut, and
Sara Andrews Spencer of Washington.</p>

<p>At the close of these two day's hearings before the Committee on
Privileges and Elections,<a name="FNanchor_30_30" id="FNanchor_30_30"></a><a href="#Footnote_30_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a> Senator Hoar of Massachusetts,
offered, and the committee adopted the following complimentary
resolution:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the arguments upon the very important questions
discussed before the committee have been presented with
propriety, dignity and ability, and that the committee will
consider the same on Tuesday next, at 10 <span class="smcap">a.m.</span> </p></blockquote>

<p>The Washington <i>Evening Star</i> of January 11, 1876, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The woman suffrage question will be a great political issue some
day. A movement in the direction of alleged rights by a body of
American citizens cannot be forever checked, even though its
progress may for many years be very gradual. Now that the
advocates of suffrage for woman have become convinced that the
thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments are not
sufficiently explicit to make woman's right to vote unquestioned,
and that a sixteenth amendment is necessary to effect the
practical exercise of the right, the millennial period that they
look for is to all intents and purposes indefinitely postponed,
for constitutional amendments are not passed in a day. But there
are so many sound arguments to be advanced in favor of woman
suffrage that it cannot fail in time to be weighed as a matter of
policy, after it shall have been overwhelmingly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_98" id="Page_98">[Pg 98]</a></span> conceded as a
matter of right. And it is noticeable that the arguments of the
opponents are coming more and more to be based on expediency, and
hardly attempt to answer the claim that as American citizens
women are entitled to the right. If the whole body of American
women desired the practical exercise of this right, it is hard to
see what valid opposition to their claims could be made. All this
however does not amend the constitution. Woman suffrage must
become a matter of policy for a political party before it can be
realized. Congress does not pass revolutionary measures on
abstract considerations of right. This question is of a nature to
become a living political issue after it has been sufficiently
ridiculed. </p></blockquote>

<p>On Saturday evening, January 12, a reception was given to the
delegates to the convention by Hon. Alexander H. Stephens of
Georgia, at the National Hotel. The suite of rooms so long occupied
by this liberal representative of the South, was thus opened to
unwonted guests&mdash;women asking for the same rights gained at the
point of the sword by his former slaves! Seated in his wheel-chair,
from which he had so often been carried by a faithful attendant to
his place in the House of Representatives, he cordially welcomed
the ladies as they gathered about him, assuring them of his
interest in this question and promising his aid.</p>

<p>For the first time Miss Julia Smith of anti-tax fame, of
Glastonbury, Connecticut, was present at a Washington convention.
She was the recipient of much social attention. A reception was
tendered her by Mrs. Spofford of the Riggs House, giving people an
opportunity to meet this heroic woman of eighty-three, who, with
her younger sister Abby, had year after year suffered the sale of
their fine Jersey cows and beautiful meadow lands, rather than pay
taxes while unrepresented. Many women, notable in art, science and
literature, and men high in political station were present on this
occasion. All crowded about Miss Smith, as, supported by Mrs.
Hooker, in response to a call for a speech, particularly in regard
to the Gladstonbury cows, as famous as herself, she said:</p>

<blockquote><p>There are but two of our cows left at present, Taxey and Votey.
It is something a little peculiar that Taxey is very obtrusive;
why, I can scarcely step out of doors without being confronted by
her, while Votey is quiet and shy, but she is growing more docile
and domesticated every day, and it is my opinion that in a very
short time, wherever you find Taxey there Votey will be also. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the close of Miss Smith's remarks, Abby Hutchinson Patton sang
"Auld Lang Syne" in a very effective manner; one or two readings
followed, a few modern ballads were sung, and thus<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_99" id="Page_99">[Pg 99]</a></span> closed the
first of the many delightful receptions given by Mr. and Mrs.
Spofford to the officers and members of the National Association.</p>

<p>Mrs. Hooker spent several weeks at the Riggs House, holding
frequent woman suffrage conversazioni in its elegant parlors; also
speaking upon the question at receptions given in her honor by the
wives of members of congress, or residents of Washington.<a name="FNanchor_31_31" id="FNanchor_31_31"></a><a href="#Footnote_31_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p>

<p>During the week of the convention, public attention was called to a
scarcely known Anti-Woman Suffrage Society, formed in 1871, of
which Mrs. General Sherman, Mrs. Admiral Dahlgren and Mrs. Almira
Lincoln Phelps were officers, by the publication of an undelivered
letter from Mrs. Phelps to Mrs. Hooker:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Editor of the Post:</i></p>

<p>The following was written nearly seven years since, but was never
sent to Mrs. Hooker. The letter chanced to appear among old
papers, and as there is a meeting of women suffragists, with Mrs.
Hooker present, and, moreover, as they have mentioned the names
of Mrs. Dahlgren and Mrs. General Sherman, opposers, I am willing
to bear my share of the opposition, as I acted as corresponding
secretary to the Anti-Suffrage Society, which was formed under
the auspices of these ladies.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Mrs. Dahlgren.</p>


<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_100" id="Page_100">[Pg 100]</a></span></p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Eutaw Place, Baltimore</span>, January, 30, 1871.</p>

<p><i>To Mrs. Beecher Hooker:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Madam</span>&mdash;Hoping you will receive kindly what I am about to
write, I will proceed without apologies. I have confidence in your
nobleness of soul, and that you know enough of me to believe in my
devotion to the best interests of woman. I can scarcely realize
that you are giving your name and influence to a cause, which, with
some good but, as I think, misguided women, numbers among its
advocates others with loose morals. * * * We are, my dear madam, as
I suppose, related through our common ancester Thomas Hooker. * * *
Your husband, I believe, stands in the same relation to that good
and noble man. Perhaps he may think with you on this woman suffrage
question, but it does seem to me that a wife honoring her husband
would not wish to join in such a crusade as is now going on to put
woman on an equality with the rabble at the "hustings." If we could
with propriety petition the Almighty to change the condition of the
sexes and let men take a turn in bearing children and in suffering
the physical ailments peculiar to women, which render them unfit
for certain positions and business, why, in this case, if we really
wish to be men, and thought God would change the established order,
we might make our petition; but why ask congress to make us men?
Circumstances drew me from the quiet of domestic life while I was
yet young; but success in labors which involved publicity, and
which may have been of advantage to society, was never considered
as an equivalent to my own heart for the loss of such retirement.
In the name of my sainted sister, Emma Willard, and of my friend
Lydia Sigourney, and I think I might say in the name of the women
of the past generation, who have been prominent as writers and
educators (the exception may be made of Mary Wollstonecraft,
Frances Wright, and a few licentious French writers) in our own
country and in Europe, let me urge the high-souled and honorable of
our sex to turn their energies into that channel which will enable
them to act for the true interests of their sex.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Almira Lincoln Phelps</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours respectfully,</p>
</blockquote>


<p>To which Mrs. Hooker, through <i>The Post</i>, replied:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Washington</span>, January 15, 1878.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Dahlgren</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Madam</i>: Permit me to thank you for the
opportunity to exonerate myself and the women of the suffrage
movement all over the United States from the charge of favoring
immorality in any form. I did not know before that Mrs. Phelps,
whom I have always held in highest esteem as an educator and as
one of the most advanced thinkers of her day, had so misconceived
the drift of our movement; and you will pardon me, dear madam,
for saying that it is hardly possible that Mrs. Sherman and
yourself, in your opposition to it, can have been influenced by
any apprehension that the women suffragists of the United States
would, if entrusted with legislative power, proceed to use it for
the desecration of their own sex, and the pollution of the souls
of their husbands, brothers and sons. But having been publicly
accused through your instrumentality of sympathy with the
licentious practices of men, I shall take the liberty to send you
a dozen copies of a little book entitled, "Womanhood; its
Sanctities and Fidelities," which I published in 1874 for the
specific purpose of bringing to the notice of American women the
wonderful work being done across the water in the suppression of
"State Patronage of Vice." <span class="spacious">* * *</span> It is with a deep sense of
gratitude to God that I am able to say that, according to my
knowledge and belief, every woman in our movement, whether
officer or private, is in sympathy with the spirit of this little
book. I know of no inharmony<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_101" id="Page_101">[Pg 101]</a></span> here, however we may differ upon
minor points of expediency as to the best methods of working for
the political advancement of woman. And further, it is the deep
conviction of us all that the chief stumbling-block in the way of
our obtaining the use of the ballot, is the apprehension among
men of low degree that they will surely be limited in their base
and brutal and sensual indulgencies when women are armed with
equal political power.</p>

<p>As to my husband, to whose ancestry Mrs. Phelps so kindly
alludes, permit me to say that he is not only descended from
Thomas Hooker, the beloved first pastor of the old Centre Church
in Hartford, and founder of the State of Connecticut, but further
back his lineage takes root in one of England's most honored
names, Richard Hooker, surnamed "The Judicious"; and I have been
accustomed to say that, however it may be as to learning and
position, the characteristic of judiciousness has not departed
from the American stock. I will only add that Mr. Hooker is
treasurer of our State suffrage association, and has spoken on
the platform with me as president, whenever his professional
duties would permit, and that he is the author of a tract on "The
Bible and Woman Suffrage." Our society has printed several
thousand copies of this tract, and the London National Women's
Suffrage Society has reprinted it with words of high commendation
for distribution in Great Britain. * * * And now, dear madam,
thanking you once more for this most unexpected and most grateful
opportunity for correcting misapprehensions that others may have
entertained as well as Mrs. Phelps in regard to the design and
tendencies of our movement, may I not ask that you will kindly
read and consider the papers I shall take the liberty to send
you, and hand them to your co-workers at your convenience?</p>

<p>That we all, as women who love our country and our kind, may be
led to honor each other in our personal relations, while we work
each in her respective way for that higher order of manhood and
womanhood that alone can exalt our nation to the ideal of the
fathers and mothers of the early republic, and preserve us an
honored place among the peoples of the earth, is the prayer of</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Isabella Beecher Hooker</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours sincerely,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Evidently left without even the name of Mrs. Sherman or the
Anti-Suffrage Society to sustain her, Mrs. Dahlgren memorialized
the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections against the
submission of the sixteenth amendment:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Honorable Committee on Privileges and Elections:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>&mdash;Allow me, in courtesy, as a petitioner, to present one
or two considerations regarding a sixteenth amendment, by which
it is proposed to confer the right of suffrage upon the women of
the United States. I ask this favor also in the interests of the
masses of silent women, whose silence does not give consent, but
who, in most modest earnestness, deprecate having the political
life forced upon them.</p>

<p>This grave question is not one of simple expediency or the
reverse; it might properly be held, were this the case, as a
legitimate subject for agitation.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_102" id="Page_102">[Pg 102]</a></span> Our reasons of dissent to this
dangerous inroad upon all precedent, lie deeper and strike
higher. They are based upon that which in all Christian nations
must be recognized as the higher law, the fundamental law upon
which Christian society in its very construction must rest; and
that law, as defined by the Almighty, is immutable. Through it
the women of this Christian land, as mothers, wives, sisters,
daughters, have distinct duties to perform of the most complex
order, yet of the very highest and most sacred nature.</p>

<p>If in addition to all these responsibilities, others,
appertaining to the domain assigned to men, are allotted to us,
we shall be made the victims of an oppression not intended by a
kind and wise Providence, and from which the refining influences
of Christian civilization have emancipated us. We have but to
look at the condition of our Indian sister, upon whose bended
back the heavy pack is laid by her lord and master; who treads in
subjection the beaten pathway of equal rights, and compare her
situation with our own, to thank the God of Christian nations who
has placed us above that plane, where right is might, and might
is tyranny. We cannot without prayer and protest see our
cherished privileges endangered, and have granted us only in
exchange the so-called equal rights. We need more, and we claim,
through our physical weakness and your courtesy as Christian
gentlemen, that protection which we need for the proper discharge
of those sacred and inalienable functions and rights conferred
upon us by God. To these the vote, which is not a natural right
(otherwise why not confer it upon idiots, lunatics, and adult
boys) would be adverse.</p>

<p>When women ask for a distinct political life, a separate vote,
they forget or they willfully ignore the higher law, whose logic
may be thus condensed: Marriage is a sacred unity. The family,
through it, is the foundation of the State. Each family is
represented by its head, just as the State ultimately finds the
same unity, through a series of representations. Out of this come
peace, concord, proper representation, and adjustment&mdash;union.</p>

<p>The new doctrine, which is illusive, may be thus defined:
Marriage is a mere compact, and means diversity. Each family,
therefore, must have a separate individual representation, out of
which arises diversity or division, and discord is the
corner-stone of the State.</p>

<p>Gentlemen, we cannot displace the corner-stone without
destruction to the edifice itself! The subject is so vast, has so
many side issues, that a volume might as readily be laid before
your honorable committee as these few words hastily written with
an aching woman's heart. Personally, if any woman in this vast
land has a grievance by not having a vote, I may claim that
grievance to be mine. With father, brother, husband, son, taken
away by death, I stand utterly alone, with minor children to
educate and considerable property interests to guard. But I would
deem it unpatriotic to ask for a general law which must prove
disastrous to my country, in order to meet that exceptional
position in which, by the adorable will of God, I am placed. I
prefer, indeed, to trust to that moral influence over men which
intelligence never fails to exercise, and which is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_103" id="Page_103">[Pg 103]</a></span> really more
potent in the management of business affairs than the direct
vote. In this I am doubtless as old-fashioned as were our
grandmothers, who assisted to mold this vast republic. They knew
that the greatest good for the greatest number was the only safe
legislative law, and that to it all exceptional cases must
submit.</p>

<p>Gentlemen, in conclusion, a sophism in legislation is not a mere
abstraction; it must speedily bear fruit in material results of
the most disastrous nature, and I implore your honorable
committee, in behalf of our common country, not to open a
Pandora's box by way of experiment from whence so much evil must
issue, and which once opened may never again be closed.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Madeleine Vinton Dahlgren</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Dahlgren was ably reviewed by Virginia L. Minor of St. Louis,
and the Toledo Woman Suffrage Association. Mrs. Minor said:</p>

<blockquote><p>In assuming to speak for the "silent masses" of women, Mrs.
Dahlgren declares that silence does not give consent; very
inconsequently forgetting, that if it does not on one side of the
question, it may not on the other, and that she may no more
represent them than do we. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Toledo society, through its president Mrs. Rose L. Segur, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>We agree with you that this grave question is not one of
expediency. It is simply one of right and justice, and therefore
a most legitimate subject for agitation. As a moral force woman
must have a voice in the government, or partial and unjust
legislation is the result from which arise the evils consequent
upon a government based upon the enslavement of half its
citizens. </p></blockquote>

<p>To this Mrs. Dahlgren replied briefly, charging the ladies with
incapacity to comprehend her.</p>

<p>The week following the convention a hearing was granted by the
House Judiciary Committee to Dr. Mary Walker of Washington, Mary A.
Tillotson of New Jersey and Mrs. N. Cromwell of Arkansas, urging a
report in favor of woman's enfranchisement. On January 28, the
House sub-committee on territories granted a hearing to Dr. Mary
Walker and Sara Andrews Spencer, in opposition to the bill
proposing the disfranchisement of the women of Utah as a means of
suppressing polygamy.</p>

<p>On January 30 the House Judiciary Committee granted Mrs. Hooker a
hearing. Of the eleven members of the committee nearly all were
present.<a name="FNanchor_32_32" id="FNanchor_32_32"></a><a href="#Footnote_32_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a> The room and all the corridors leading to it were
crowded with men and women eager to hear Mrs.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_104" id="Page_104">[Pg 104]</a></span> Hooker's speech. At
the close of the two hours occupied in its delivery, Chairman Knott
thanked her in the name of the committee for her able argument.</p>

<p>Immediately after this hearing Mr. Frye of Maine, in presenting in
the House of Representatives the petitions of 30,000 persons asking
the right of women to vote upon the question of temperance,
referred in a very complimentary manner to Mrs. Hooker's argument,
to which he had just listened. Upon this prayer a hearing was
granted to the president and ex-president of the Woman's Christian
Temperance Union, Frances E. Willard and Annie E. Wittenmyer.</p>

<p>Hon. George F. Hoar of Massachusetts, February 4, presented in the
Senate the 120 petitions with their 6,261 signatures, which, by
special request of its officers, had been returned to the
headquarters of the American Association, in Boston. In her appeal
to the friends to circulate the petitions, both State and national,
Lucy Stone, chairman of its executive committee, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The American Suffrage Association has always recommended
petitions to congress for a sixteenth amendment. But it
recognizes the far greater importance of petitioning the State
legislatures. <i>First</i>&mdash;Because suffrage is a subject referred by
the constitution to the voters of each State. <i>Second</i>&mdash;Because
we cannot expect a congress composed solely of representatives of
States which deny suffrage to women, to submit an amendment which
their own States have not yet approved. Just so it would have
been impossible to secure the submission of negro suffrage by a
congress composed solely of representatives from States which
restricted suffrage to white men. While therefore we advise our
friends to circulate both petitions together for signature, we
urge them to give special prominence to those which apply to
their own State legislatures, and to see that these are presented
and urged by competent speakers next winter. </p></blockquote>

<p>By request of a large number of the senators,<a name="FNanchor_33_33" id="FNanchor_33_33"></a><a href="#Footnote_33_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a> the Committee on
Privileges and Elections granted a special hearing to Mrs. Hooker
on Washington's birthday&mdash;February 22, 1878. It being understood
that the wives of the senators were bringing all the forces of
fashionable society to bear in aid of Mrs. Dahlgren's protest
against the pending sixteenth amendment, the officers of the
National Association issued cards of invitation asking their
presence at this hearing. We copy from the Washington <i>Post</i>:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_105" id="Page_105">[Pg 105]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>The conflicting rumors as to who would be admitted to hear Mrs.
Hooker's argument before the Senate Committee on Privileges and
Elections, led to the assembling of large numbers of women in
various places about the capitol yesterday morning. At 11 o'clock
the doors were opened and the committee-room at once filled.<a name="FNanchor_34_34" id="FNanchor_34_34"></a><a href="#Footnote_34_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a>
Mrs. Hooker, with the fervor and eloquence of her family,
reviewed all the popular arguments against woman suffrage. She
said she once believed that twenty years was little time enough
for a foreigner to live in this country before he could cast a
ballot. She understands the spirit of our institutions better
now. If disfranchisement meant annihilation, there might be
safety in disfranchising the poor, the ignorant, the vicious. But
it does not. It means danger to everything we hold dear.</p>

<p>The corner-stone of this republic is God's own doctrine of
liberty and responsibility. Liberty is the steam, responsibility
the brakes, and election-day, the safety-valve. The foreigner
comes to this country expecting to find it a paradise. He finds,
indeed, a ladder reaching to the skies, but resting upon the
earth, and he is at the bottom round. But on one day in the year
he is as good as the richest man in the land. He can make the
banker stand in the line behind him until he votes, and if he has
wrongs he learns how to right them. If he has mistaken ideas of
liberty, he is instructed what freedom means.</p>

<p>Wire-pulling politicians may well fear to have women
enfranchised. There are too many of them, and they have had too
much experience in looking after the details of their households
to be easily duped by the tricks of politicians. You can't keep
women away from primary meetings as you do intelligent men. Women
know that every corner in the house must be inspected if the
house is to be clean. Fathers and brothers want women to vote so
that they can have a decent place for a primary meeting, a decent
place to vote in and a decent man to vote for.</p>

<p>The Indian question would have been peacefully and righteously
settled long ago without any standing army, if Lucretia Mott
could have led in the councils of the nation, and the millions
spent in fighting the Indians might have been used in
kindergartens for the poor, to some lasting benefit. Down with
the army, down with appropriation bills to repair the
consequences of wrong-doing, when women vote. Millions more of
women would ask for this if it were not for the cruelty and abuse
men have heaped upon the advocates of woman suffrage. Men have
made it a terrible martyrdom for women even to ask for their
rights, and then say to us, "convert the women." No, no, men have
put up the bars. They must take them down. Mrs. Hooker reviewed
the Chinese question,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_106" id="Page_106">[Pg 106]</a></span> the labor question, the subjects of
compulsory education, reformation, police regulations, the social
evil, and many other topics upon which men vainly attempt to
legislate without the loving wisdom of mothers, sisters and
daughters. The senators most interested in the argument were
observed to be those previously most unfriendly to woman
suffrage. </p></blockquote>

<p>It was during this winter that Marilla M. Ricker of New Hampshire,
then studying criminal law in Washington and already having quite
an extensive practice, applied to the commissioners of the District
of Columbia for an appointment as notary public. The question of
the eligibility of woman to the office was referred to the
district-attorney, Hon. Albert G. Riddle, formerly a member of
congress from Ohio, and at that time one of the most prominent
criminal and civil lawyers before the bar. Mr. Riddle's reply was
an able and exhaustive argument, clearly showing there was no law
to prevent women from holding the office. But notwithstanding this
opinion from their own attorney, the commissioners rejected Mrs.
Ricker's application.<a name="FNanchor_35_35" id="FNanchor_35_35"></a><a href="#Footnote_35_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a></p>

<p>Bills to prohibit the Supreme Court from denying the admission of
lawyers on the ground of sex had been introduced at each session of
congress during the past four years. The House bill No. 1,077,
entitled "A bill to relieve certain disabilities of women," was
this year championed by Hon. John M. Glover of Missouri, and passed
by a vote of 169 ayes to 87 nays. In the Senate, Hon. George F.
Edmunds of Vermont, chairman of the Judiciary Committee reported
adversely. While the question was pending, Mrs. Lockwood addressed
a brief to the Senate, ably refuting the assertion of the Court
that it was contrary to English precedent:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Honorable, the Senate of the United States:</i></p>

<p>The provisions of this bill are so stringent, that to the
ordinary mind it would seem that the conditions are hard enough
for the applicant to have well earned the honor of the
preferment, without making <i>sex</i> a disability. The fourteenth
amendment to the constitution declares that:</p>

<blockquote><p>All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject
to the jurisdiction thereof, are <i>citizens</i> 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 any
person of life, liberty or property without due process of law,
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_107" id="Page_107">[Pg 107]</a></span></p>

<p>To deny the right asked in this bill would be to deny to women
citizens the rights guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence
to be self-evident and inalienable, "life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness"; a denial of one of the fundamental rights of a
portion of the citizens of the commonwealth to acquire property in
the most honorable profession of the law, thereby perpetuating an
invidious distinction between male and female citizens equally
amenable to the law, and having an equal interest in all of the
institutions created and perpetuated by this government. The
articles of confederation declare that:</p>

<blockquote><p>The free inhabitants of each of these States&mdash;paupers and
fugitives from justice excepted&mdash;shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States. </p></blockquote>

<p>Article 4 of the constitution says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public
acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other State. </p></blockquote>

<p>Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Wyoming,
Utah, and the District of Columbia admit women to the bar. What
then? Shall the second coördinate branch of the government, the
judiciary, refuse to grant what it will not permit the States to
deny, the privileges and immunities of citizens, and say to
women-attorneys when they have followed their cases through the
State courts to that tribunal beyond which there is no appeal, "You
cannot come in here we are too holy," or in the words of the
learned chancellor declare that:</p>

<blockquote><p>By the uniform practice of the court from its organization to the
present time, and by a fair construction of its rules, none but
men are admitted to practice before it as attorneys and
counselors. This is in accordance with immemorial usage in
England, and the law and practice in all the States until within
a recent period, and the court does not feel called upon to make
a change until such a change is required by statute, or a more
extended practice in the highest courts of the States. </p></blockquote>

<p>With all due respect for this opinion, we beg leave to quote the
rule for admission to the bar of that court as laid down in the
rule book:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Rule No. 2.</span>&mdash;<i>Attorneys</i>: It shall be requisite to the admission
of attorneys or counselors to practice in this court, that they
shall have been such for three years past in the Supreme Courts
of the States to which they respectively belong, and that their
private and professional character shall appear to be fair. </p></blockquote>

<p>There is nothing in this rule or in the oath which follows it,
either express or implied, which confines the membership of the bar
of the United States Supreme Court to the male sex. Had any such
term been included therein it would virtually be nullified by the
first paragraph of the United States Revised Statutes, ratified by
the forty-third congress, June 20, 1875, in which occur the
following words:</p>

<blockquote><p>In determining the meaning of the Revised Statutes, or of any act
or resolution of congress passed subsequent to February 25, 1871,
words importing the singular number may extend and be applied to
several persons or things; words importing the masculine gender
may be applied to <i>females</i>, etc., etc. </p></blockquote>

<p>Now, as to "immemorial usage in England." The executive branch of
that government has been vested in an honored and honorable woman
for the past forty years. Is it to be supposed if this
distinguished lady<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_108" id="Page_108">[Pg 108]</a></span> or any one of her accomplished daughters should
ask to be heard at the bar of the Court of the Queen's Bench, the
practice of which the United States Supreme Court has set up as its
model, that she would be refused?</p>

<p>Blackstone recounts that Ann, Countess of Pembroke, held the office
of sheriff of Westmoreland and exercised its duties in person. At
the assizes at Appleby she sat with the judges on the bench. (See
Coke on Lit., p. 326.) The Scotch sheriff is properly a judge, and
by the statute 20, Geo., <span class="smcap">ii</span>, c. 43, he must be a lawyer of three
years standing.</p>

<p>Eleanor, Queen of Henry III. of England, in the year 1253, was
appointed lady-keeper of the great seal, or the supreme chancellor
of England, and sat in the <i>Aula Regia</i>, or King's Court. She in
turn appointed Kilkenny, arch-deacon of Coventry, as the sealer of
writs and common-law instruments, but the more important matters
she executed in person.</p>

<p>Queen Elizabeth held the great seal at three several times during
her remarkable reign. After the death of Lord-keeper Bacon she
presided for two months in the <i>Aula Regia</i>.</p>

<p>It is claimed that "admission to the bar constitutes an office."
Every woman postmaster, pension agent and notary public throughout
the land is a bonded officer of the government. The Western States
have elected women as school superintendents and appointed them as
enrolling and engrossing clerks in their several legislatures, and
as State librarians. Of what use are our seminaries and colleges
for women if after they have passed through the curriculum of the
schools there is for them no preferment, and no emolument; no
application of the knowledge of the arts and sciences acquired, and
no recognition of the excellence attained?</p>

<p>But this country, now in the second year of the second century of
her history, is no longer in her leading strings, that she should
look to Mother England for a precedent to do justice to the
daughters of the land. She had to make a precedent when the first
male lawyer was admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme
Court. Ah! this country is one that has not hesitated when the
necessity has arisen to make precedents and write them in blood.
There was no precedent for this free republican government and the
war of the rebellion; no precedent for the emancipation of the
slave; no precedent for the labor strikes of last summer. The more
extended practice, and the more extended public opinion referred to
by the learned chancellor have already been accomplished. Ah! that
very opinion, telegraphed throughout the land by the associated
press, brought back the response of the people as on the wings of
the wind asking you for that special act now so nearly consummated,
which shall open this professional door to women.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Belva A. Lockwood</span>, <i>Attorney and Solicitor</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><i>Washington, D. C.</i>, March 7, 1878.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>Mrs. Lockwood's bill, with Senator Edmond's adverse report, was
reached on the Senate calendar April 22, 1878, and provoked a
spirited discussion. Hon. A. A. Sargent, made a gallant fight in
favor of the bill, introducing the following amendment:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_109" id="Page_109">[Pg 109]</a></span></p>

<blockquote>
<blockquote><p>No person shall be excluded from practicing as an attorney
and counselor at law in any court of the United States on
account of sex. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span>: Mr. President, the best evidence that members of the
legal profession have no jealousy against the admission of women to
the bar who have the proper learning, is shown by this document
which I hold in my hand, signed by one hundred and fifty-five
lawyers of the District of Columbia, embracing the most eminent men
in the ranks of that profession. That there is no jealousy or
consideration of impropriety on the part of the various States is
shown by the fact that the legislatures of many of the States have
recently admitted women to the bar; and my own State, California,
has passed such a law within the last week or two; Illinois has
done the same thing; so have Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri and
North Carolina; and Wyoming, Utah and the District of Columbia
among the territories have also done it. There is no reason in
principle why women should not be admitted to this profession or
the profession of medicine, provided they have the learning to
enable them to be useful in those professions, and useful to
themselves. Where is the propriety in opening our colleges, our
higher institutions of learning, or any institutions of learning,
to women, and then when they have acquired in the race with men the
cultivation for higher employment, to shut them out? There
certainly is none. We should either restrict the laws allowing the
liberal education of women, or, we should allow them to exercise
the talents which are cultivated at the public expense in such
departments of enterprise and knowledge as will be useful to
society and will enable them to gain a living. The tendency is in
this direction. I believe the time has passed to consider it a
ridiculous thing for women to appear upon the lecture platform or
in the pulpit, for women to attend to the treatment of diseases as
physicians and nurses, to engage in any literary employment, or
appear at the bar. Some excellent women in the United States are
now practicing at the bar, acceptably received before courts and
juries; and when they have conducted their cases to a successful
issue or an unsuccessful one in any court below, why should the
United States courts to which an appeal may be taken and where
their adversaries of the male sex may follow the case up, why
should these courts be closed to these women? <span class="spacious">* * *</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Garland</span>: I should like to ask the senator from California if
the courts of the United States cannot admit them upon their own
motion anyhow?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span>: I think there is nothing in the law prohibiting it,
but the Supreme Court of the United States recently in passing upon
the question of the admission of a certain lady, said that until
some legislation took place they did not like to depart from the
precedent set in England, or until there was more general practice
among the States. The learned chief-justice, perhaps, did not
sufficiently reflect when he stated that there were no English
precedents. The fact is that Elizabeth herself sat in the <i>Aula
Regia</i> and administered the law, and in both Scotland and England
women have fulfilled the function of judges. The instances are not
numerous but they are well established in history. I myself have
had my<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_110" id="Page_110">[Pg 110]</a></span> attention called to the fact that in the various States the
women are now admitted by special legislation to the bar. I do not
think there is anything in the law, properly considered, that would
debar a woman from coming into this profession. I think the Supreme
Court should not have required further legislation, but it seems to
have done so, and that makes the necessity for the amendment which
I have now offered.</p>

<p>The chairman of the committee in reporting this bill back from the
Judiciary Committee said that the bill as it passed the House of
Representatives gave privileges to women which men did not enjoy;
that is to say, the Supreme Court can by a change of rule require
further qualification of men, whereas in regard to women, if this
provision were put into the statute, the Supreme Court could not
rule them out even though it may be necessary in its judgment to
get a higher standard of qualifications than its present rules
prescribe. Although I observe that my time is up, I ask indulgence
for a moment or two longer. As this is a question of some interest
and women cannot appear here to speak for themselves, I hope I may
be allowed to speak for them a moment. Now, there is something in
the objection stated by the chairman of the Committee on the
Judiciary&mdash;that is to say, the bill would take the rule of the
Supreme Court and put it in the statute and apply it to women,
thereby conferring exceptional privileges; but that is not my
intention at all, and therefore I have proposed that women shall
not be excluded from practicing law, if they are otherwise
qualified, on account of sex, and that is the provision which I
want to send back to the Judiciary Committee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Garland</span>: I wish to ask one question of the senator from
California. Suppose the court should exclude women, but not on
account of sex, then what is their remedy?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span>: I do not see any pretense that the court could exclude
them on except on account of sex.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Garland</span>: If I recollect the rule of the Supreme Court in regard
to the admission of practitioners (and I had to appear there twice
to present my claim before I could carry on my profession in that
court), I do not think any legislation is necessary to aid them by
giving them any more access to that court than they have at present
under the rules of the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span>: I believe if the laws now existing were properly
construed (of course I speak with all deference to the Supreme
Court, but I express the opinion) they would be admitted, but
unfortunately the court does not take that view of it, and it will
wait for legislation. I purpose that the legislation shall follow.
If there is anything in principle why this privilege should not be
granted to women who are otherwise qualified, then let the bill be
defeated on that ground; but I say there is no difference in
principle whatever, not the slightest. There is no reason because a
citizen of the United States is a woman that she should be deprived
of her rights as a citizen, and these are rights of a citizen. She
has the same right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
and employment, commensurate with her capacities, as a man has;
and,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_111" id="Page_111">[Pg 111]</a></span> as to the question of capacity, the history of the world
shows from Queen Elizabeth and Queen Isabella down to Madame
Dudevant and Mrs. Stowe, that capacity is not a question of sex.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McDonald</span>: I have simply to say, Mr. President, that a number of
States and territories have authorized the admission of women to
the legal profession, and they have become members of the bar of
the highest courts of judicature. It may very frequently occur, and
has in some instances I believe really occurred, that cases in
which they have been thus employed have been brought to the Supreme
Court of the United States. To have the door closed against them
when the cause is brought here, not by them, or when in the
prosecution of the suits of their clients they find it necessary to
come here, seems to me entirely unjust. I therefore favor the bill
with the amendment. The proposed amendment is perhaps better
because it does away with any tendency to discrimination in regard
to the admissibility of women to practice in the Supreme Court.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Presiding Officer</span>: The senator from California moves that the
bill be recommitted to the Committee on Judiciary.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span>: I have the promise of the chairman of the committee
that the bill will soon be reported back, and therefore I am
willing that it go to the committee, and I make the motion that it
be recommitted. [The motion was agreed to.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sargent</span>: I ask that the amendment which I propose be printed.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Presiding Officer</span>: The order to print will be made. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mary Clemmer, the gifted correspondent of the New York
<i>Independent</i>, learning that Senator Wadleigh was about to report
adversely upon the sixteenth amendment, wrote the following private
letter, which, as a record of her own sentiments on the question,
she gave to Miss Anthony for publication in this history:</p>

<blockquote><p>Hon. <span class="smcap">Bainbridge Wadleigh</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Sir</i>: The more I think of it the
more I regret that, as chairman of the Committee on Privileges
and Elections, you regard with less favor the enfranchisement of
women than did your distinguished predecessor, Senator Morton. At
this moment, when your committee is discussing that subject, I
sigh for the large outlook, the just mind, the unselfish decision
of that great legislator. You were his friend, you respected his
intellect, you believed in his integrity, you sit in his seat.
You are to prepare the report that he would prepare were he still
upon the earth. May I ask you to bring to that labor as fair a
spirit, as unprejudiced an outlook, as just a decision as he
would have done?</p>

<p>I ask this not as a partisan of woman's rights, but as a lover of
the human race. In this faint dawn of woman's day, I discern not
woman's development of freedom merely, but the promise of that
higher, finer, purer civilization which is to redeem the world,
the lack of which makes men tyrants and women slaves. You cannot
be unconscious of the fact that a new race of women is born into
the world, who, while they lack no womanly attribute, are the
peers of any man in intellect and aspiration.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_112" id="Page_112">[Pg 112]</a></span> It will be
impossible long to deny to such women that equality before the
law granted to the lowest creature that crawls, if he happens to
be a man; denied to the highest creature that asks it, if she
happens to be a woman.</p>

<p>On what authority, save that of the gross regality of physical
strength, do you deny to a thoughtful, educated, tax-paying
person the common rights of citizenship because she is a woman? I
am a property-owner, the head of a household. By what right do
you assume to define and curtail for me my prerogatives as a
citizen, while as a tax-payer you make not the slightest
distinction between me and a man? Leave to my own perception what
is proper for me as a lady, to my own discretion what is wise for
me as a woman, to my own conscience what is my duty to my race
and to my God. Leave to unerring nature to protect the subtle
boundaries which define the distinctive life and action of the
sexes, while you as a legislator do everything in your power to
secure to every creature of God an equal chance to make the best
and most of himself.</p>

<p>If American men could say as Huxley says, "I scorn to lay a
single obstacle in the way of those whom nature from the
beginning has so heavily burdened," the sexes would cease to war,
men and women would reign together, the equal companions,
friends, helpers, and lovers that nature intended they should be.
But what is love, tenderness, protection, even, unless rooted in
justice? Tyranny and servitude, that is all. Brute supremacy,
spiritual slavery. By what authority do you say that the country
is not prepared for a more enlightened franchise, for political
equality, if six women citizens, earnest, eloquent,
long-suffering, come to you and demand both? No words can express
my regret if to the minority report I see appended only the
honored name of George F. Hoar of Massachusetts.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Mary Clemmer</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Your friend,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In response to all these arguments, appeals and petitions, Senator
Wadleigh, from the Committee on Privileges and Elections, presented
the following adverse report, June 14, 1878:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>The Committee on Privileges and Elections, to whom was referred
the Resolution (S. Res. 12) proposing an Amendment to the
Constitution of the United States, and certain Petitions for and
Remonstrances against the same, make the following Report:</i></p>

<p>This proposed amendment forbids the United States, or any State
to deny or abridge the right to vote on account of sex. If
adopted, it will make several millions of female voters, totally
inexperienced in political affairs, quite generally dependent
upon the other sex, all incapable of performing military duty and
without the power to enforce the laws which their numerical
strength may enable them to make, and comparatively very few of
whom wish to assume the irksome and responsible political duties
which this measure thrusts upon them. An experiment so novel, a
change so great, should only be made slowly and in response to a
general public demand, of the existence of which there is no
evidence before your committee.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_113" id="Page_113">[Pg 113]</a></span></p>


<div class="figcenter" style="width: 373px;">
<a name="v3_112" id="v3_112">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_112.jpg" width="373" height="500" alt="Marilla M. Ricker" title="" /></a>
</div>


<p>Petitions from various parts of the country, containing by
estimate about 30,000 names, have been presented to congress
asking for this legislation. They were procured through the
efforts of woman suffrage societies, thoroughly organized, with
active and zealous managers. The ease with which signatures may
be procured to any petition is well known. The small number of
petitioners, when compared with that of the intelligent women in
the country, is striking evidence that there exists among them no
general desire to take up the heavy burden of governing, which so
many men seek to evade. It would be unjust, unwise and impolitic
to impose that burden on the great mass of women throughout the
country who do not wish for it, to gratify the comparatively few
who do.</p>

<p>It has been strongly urged that without the right of suffrage,
women are, and will be, subjected to great oppression and
injustice.</p>

<p>But every one who has examined the subject at all knows that,
without female suffrage, legislation for years has improved and
is still improving the condition of woman. The disabilities
imposed upon her by the common law have, one by one, been swept
away, until in most of the States she has the full right to her
property and all, or nearly all, the rights which can be granted
without impairing or destroying the marriage relation. These
changes have been wrought by the spirit of the age, and are not,
generally at least, the result of any agitation by women in their
own behalf.</p>

<p>Nor can women justly complain of any partiality in the
administration of justice. They have the sympathy of judges and
particularly of juries to an extent which would warrant loud
complaint on the part of their adversaries of the sterner sex.
Their appeals to legislatures against injustice are never
unheeded, and there is no doubt that when any considerable part
of the women of any State really wish for the right to vote, it
will be granted without the intervention of congress.</p>

<p>Any State may grant the right of suffrage to women. Some of them
have done so to a limited extent, and perhaps with good results.
It is evident that in some States public opinion is much more
strongly in favor of it than it is in others. Your committee
regard it as unwise and inexpedient to enable three-fourths in
number of the States, through an amendment to the national
constitution, to force woman suffrage upon the other fourth in
which the public opinion of both sexes may be strongly adverse to
such a change.</p>

<p>For these reasons, your committee report back said resolution
with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed. </p></blockquote>

<p>This adverse report was all the more disappointing because Mr.
Wadleigh, as Mrs. Clemmer's letter states, filled the place of Hon.
Oliver P. Morton of Indiana, one of the most steadfast friends of
woman suffrage, who, at the last session of congress, had asked as
a special favor the reference of our petitions to the Committee on
Privileges and Elections, of which he was chairman, that they might
receive proper attention and that he might report favorably upon
them. In the discussion on the Pembina<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_114" id="Page_114">[Pg 114]</a></span> bill in 1874, Senator
Morton made an earnest speech in favor of woman's enfranchisement.
In his premature death our cause lost one of its bravest champions.</p>

<p>Senator Wadleigh's report called forth severe criticism; notably
from the <i>New Northwest</i> of Oregon, the <i>Woman's Journal</i> of
Boston, the <i>Inter-Ocean</i> of Chicago, the <i>Evening Telegram</i> and
the <i>National Citizen</i> of New York. We quote from the latter:</p>

<blockquote><p>The report is not a statesman-like answer based upon fundamental
principles, but a mere politician's dodge&mdash;a species of
dust-throwing quite in vogue in Washington. "Several millions of
voters totally inexperienced in political affairs"! They would
have about as much experience as the fathers in 1776, as the
negroes in 1870, as the Irish, English, Italians, Norwegians,
Danes, French, Germans, Portuguese, Scotch, Russians, Turks,
Mexicans, Hungarians, Swedes and Indians, who form a good part of
the voting population of this country. Did Mr. Wadleigh never
hear of Agnes C. Jencks&mdash;the woman who has stirred up politics to
its deepest depth; who has shaken the seat of President Hayes;
who has set in motion the whole machinery of government, and who,
when brought to the witness stand has for hours successfully
baffled such wily politicians as Ben Butler and McMahon;&mdash;a woman
who thwarts alike Republican and Democrat, and at her own will
puts the brakes on all this turmoil of her own raising? Does
Senator Wadleigh know nothing of that woman's "experience in
politics"?</p>

<p>"Quite dependent upon the other sex." It used to be said the
negroes were "quite dependent" upon their masters, that it would
really be an abuse of the poor things to set them free, but when
free and controlling the results of their own labor, it was found
the masters had been the ones "quite dependent," and thousands of
them who before the war rolled in luxury, have since been in the
depths of poverty&mdash;some of them even dependent upon the bounty of
their former slaves. When men cease to rob women of their
earnings they will find them generally, as thousands now are,
capable of self-care.<a name="FNanchor_36_36" id="FNanchor_36_36"></a><a href="#Footnote_36_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a></p>

<p>"Military duty." When women hold the ballot there will not be
quite as much military duty to be done. They will then have a
voice and a vote in the matter, and the men will no longer be
able to throw the country into a war to gratify spite or
ambition, tearing from woman's arms her nearest and dearest. All
men do not like "military duty." "The key to that horrible
enigma, German socialism, is antagonism to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_115" id="Page_115">[Pg 115]</a></span> the military system,"
and nations are shaken with fear because of it. But when there is
necessity for military duty, women will be found in line. The
person who planned the Tennessee campaign, in which the Northern
armies secured their first victories, was a woman, Anna Ella
Carroll. Gen. Grant acted upon her plan, and was successful. She
was endorsed by President Lincoln, Seward, Stanton, Wade, Scott,
and all the nation's leaders in its hour of peril, and yet
congress has not granted her the pension which for ten years her
friends have demanded. Mr. Wadleigh holds his seat in the United
States Senate to-day, because of the "military duty" done by this
woman.</p>

<p>"About 30,000 names," to petitions. There have been 70,000 sent
in during the present session of congress, for a sixteenth
amendment, besides hundreds of individual petitions from women
asking for the removal of their own political disabilities. Men
in this country are occasionally disfranchised for crime, and
sometimes pray for the removal of their political disabilities.
Nine such disfranchised men had the right of voting restored to
them during the last session of congress. But not a single one of
the five hundred women who individually asked to have their
political disabilities removed, was even so much as noticed by an
adverse report, Mr. Wadleigh knows it would make no difference if
300,000 women petitioned. But whether women ask for the ballot or
not has nothing to do with the question. Self-government is the
natural right of every individual, and because woman possesses
this natural right, she should be secured in its exercise.</p>

<p>Mr. Wadleigh says, "nor can woman justly complain of any
partiality in the administration of justice." Let us examine: A
few years ago a married man in Washington, in official position,
forced a confession from his wife at the mouth of a pistol, and
shot his rival dead. Upon trial he was triumphantly acquitted and
afterwards sent abroad as foreign minister. A few months ago a
married woman in Georgia, who had been taunted by her rival with
boasts of having gained her husband's love, found this rival
dancing with him. She drew a knife and killed the woman on the
spot. She was tried, convicted, and, although nursing one infant,
and again about to become a mother, was sentenced to be hanged by
the neck till she was 'dead, dead, dead.' There is Mr. Wadleigh's
equal administration of justice between man and woman! There is
"the sympathy of judges and juries." There is the "extent which
would warrant loud complaint on the part of their adversaries of
the sterner sex." And this woman escaped the gallows not because
of "the sympathy of the judge" or "jury," but because her own sex
took the matter up, and from every part of the country sent
petitions by the hundreds to Governor Colquitt of Georgia, asking
her pardon. That pardon came in the shape of ten years'
imprisonment;&mdash;ten years in a cell for a woman, the mother of a
nursing and an unborn infant, while for General Sickles the
mission to Madrid with high honors and a fat salary.</p>

<p>Messrs. Wadleigh of New Hampshire, McMillan of Minnesota, Ingalls
of Kansas, Saulsbury of Delaware, Merrimon of North Carolina and
Hill of Georgia, all senators of the United States, are the
committee that report<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_116" id="Page_116">[Pg 116]</a></span> it "inexpedient" to secure equal rights to
the women of the United States. But we are not discouraged; we
are not disheartened; all the Wadleighs in the Senate, all the
committees of both Houses, the whole congress of the United
States against us, would not lessen our faith, nor our efforts.
We know we are right; we know we shall be successful; we know the
day is not far distant, when this government and the world will
acknowledge the exact and permanent political equality of man and
woman, and we know that until that hour comes woman will be
oppressed, degraded; a slave, without a single right that man
feels himself bound to respect. Work then, women, for your own
freedom. Let the early morning see you busy, and dusky evening
find you planning how you may become <span class="smcap">free</span>. </p></blockquote>

<p>But the most severe judgment upon Mr. Wadleigh's action came from
his own constituents, who, at the close of the forty-fifth congress
excused his further presence in the United States Senate, sending
in his stead the Hon. Henry W. Blair, a valiant champion of
national protection for national citizens.<a name="FNanchor_37_37" id="FNanchor_37_37"></a><a href="#Footnote_37_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a></p>

<p>In April, 1878, Mrs. Williams transferred the <i>Ballot-Box</i> to Mrs.
Gage, who removed it to Syracuse, New York, and changed its name to
the <i>National Citizen</i>. In her prospectus Mrs. Gage said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The <i>National Citizen</i> will advocate the principle that suffrage
is the citizen's right, and should be protected by national law,
and that, while States may regulate the suffrage, they should
have no power to abolish it. Its especial object will be to
secure national protection to women in the exercise of their
right to vote; it will oppose class legislation of whatever form.
It will support no political party until one arises which is
based upon the exact equality of man and woman.</p>

<p>As the first step towards becoming well is to know you are ill,
one of the principal aims of the <i>National Citizen</i> will be to
make those women discontented who are now content; to waken them
to self-respect and a desire to use the talents they possess; to
educate their consciences aright; to quicken their sense of duty;
to destroy morbid beliefs, and fit them for their high
responsibilities as citizens of a republic. The <i>National
Citizen</i> has no faith in that old theory that "a woman once lost
is lost forever," neither does it believe in the assertion that
"a woman who sins, sinks to depths of wickedness lower than man
can reach." On the contrary it believes there is a future for the
most abandoned, if only the kindly hand of love and sympathy be
extended to rescue them from the degradation into which they have
fallen. The <i>National Citizen</i> will endeavor to keep its readers
informed of the progress of women in foreign countries, and will,
as far as possible, revolutionize this country, striving to make
it live up to its own fundamental principles and become in
reality what it is but in name&mdash;a genuine republic. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_117" id="Page_117">[Pg 117]</a></span></p>

<p>Instead of holding its usual May anniversary in New York city, the
National Association decided to meet in Rochester to celebrate the
close of the third decade of organized agitation in the United
States, and issued the following call:</p>

<blockquote><p>The National Association will hold a convention in Rochester, N.
Y., July 19, 1878. This will be the thirtieth anniversary of the
first woman's rights convention, held July 19, 1848, in the
Wesleyan church at Seneca Falls, N. Y., and adjourned to meet,
August 2, in Rochester. Some who took part in that convention
have passed away, but many others, including both Mrs. Mott and
Mrs. Stanton, are still living. This convention will take the
place of the usual May anniversary, and will be largely devoted
to reminiscences. Friends are cordially invited to be present.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Clemence S. Lozier</span>, M. D., <i>President</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The meeting was held in the Unitarian church on Fitzhugh street,
occupied by the same society that had opened its doors in 1848; and
Amy Post, one of the leading spirits of the first convention, still
living in Rochester and in her seventy-seventh year, assisted in
the arrangements. Rochester, known as "The Flower City,"
contributed of its beauty to the adornment of the church. It was
crowded at the first session. Representatives from a large number
of States were present,<a name="FNanchor_38_38" id="FNanchor_38_38"></a><a href="#Footnote_38_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a> and there was a pleasant interchange of
greetings between those whose homes were far apart, but who were
friends and co-workers in this great reform. The reunion was more
like the meeting of near and dear relatives than of strangers whose
only bond was work in a common cause. Such are the compensations
which help to sustain reformers while they battle ignorance and
prejudice in order to secure justice. In the absence of the
president, Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, Mrs. Stanton took the chair and
said:</p>

<blockquote><p>We are here to celebrate the third decade of woman's struggle in
this country for liberty. Thirty years have passed since many of
us now<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_118" id="Page_118">[Pg 118]</a></span> present met in this place to discuss the true position of
woman as a citizen of a republic. The reports of our first
conventions show that those who inaugurated this movement
understood the significance of the term "citizens." At the very
start we claimed full equality with man. Our meetings were
hastily called and somewhat crudely conducted; but we intuitively
recognized the fact that we were defrauded of our natural rights,
conceded in the national constitution. And thus the greatest
movement of the century was inaugurated. I say greatest, because
through the elevation of woman all humanity is lifted to a higher
plane. To contrast our position thirty years ago, under the old
common law of England, with that we occupy under the advanced
legislation of to-day, is enough to assure us that we have passed
the boundary line&mdash;from slavery to freedom. We already see the
mile-stones of a new civilization on every highway.</p>

<p>Look at the department of education, the doors of many colleges
and universities thrown wide open to women; girls contending for,
yea, and winning prizes over their brothers. In the working world
they are rapidly filling places and climbing heights unknown to
them before, realizing, in fact, the dreams, the hopes, the
prophesies of the inspired women of by-gone centuries. In many
departments of learning woman stands the peer of man, and when by
higher education and profitable labor she becomes self-reliant
and independent, then she must and will be free. The moment an
individual or a class is strong enough to stand alone, bondage is
impossible. Jefferson Davis, in a recent speech, says: "A Cæsar
could not subject a people fit to be free, nor could a Brutus
save them if they were fit for subjugation."</p>

<p>Looking back over the past thirty years, how long ago seems that
July morning when we gathered round the altar in the old Wesleyan
church in Seneca Falls! It taxes and wearies the memory to think
of all the conventions we have held, the legislatures we have
besieged, the petitions and tracts we have circulated, the
speeches, the calls, the resolutions we have penned, the
never-ending debates we have kept up in public and private, and
yet to each and all our theme is as fresh and absorbing as it was
the day we started. Calm, benignant, subdued as we look on this
platform, if any man should dare to rise in our presence and
controvert a single position we have taken, there is not a woman
here that would not in an instant, with flushed face and flashing
eye, bristle all over with sharp, pointed arguments that would
soon annihilate the most skilled logician, the most profound
philosopher.</p>

<p>To those of you on this platform who for these thirty years have
been the steadfast representatives of woman's cause, my friends
and co-laborers, let me say our work has not been in vain. True,
we have not yet secured the suffrage, but we have aroused public
thought to the many disabilities of our sex, and our countrywomen
to higher self-respect and worthier ambition, and in this
struggle for justice we have deepened and broadened our own lives
and extended the horizon of our vision. Ridiculed, persecuted,
ostracised, we have learned to place a just estimate on popular
opinion, and to feel a just confidence in ourselves. As the
representatives<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_119" id="Page_119">[Pg 119]</a></span> of principles which it was necessary to explain
and defend, we have been compelled to study constitutions and
laws, and in thus seeking to redress the wrongs and vindicate the
rights of the many, we have secured a higher development for
ourselves. Nor is this all. The full fruition of these years of
seed-sowing shall yet be realized, though it may not be by those
who have led in the reform, for many of our number have already
fallen asleep. Another decade and not one of us may be here, but
we have smoothed the rough paths for those who come after us. The
lives of multitudes will be gladdened by the sacrifices we have
made, and the truths we have uttered can never die.</p>

<p>Standing near the gateway of the unknown land and looking back
through the vista of the past, memory recalls many duties in
life's varied relations we would had been better done. The past
to all of us is filled with regrets. We can recall, perchance,
social ambitions disappointed, fond hopes wrecked, ideals in
wealth, power, position, unattained&mdash;much that would be
considered success in life unrealized. But I think we should all
agree that the time, the thought, the energy we have devoted to
the freedom of our countrywomen, that the past, in so far as our
lives have represented this great movement, brings us only
unalloyed satisfaction. The rights already obtained, the full
promise of the rising generation of women more than repay us for
the hopes so long deferred, the rights yet denied, the
humiliation of spirit we still suffer.</p>

<p>And for those of you who have been mere spectators of the long,
hard battle we have fought, and are still fighting, I have a
word. Whatever your attitude has been, whether as cold,
indifferent observers&mdash;whether you have hurled at us the shafts
of ridicule or of denunciation, we ask you now to lay aside your
old educational prejudices and give this question your earnest
consideration, substituting reason for ridicule, sympathy for
sneers. I urge the young women especially to prepare themselves
to take up the work so soon to fall from our hands. You have had
opportunities for education such as we had not. You hold to-day
the vantage-ground we have won by argument. Show now your
gratitude to us by making the uttermost of yourselves, and by
your earnest, exalted lives secure to those who come after you a
higher outlook, a broader culture, a larger freedom than have yet
been vouchsafed to woman in our own happy land. </p></blockquote>

<p>Congratulatory letters<a name="FNanchor_39_39" id="FNanchor_39_39"></a><a href="#Footnote_39_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> and telegrams were received from all
portions of the United States and from the old world. Space<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_120" id="Page_120">[Pg 120]</a></span> admits
the publication of but a few, yet all breathed the same hopeful
spirit and confidence in future success. Abigail Bush, who presided
over the first Rochester convention, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>No one knows what I passed through upon that occasion. I was born
and baptized in the old Scotch Presbyterian church. At that time
its sacred teachings were, "if a woman would know anything let
her ask her husband at home." <span class="spacious">* * *</span> I well remember the incidents
of that meeting and the thoughts awakened by it. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> Say to
your convention my full heart is with them in all their
deliberations and counsels, and I trust great good to women will
come of their efforts. </p></blockquote>

<p>Ernestine L. Rose, a native of Poland, and, next to Frances Wright,
the earliest advocate of woman's enfranchisement in America, wrote
from England:</p>

<blockquote><p>How I should like to be with you at the anniversary&mdash;it reminds
me of the delightful convention we had at Rochester, long, long
ago&mdash;and speak of the wonderful change that has taken place in
regard to woman. Compare her present position in society with the
one she occupied <i>forty</i> years ago, when I undertook to
emancipate her from not only barbarous laws, but from what was
even worse, a barbarous public opinion. No one can appreciate the
wonderful change in the social and moral condition of woman,
except by looking back and comparing the past with the present. <span class="spacious">* * *</span>
Say to the friends, Go on, go on, halt not and rest not.
Remember that "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" and of
right. Much has been achieved; but the main, the vital thing, has
yet to come. The suffrage is the magic key to the statute&mdash;the
insignia of citizenship in a republic. </p></blockquote>

<p>Caroline Ashurst Biggs, editor of the <i>Englishwoman's Review</i>,
London, wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p>I have read with great interest in the <i>National Citizen</i> and the
<i>Woman's Journal</i> the announcement of the forthcoming convention
in Rochester. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> I cannot refrain from sending you a cordial
English congratulation upon the great advance in the social and
legal position of women in America, which has been the result of
your labor. The next few years will see still greater progress.
As soon as the suffrage is granted to women, a concession which
will not be many years in coming either in England or America,
every one of our questions will advance with double force, and
meanwhile our efforts in that direction are simultaneously
helping forward other social, legal, educational and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_121" id="Page_121">[Pg 121]</a></span> moral
reforms. Our organization in England does not date back so far as
yours. There were only a few isolated thinkers when Mrs. John
Stuart Mill wrote her essay on the enfranchisement of women in
1851. For twenty years, however, it has progressed with few
drawbacks. In some particulars the English laws in respect of
women are in advance of yours, but the connection between England
and America is so close that a gain to one is a gain to the
other. </p></blockquote>

<p>Lydia E. Becker, editor of the <i>Women's Suffrage Journal</i>,
Manchester, England, wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="spacious">* * *</span> I beg to offer to the venerable pioneers of the movement,
more especially to Lucretia Mott, a tribute of respectful
admiration and gratitude for the services they have rendered in
the cause of enfranchisement. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> As regards the United
kingdom, the movement in a practical form is but twelve years
old, and in that period, although we have not obtained the
parliamentary franchise, we have seen it supported by at least
one-third of the House of Commons, and our claim admitted as one
which must be dealt with in future measures of parliamentary
reform. We have obtained the municipal franchise and the
school-board franchise. Women have secured the right to enter the
medical profession and to take degrees in the University of
London, besides considerable amendment of the law regarding
married women, though much remains to be done. </p></blockquote>

<p>Senator Sargent, since minister to Berlin, wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p>I regret that the necessity to proceed at once to California will
deprive me of the pleasure of attending your convention of July
19, the anniversary of the spirited declaration of rights put
forth thirty years ago by some of the noblest and most
enlightened women of America. Women's rights have made vast
strides since that day, in juster legislation, in widened spheres
of employment, and in the gradual but certain recognition by
large numbers of citizens of the justice and policy of extending
the elective franchise to women. It is now very generally
conceded that the time is rapidly approaching when women will
vote. The friends of the movement have faith in the result; its
enemies grudgingly admit it. Courage and work will hasten the
day. The worst difficulties have already been overcome. The
movement has passed the stage of ridicule, and even that of
abuse, and has entered that of intelligent discussion, its worst
adversaries treating it with respect. You are so familiar with
all the arguments in favor of this great reform that I will not
attempt to state them; but I wish to say that as an observer of
public events, it is my deliberate judgment that your triumph is
near at hand. There are vastly more men and women in the United
States now who believe that women should have the right to vote
than there were in 1848 who believed the slave should be freed.
This is a government of opinions and the growing opinion will be
irresistible.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">A. A. Sargent</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Respectfully yours,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The following letters from the great leaders of the anti-slavery
movement were gratefully received. As Mr. Garrison soon after<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_122" id="Page_122">[Pg 122]</a></span>
finished his eventful life, this proved to be his last message to
our association:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, June 30, 1878.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony</span>&mdash;Your urgent and welcome letter, inviting me
to the thirtieth anniversary of the woman's rights movement at
Rochester, came yesterday. Most earnestly do I wish I could be
present to help mark this epoch in our movement, and join in
congratulating the friends on the marvelous results of their
labors. No reform has gathered more devoted and self-sacrificing
friends. No one has had lives more generously given to its
service; and you who have borne such heavy burdens may well
rejoice in the large harvest; for no reform has, I think, had
such rapid success. You who remember the indifference which
almost discouraged us in 1848, and who have so bravely faced
ungenerous opposition and insult since, must look back on the
result with unmixed astonishment and delight. Temperance, and
finance&mdash;which is but another name for the labor movement&mdash;and
woman's rights, are three radical questions which overtop all
others in value and importance. Woman's claim for the ballot-box
has had a much wider influence than merely to protect woman.
Universal suffrage is itself in danger. Scholars dread it; social
science and journalists attack it. The discussion of woman's
claim has done much to reveal this danger, and rally patriotic
and thoughtful men in defense. In many ways the agitation has
educated the people. Its success shows that the masses are sound
and healthy; and if we gain, in the coming fifteen years, half as
much as we have in the last thirty, woman will hold spear and
shield in her own hands. If I might presume to advise, I should
say close up the ranks and write on our flag only one claim&mdash;the
ballot. Everything helps us, and if we are united, success cannot
long be delayed.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Wendell Phillips</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very cordially yours,</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, July 16, 1878.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Friend</span>&mdash;The thirtieth anniversary of the first woman's
rights convention ever held with special reference to demanding the
elective franchise irrespective of sex well deserves to be
commemorated in the manner set forth in the call for the same, at
Rochester, on the 19th instant. As a substitute for my personal
attendance, I can only send a brief but warm congratulatory epistle
on the cheering progress which the movement has made within the
period named. For how widely different are the circumstances under
which that convention was held, and those which attend the
celebration of its third decade! Then, the assertion of civil and
political equality, alike for men and women, excited widespread
disgust and astonishment, as though it were a proposition to repeal
the laws of nature, and literally to "turn the world upside down";
and it was ridiculed and caricatured as little short of lunacy.
Now, it is a subject of increasing interest and grave
consideration, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and what at first
appeared to be so foolish in pretension is admitted by all
reflecting and candid minds to be deserving of the most respectful
treatment. Then, its avowed friends, were indeed "few and far<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_123" id="Page_123">[Pg 123]</a></span>
between," even among those disfranchised as the penalty of their
womanhood. Now, they can be counted by tens of thousands, and their
number is augmenting&mdash;foremost in intelligence, in weight of
character, in strength of understanding, in manly and womanly
development, and in all that goes to make up enlightened
citizenship. Then, with rare exceptions, women were everywhere
remanded to poverty and servile dependence, being precluded from
following those avocations and engaging in those pursuits which
make competency and independence not a difficult achievement. Now,
there is scarcely any situation or profession, in the arrangements
of society, to which they may not and do not aspire, and in which
many of them are not usefully engaged; whether in new and varied
industrial employment, in the arts and sciences, in the highest
range of literature, in philosophic and mathematical
investigations, in the professions of law, medicine, and divinity,
in high scholarship, in educational training and supervision, in
rhetoric and oratory, in the lyceum, or in discharging the official
duties connected with the various departments of the State and
national governments.</p>

<p>Almost all barriers are down except that which prevents women from
going to the polls to help decide who shall be the law-makers and
what shall be the laws, so that the general welfare may be
impartially consulted, and the blessings of freedom and equal
rights be enjoyed by all. That barrier, too, must give way wherever
erected, as sure as time outlasts and baffles every device of
wrong-doing, and truth is stronger than falsehood, and the law of
eternal justice is as reliable as the law of gravitation. Yes! the
grand fundamental truths of the Declaration of Independence shall
yet be reduced to practice in our land&mdash;that the human race are
created free and equal; that government derives its just powers
from the consent of the governed, and that taxation without
representation is tyranny. And I confidently predict that this will
be witnessed before the expiration of another decade.</p>

<p class="ltr-closing">Yours, to abate nothing of heart or hope,</p>
<p class="ltr-from">William Lloyd Garrison.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>Mrs. Mott never seemed more hopeful for the triumph of our
principles than on this occasion. She expressed great satisfaction
in the number of young women who for the first time that day graced
our platform.<a name="FNanchor_40_40" id="FNanchor_40_40"></a><a href="#Footnote_40_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a> Though in her eighty-sixth year, her enthusiasm
in the cause for which she had so long labored seemed still
unabated, and her eye sparkled with humor as of yore while giving
some amusing reminiscences of encounters with opponents in the
early days. Always apt in biblical quotations she had proved
herself a worthy antagonist of the clergy on our platform. She had
slain many Abimelechs with short texts of Scripture,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_124" id="Page_124">[Pg 124]</a></span> whose defeat
was the more humiliating because received at the hand of a woman.
As she recounted in her happiest vein the triumphs of her
coadjutors she was received with the heartiest manifestations of
delight by her auditors. She took a lively interest in the
discussion of the resolutions that had been presented by the
chairman of the committee, Matilda Joslyn Gage:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a government of the people, by the people and
for the people is yet to be realized; for that which is formed,
administered and controlled only by men, is practically nothing
more than an enlarged oligarchy, whose assumptions of natural
superiority and of the right to rule are as baseless as those
enforced by the aristocratic powers of the old world.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in celebrating our third decade we have reason
to congratulate ourselves on the marked change in woman's
position&mdash;in her enlarged opportunities for education and labor,
her greater freedom under improved social customs and civil laws,
and the promise of her speedy enfranchisement in the minor
political rights she has already secured.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the International Congress<a name="FNanchor_41_41" id="FNanchor_41_41"></a><a href="#Footnote_41_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> called in Paris,
July 20, to discuss the rights of woman&mdash;the eminent Victor Hugo,
its presiding officer&mdash;is one of the most encouraging events of
the century, in that statesmen and scholars from all parts of the
world, amid the excitement of the French Exposition, propose to
give five days to deliberations upon this question.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the majority report of the chairman of the
Committee on Privileges and Elections, Senator Wadleigh of New
Hampshire, against a sixteenth amendment to secure the political
rights of woman in its weakness, shows the strength of our
reform.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the national effort to force citizenship on the
Indians, the decision of Judge Sawyer in the United States
Circuit Court of California against the naturalization of the
Chinese, and the refusal of congress to secure the right of
suffrage to women, are class legislation, dangerous to the
stability of our institutions.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Woman's rights and duties in all matters of legislation
are the same as those of man.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the problems of labor, finance, suffrage,
international rights, internal improvements, and other great
questions, can never be satisfactorily adjusted without the
enlightened thought of woman, and her voice in the councils of
the nation.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the question of capital and labor is one of
special interest to us. Man, standing to woman in the position of
capitalist, has robbed her through the ages of the results of her
toil. No just settlement of this question can be attained until
the right of woman to the proceeds of her labor in the family and
elsewhere is recognized, and she is welcomed into every industry
on the basis of equal pay for equal work.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That as the first duty of every individual is
self-development, the lessons of self-sacrifice and obedience
taught woman by the Christian church have been fatal, not only to
her own vital interests, but through her, to those of the race.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the great principle of the Protestant
Reformation, the right of individual conscience and judgment
heretofore exercised by man alone, should now be claimed by
woman; that, in the interpretation of Scripture, she should be
guided by her own reason, and not by the authority of the church.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is through the perversion of the religious
element in woman&mdash;playing upon her hopes and fears of the future,
holding this life with all its high duties in abeyance to that
which is to come&mdash;that she and the children she has trained have
been so completely subjugated by priestcraft and superstition. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_125" id="Page_125">[Pg 125]</a></span></p>

<p>This was the last convention ever attended by Lucretia Mott. Her
family had specially requested that she should not be urged to go;
but on seeing the call, she quietly announced her intention to be
at the meeting, and, with the ever faithful Sarah Pugh as her
companion, she made the journey from Philadelphia in the intense
heat of those July days. Mrs. Mott was the guest of her husband's
nephew, Dr. E.M. Moore, who, fearing that his aunt would be utterly
exhausted, called for her while she was in the midst of her closing
remarks. As she descended the platform, she continued speaking
while she slowly moved down the aisle, shaking hands upon either
side. The audience simultaneously rose, and on behalf of all,
Frederick Douglass ejaculated, "Good-by, dear Lucretia!"</p>

<p>The last three resolutions called out a prolonged discussion<a name="FNanchor_42_42" id="FNanchor_42_42"></a><a href="#Footnote_42_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a>
not only in the convention but from the pulpit and press of the
State.</p>

<p>One amusing encounter in the course of the debate is worthy of
note. Perhaps it was due to the intense heat that Mr. Douglass,
usually clear on questions of principle, was misled into opposing
the resolutions. He spoke with great feeling and religious
sentiment of the beautiful Christian doctrine of self-sacrifice.
When he finished, Mrs. Lucy Coleman, always keen in pricking
bubbles, arose and said: "Well, Mr. Douglass, all you say may be
true; but allow me to ask you why you did not remain a slave in
Maryland, and sacrifice yourself, like a Christian, to your master,
instead of running off to Canada to secure your liberty, like a
man? We shall judge your faith, Frederick, by your deeds."</p>

<p>An immense audience assembled at Corinthian Hall in the evening to
listen to the closing speeches<a name="FNanchor_43_43" id="FNanchor_43_43"></a><a href="#Footnote_43_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a> of the convention. Mrs. Robinson
of Boston gave an exhaustive review of the work in Massachusetts,
and her daughter, Mrs. Shattuck, gave many amusing experiences as
her father's<a name="FNanchor_44_44" id="FNanchor_44_44"></a><a href="#Footnote_44_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> clerk in the legislature of that State.</p>

<p>The resolutions provoked many attacks from the clergy throughout
the State, led by Rev. A.H. Strong, D.D., president of the Baptist
Theological Seminary in Rochester, Of his sermon the <i>National
Citizen</i> said:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_126" id="Page_126">[Pg 126]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>None too soon have we issued our resolutions, proclaiming woman's
right to self-development&mdash;to interpret Scripture for herself, to
use her own faculties. In speaking of what Christianity has done
for woman, Dr. Strong stultifies his own assertions by referring
to Switzerland and Germany "where you may see any day hundreds of
women wheeling earth for railroad embankments." Does he not
remember that Switzerland and Germany are Christian countries and
that it is part of their civilization that while women do this
work, some man takes the pay and puts it in his own pocket quite
in heathen fashion? The reverend doctor in the usual style of
opposition to woman&mdash;which is to quote something or other having
no bearing upon the question&mdash;refers to Cornelia's "jewels,"
forgetting to say that Cornelia delivered public lectures upon
philosophy in Rome, and that Cicero paid the very highest tribute
to her learning and genius.</p>

<p>Dr. Strong advocates the old theory that woman and man are not
two classes standing upon the same level, but that the two are
one&mdash;that one on the time-worn theory of common law, the husband;
and talks of the "dignity and delicacy of woman" being due to the
fact of her not having been in public life, and that this
"dignity and delicacy" would all evaporate if once she were
allowed to vote, which reminds one of the story of Baron
Munchausen's horn, into which a certain coach-driver blew all
manner of wicked tunes. The weather being very cold, these tunes
remained frozen in the horn. When hung by the fire, the horn
began to thaw out, and these wicked tunes came pealing forth to
the great amazement of the by-standers. The reverend gentlemen
seems to think women are full of frozen wickedness, which if they
enter public life will be thawed out to the utter demolition of
their "dignity and delicacy" and the disgust of society. He deems
it "too hazardous" to allow women to vote. "Bad women would
vote." Well, what of it? Have they not equal right with bad men,
to self-government? Bad is a relative term. It strikes us that
the very reverend Dr. Strong is a "bad" man&mdash;a man who does not
understand true Christianity&mdash;who is not just&mdash;who would strike
those who are down&mdash;who would keep woman in slavery&mdash;who quotes
the Bible as his authority: thus fettering woman's conscience,
binding her will, and playing upon her hopes and fears to keep
her in subjection.</p>

<p>From Augustine, down, theologians have tried to compel people to
accept their special interpretation of the Scripture, and the
tortures of the inquisition, the rack, the thumb-screw, the
stake, the persecutions of witchcraft, the whipping of naked
women through the streets of Boston, banishment, trials for
heresy, the halter about Garrison's neck, Lovejoy's death, the
branding of Captain Walker, shouts of infidel and atheist, have
all been for this purpose.</p>

<p>We know the ignorance that exists upon these points. Few have yet
begun to comprehend the influence that ecclesiasticism has had
upon law. Wharton, a recognized authority upon criminal law,
issued his seventh edition before he ascertained the vast bearing
canon law had had upon the civil code, and we advise readers to
consult the array of authorities, English, Latin, German, to
which he, in his preface, refers. We hope to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_127" id="Page_127">[Pg 127]</a></span> arouse attention
and compel investigation of this subject by lawyers and
theologians as well as by women themselves. </p></blockquote>

<p>Francis E. Abbot, editor of <i>The Index</i>, the organ of the Free
Religious Association, spoke grandly in favor of the resolutions.
He said:</p>

<blockquote><p>These resolutions we have read with astonishment, admiration and
delight. We should not have believed it possible that the
convention could have been induced to adopt them. They will make
forever memorable in the history of the organized woman movement,
this thirtieth anniversary of its birth. They put the National
Woman Suffrage Association in an inconceivably higher and nobler
position than that occupied by any similar society. They go to
the very root of the matter. They are a bold, dignified, and
magnificent utterance. We congratulate the convention on a record
so splendid in the eyes of all true liberals. From this day forth
the whole woman movement must obey the inspiration of a higher
courage and a grander spirit than have been known to its past.
Opposition must be encountered, tenfold more bitter than was ever
yet experienced. But truth is on the side of these brave women;
the ringing words they have spoken at Rochester will thrill many
a doubting heart and be echoed far down the long avenue of the
years. </p></blockquote>

<p>During the same week of the Rochester convention, the Paris
International Congress opened it sessions, sending us a telegram of
greeting to which we responded with two hundred and fifty francs as
a tangible evidence of our best wishes. The two remarkable features
of that congress were the promise of so distinguished a man as
Victor Hugo to preside over its deliberations, though at last
prevented by illness; and the fact that the Italian government sent
Mlle. Mozzoni as an official delegate to the congress to study the
civil position of woman in various countries, in order that an
ameliorating change of its code, in respect to woman, could be
wisely made.</p>

<p>The newspapers of the French capital in general treated the
congress with respect. The <i>Rappel</i>, Victor Hugo's organ, spoke of
it in a most complimentary manner. Theodore Stanton, in a letter to
the <i>National Citizen</i>, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>In one important respect this congress differed entirely from an
American convention of like character&mdash;it made no demand for
suffrage. The word was never mentioned except by the American
delegates. In continental Europe the idea of demanding for woman
a share in the government, is never considered. This is the more
remarkable in France, as this claim was made at the time of the
revolution. But every imaginable side of the question was
discussed, except the side that comprehends all the others. To an
American, therefore, European woman's rights is rather tame; it
is like the play of Hamlet with Hamlet left out. But<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_128" id="Page_128">[Pg 128]</a></span> Europe is
moving, and the next international congress will, undoubtedly,
give more attention to suffrage and less to hygiene. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Eleventh Washington Convention was held January 9, 10, 1879.
The resolutions give an idea of the status of the question, and the
wide range of discussion covered by the speakers:<a name="FNanchor_45_45" id="FNanchor_45_45"></a><a href="#Footnote_45_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the forty-fifth congress, in ignoring the
individual petitions of more than three hundred women of high
social standing and culture, asking for the removal of their
political disabilities, while promptly enacting special
legislation for the removal of the political disabilities of
every man who petitioned, furnishes an illustration of the
indifference of this congress to the rights of citizens deprived
of political power.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Senator Blaine says, it is the very essence of tyranny
to count any citizens in the basis of representation who are
denied a voice in their laws and a choice in their rulers;
therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That counting women in the basis of representation,
while denying them the right of suffrage, is compelling them to
swell the number of their tyrants and is an unwarrantable
usurpation of power over one-half the citizens of this republic.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, In President Hayes' last message, he makes a truly
paternal review of the interests of this republic, both great and
small, from the army, the navy, and our foreign relations, to the
ten little Indians in Hampton, Va., our timber on the western
mountains, and the switches of the Washington railroads; from the
Paris Exposition, the postal service, the abundant harvests, and
the possible bull-dozing of some colored men in various southern
districts, to cruelty to live animals, and the crowded condition
of the mummies, dead ducks and fishes in the Smithsonian
Institute&mdash;yet forgets to mention twenty million women robbed of
their social, civil and political rights; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That a committee of three be appointed from this
convention to wait upon the president and remind him of the
existence of one-half of the American people whom he has
accidentally overlooked, and of whom it would be wise for him to
make some mention in his future messages.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, All of the vital principles involved in the thirteenth,
fourteenth and fifteenth constitutional amendments have been
denied in their application to women by courts, legislatures and
political parties; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is logical that these amendments should fail
to protect even the male African for whom said courts,
legislatures and parties declare they were expressly designed and
enacted.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the judges of the Supreme Court of the United
States in denying Belva A. Lockwood admission to its bar, while
she was entitled under the law and under its rules to that right,
violated their oath of office.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Edmonds
chairman, in its report on the bill to allow women to practice
law in the courts of the United States in which it declares that
"further legislation is not necessary," evaded the plain question
at issue before it in a manner unworthy of judges learned in the
honorable profession of the law, and thereby sanctioned an
injustice to the women of the whole country.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The general government has refused to exercise federal
power to protect women in their right to vote in the various
States and territories; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it should forbear to exercise federal power to
disfranchise the women of Utah, who have had a more just and
liberal spirit shown them by Mormon men than Gentile women in the
States have yet perceived in their rulers.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_129" id="Page_129">[Pg 129]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The proposed legislation for the Chinese women on the
Pacific slope and for outcast women in our cities, and the
opinion of the press that no respectable woman should be seen in
the streets after dark, are all based upon the presumption that
woman's freedom must be forever sacrificed to man's licence;
therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the ballot in woman's hand is the only power by
which she can restrain the liberty of those men who make our
streets and highways dangerous to her, and secure the freedom
that belongs to her by day and by night. </p></blockquote>


<div class="figcenter" style="width: 371px;">
<a name="v3_129" id="v3_129">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_129.jpg" width="371" height="500" alt="Frances E. Willard" title="" /></a>
</div>


<p>At the close of the convention it was decided at a meeting of the
executive committee to present an address to the president and both
houses of congress, and that a printed copy of the resolutions
should be laid on the desk of every member. The president having
granted a hearing,<a name="FNanchor_46_46" id="FNanchor_46_46"></a><a href="#Footnote_46_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a> the following address was presented:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To his Excellency, the President of the United States</i>:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Representatives of associations of women waited upon
your excellency before the delivery of your first and second
annual messages, asking that in those documents you would
remember the disfranchised millions of citizens of the United
States; and,</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Upon careful examination of those messages, we find
therein specifically enumerated, the interests, great and small,
of all classes of men, and recommendations of needful legislation
to protect their civil and political rights, but find no mention
made of any need of legislation to protect the political, civil,
or social rights of one-half of the people of this republic, and,</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, There is pending in the Senate a constitutional
amendment to prohibit the several States from disfranchising
United States citizens on account of sex, and a similar amendment
is pending upon a tie vote in the House Judiciary Committee; and
as petitions to so amend the constitution have been presented to
both houses of congress from more than 40,000 well-known citizens
of thirty-five States and five territories,</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Therefore</span>, we respectfully ask your excellency, in your next
annual message, to make mention of the disfranchised millions of
wives, mothers and daughters of this republic, and to recommend
to congress that women equally with men be protected in the
exercise of their civil and political rights.</p>

<p>On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span>, <i>President</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>.<br />
<span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The delegates from the territory of Utah were also received by the
president. They called his attention to the effect of the
enforcement of the law of 1862 upon 50,000 Mormon women, to render
them outcasts and their children nameless, asking the chief
executive of the nation to give some time to the consideration<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_130" id="Page_130">[Pg 130]</a></span> of
the bill pending under different headings in both houses. The
president asked them to set forth the facts in writing, that he
might carefully weigh so important a matter. A memorial was also
presented to congress by these ladies, closing thus:</p>

<blockquote><p>We further pray that in any future legislation concerning the
marriage relation in any territory under your jurisdiction you
will consider the rights and the consciences of the women to be
affected by such legislation, and that you will consider the
permanent care and welfare of children as the sure foundation of
the State.</p>

<p>And your petitioners will ever pray.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Emmeline B. Wells.<br />
Zina Young Williams.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Cannon of Utah moved that the memorial be referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary with leave to report at any time. It was
so referred. The Judiciary Committee of the Senate brought in a
bill legitimatizing the offspring of plural marriages to a certain
date; also authorizing the president to grant amnesty for past
offenses against the law of 1862.</p>

<p>The <i>Congressional Record</i> of January 24, under the head of
petitions and memorials, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The vice-president, Mr. Wheeler of New York, presented the
petition of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Joslyn Gage and Susan
B. Anthony, officers of the National Association, praying for the
passage of Senate joint resolution No. 12, providing for an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, protecting
the rights of women, and also that the House Judiciary Committee
be relieved from the further consideration of a similar
resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ferry</span>&mdash;If there be no objection I ask that the petition be
read at length.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Vice-president</span>&mdash;The Chair hears no objection, and it will be
reported by the secretary.</p>

<p>The petition was read and referred to the Committee on Privileges
and Elections, as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States,
in Congress assembled:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, More than 40,000 men and women, citizens of thirty-five
States and five territories, have petitioned the forty-fifth
congress asking for an amendment to the federal constitution
prohibiting the several States from disfranchising United States
citizens on account of sex; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, A resolution providing for such constitutional amendment
is upon the calendar (Senate resolution No. 12, second session
forty-fifth congress), and a similar resolution is pending upon a
tie vote in the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Representatives; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The women of the United States constitute one-half of
the people of this republic and have an inalienable right to an
equal voice with men in the nation's councils; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Women being denied the right to have their opinions
counted at the ballot-box, are compelled to hold all other rights
subject to the favors and caprices of men; and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_131" id="Page_131">[Pg 131]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, In answer to the appeals of so large a number of
honorable petitioners, it is courteous that the forty-fifth
congress should express its opinion upon this grave question of
human rights; therefore,</p>

<p>We pray your honorable body to take from the calendar and pass
Senate resolution No. 12, providing for an amendment to the
constitution protecting the rights of women; and</p>

<p>We further pray you to relieve the House Judiciary Committee from
the further consideration of the woman suffrage resolution
brought to a tie vote in that committee, February 5, 1878, that
it may be submitted to the House of Representatives for immediate
action.</p>

<p>And your petitioners will ever pray.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span>, <i>President</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>.<br />
<span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee</i>.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>At the opening of the last session of the forty-fifth congress most
earnest appeals (copies of which were sent to every member of
congress) came from all directions for the presentation of a
minority report from the Committee on Privileges and Elections. The
response from our representatives was prompt and most encouraging.
The first favorable report our question had ever received in the
Senate of the United States was presented by the Hon. George F.
Hoar, February 1, 1879:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>The undersigned, a minority of the Committee on Privileges and
Elections, to whom were referred the resolution proposing an
amendment to the constitution prohibiting discrimination in the
right of suffrage on account of sex, and certain petitions in aid
of the same, submit the following minority report:</i></p>

<p>The undersigned dissent from the report of the majority of the
committee. The demand for the extension of the right of suffrage
to women is not new. It has been supported by many persons in
this country, in England and on the continent, famous in public
life, in literature and in philosophy. But no single argument of
its advocates seems to us to carry so great a persuasive force as
the difficulty which its ablest opponents encounter in making a
plausible statement of their objections. We trust we do not fail
in deference to our esteemed associates on the committee when we
avow our opinion that their report is no exception to this rule.</p>

<p>The people of the United States and of the several States have
founded their political institutions upon the principle that all
men have an equal right to a share in the government. The
doctrine is expressed in various forms. The Declaration of
Independence asserts that "all men are created equal" and that
"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed." The Virginia bill of rights, the work of Jefferson and
George Mason, affirms that "no man or set of men are entitled to
exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the rest of
the community but in consideration of public services." The
Massachusetts bill of rights, the work of John Adams, besides
reaffirming these axioms, declares that "all the inhabitants of
this commonwealth, having such<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_132" id="Page_132">[Pg 132]</a></span> qualifications as they shall
establish by their frame of government, have an equal right to
elect officers, and to be elected for public employment." These
principles, after full and profound discussion by a generation of
statesmen whose authority upon these subjects is greater than
that of any other that ever lived, have been accepted by
substantially the whole American people as the dictates alike of
practical wisdom and of natural justice. The experience of a
hundred years has strengthened their hold upon the popular
conviction. Our fathers failed in three particulars to carry
these principles to their logical result. They required a
property qualification for the right to vote and to hold office.
They kept the negro in slavery. They excluded women from a share
in the government. The first two of these inconsistencies have
been remedied. The property test no longer exists. The fifteenth
amendment provides that race, color, or previous servitude shall
no longer be a disqualification. There are certain qualifications
of age, of residence, and, in some instances of education,
demanded; but these are such as all sane men may easily attain.</p>

<p>This report is not the place to discuss or vindicate the
correctness of this theory. In so far as the opponents of woman
suffrage are driven to deny it, for the purpose of an argument
addressed to the American people, they are driven to confess that
they are in the wrong. This people are committed to the doctrine
of universal suffrage by their constitutions, their history and
their opinions. They must stand by it or fall by it. The poorest,
humblest, feeblest of sane men has the ballot in his hand, and no
other man can show a better title to it. Those things wherein men
are unequal&mdash;intelligence, ability, integrity, experience, title
to public confidence by reason of previous public service&mdash;have
their natural and legitimate influence under a government wherein
each man's vote is counted, to quite as great a degree as under
any other form of government that ever existed.</p>

<p>We believe that the principle of universal suffrage stands to-day
stronger than ever in the judgment of mankind. Some eminent and
accomplished scholars, alarmed by the corruption and recklessness
manifested in our great cities, deceived by exaggerated
representations of the misgovernment of the Southern States by a
race just emerging from slavery, disgusted by the extent to which
great numbers of our fellow-citizens have gone astray in the
metaphysical subtleties of financial discussion, have uttered
their eloquent warnings of the danger of the failure of universal
suffrage. Such utterances from such sources have been frequent.
They were never more abundant than in the early part of the
present century. They are, when made in a serious and patriotic
spirit, to be received with the gratitude due to that greatest of
public benefactors&mdash;he who points out to the people their dangers
and their faults.</p>

<p>But popular suffrage is to be tried not by comparison with ideal
standards of excellence, but by comparison with other forms of
government. We are willing to submit our century of it to this
test. The crimes that have stained our history have come chiefly
from its denial, not from its establishment. The misgovernment
and corruption of our great cities have been largely due to men
whose birth and training have been under<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_133" id="Page_133">[Pg 133]</a></span> other systems. The
abuses attributed by political hostility to negro governments at
the South&mdash;governments from which the intelligence and education
of the State held themselves sulkily aloof&mdash;do not equal those
which existed under the English or French aristocracy within the
memory of living men. There have been crimes, blunders,
corruptions, follies in the history of our republic. Aristides
has been banished from public employment, while Cleon has been
followed by admiring throngs. But few of these things have been
due to the extension of the suffrage. Strike out of our history
the crimes of slavery, strike out the crimes, unparalleled for
ferocity and brutality, committed by an oligarchy in its attempt
to overthrow universal suffrage, and we may safely challenge for
our national and State governments comparison with monarchy or
aristocracy in their best and purest periods.</p>

<p>Either the doctrines of the Declaration of Independence and the
bills of rights are true, or government must rest on no principle
of right whatever, but its powers may be lawfully taken by force
and held by force by any person or class who have strength to do
it, and who persuade themselves that their rule is for the public
interest. Either these doctrines are true, or you can give no
reason for your own possession of the suffrage except that you
have got it. If this doctrine be sound, it follows that no class
of persons can rightfully be excluded from their equal share in
the government, unless they can be proved to lack some quality
essential to the proper exercise of political power.</p>

<p>A person who votes helps, first, to determine the measures of
government; second, to elect persons to be intrusted with public
administration. He should therefore possess, first, an honest
desire for the public welfare; second, sufficient intelligence to
determine what measure or policy is best; third, the capacity to
judge of the character of persons proposed for office; and,
fourth, freedom from undue influence, so that the vote he casts
is his own, and not another's. That person or class casting his
or their own vote, with an honest desire for the public welfare,
and with sufficient intelligence to judge what measure is
advisable and what person may be trusted, fulfill every condition
that the State can rightfully impose.</p>

<p>We are not now dealing with the considerations which should
affect the admission of citizens of other countries to acquire
the right to take part in our government. All nations claim the
right to impose restrictions on the admission of foreigners
trained in attachment to other countries or forms of rule, and to
indifference to their own, whatever they deem the safety of the
State requires. We take it for granted that no person will deny
that the women of America are inspired with a love of country
equal to that which animates their brothers and sons. A capacity
to judge of character, so sure and rapid as to be termed
intuitive, is an especial attribute of woman. One of the greatest
orators of modern times has declared:</p>

<blockquote><p>I concede away nothing which I ought to assert for our sex when I
say that the collective womanhood of a people like our own seizes
with matchless facility and certainty on the moral and personal
peculiarities and character of marked and conspicuous men, and
that we may very wisely address ourselves to such a body to learn
if a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_134" id="Page_134">[Pg 134]</a></span> competitor for the highest honors has revealed that truly
noble nature that entitled him to a place in the hearts of a
nation. </p></blockquote>

<p>We believe that in that determining of public policies by the
collective judgment of the State which constitutes self-government,
the contribution of woman will be of great importance and value. To
all questions into the determination of which considerations of
justice or injustice enter, she will bring a more refined moral
sense than that of man. The most important public function of the
State is the provision for the education of youths. In those States
in which the public school system has reached its highest
excellence, more than ninety per cent. of the teachers are women.
Certainly the vote of the women of the State should be counted in
determining the policy that shall regulate the school system which
they are called to administer.</p>

<p>It is seldom that particular measures of government are decided by
direct popular vote. They are more often discussed before the
people after they have taken effect, when the party responsible for
them is called to account. The great measures which go to make up
the history of nations are determined not by the voters, but by
their rulers, whether those rulers be hereditary or elected. The
plans of great campaigns are conceived by men of great military
genius and executed by great generals. Great systems of finance
come from the brain of statesmen who have made finance a special
study. The mass of the voters decide to which party they will
intrust power. They do not determine particulars. But they give to
parties their general tone and direction, and hold them to their
accountability. We believe that woman will give to the political
parties of the country a moral temperament which will have a most
beneficent and ennobling effect on politics.</p>

<p>Woman, also, is specially fitted for the performance of that
function of legislative and executive government which, with the
growth of civilization, becomes yearly more and more important&mdash;the
wise and practical economic adjustment of the details of public
expenditures. It may be considered that it would not be for the
public interest to clothe with the suffrage any class of persons
who are so dependent that they will, as a general rule, be governed
by others in its exercise. But we do not admit that this is true of
women. We see no reason to believe that women will not be as likely
to retain their independence of political judgment, as they now
retain their independence of opinion in regard to the questions
which divide religious sects from one another. These questions
deeply excite the feelings of mankind, yet experience shows that
the influence of the wife is at least as great as that of the
husband in determining the religious opinion of the household. The
natural influence exerted by members of the same family upon each
other would doubtless operate to bring about similarity of opinion
on political questions as on others. So far as this tends to
increase the influence of the family in the State, as compared with
that of unmarried men, we deem it an advantage. Upon all questions
which touch public morals, public education, all which concern the
interest of the household, such a united exertion of political
influence cannot be otherwise than beneficial.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_135" id="Page_135">[Pg 135]</a></span></p>

<p>Our conclusion, then, is that the American people must extend the
right of suffrage to woman or abandon the idea that suffrage is a
birthright. The claim that universal suffrage will work mischief in
practice is simply a claim that justice will work mischief in
practice. Many honest and excellent persons, while admitting the
force of the arguments above stated, fear that taking part in
politics will destroy those feminine traits which are the charm of
woman, and are the chief comfort and delight of the household. If
we thought so we should agree with the majority of the committee in
withholding assent to the prayer of the petitioners. This fear is
the result of treating the abuses of the political function as
essential to its exercise. The study of political questions, the
forming an estimate of the character of public men or public
measures, the casting a vote, which is the result of that study and
estimate, certainly have in themselves nothing to degrade the most
delicate and refined nature. The violence, the fraud, the crime,
the chicanery, which, so far as they have attended masculine
struggles for political power, tend to prove, if they prove
anything, the unfitness of men for the suffrage, are not the result
of the act of voting, but are the expressions of course, criminal
and evil natures, excited by the desire for victory. The admission
to the polls of delicate and tender women would, without injury to
them, tend to refine and elevate the politics in which they took a
part. When, in former times, women were excluded from social
banquets, such assemblies were scenes of ribaldry and excess. The
presence of women has substituted for them the festival of the
Christian home.</p>

<p>The majority of the committee state the following as their reasons
for the conclusion to which they come:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>First</i>&mdash;If the petitioners' prayer be granted it will make
several millions of female voters.</p>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;These voters will be inexperienced in public affairs.</p>

<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;They are quite generally dependent on the other sex.</p>

<p><i>Fourth</i>&mdash;They are incapable of military duty.</p>

<p><i>Fifth</i>&mdash;They are without the power to enforce the laws which
their numerical strength may enable them to make.</p>

<p><i>Sixth</i>&mdash;Very few of them wish to assume the irksome and
responsible duties which this measure thrusts upon them.</p>

<p><i>Seventh</i>&mdash;Such a change should only be made slowly and in
obedience to a general public demand.</p>

<p><i>Eighth</i>&mdash;There are but thirty thousand petitioners.</p>

<p><i>Ninth</i>&mdash;It would be unjust to impose "the heavy burden of
governing, which so many men seek to evade, on the great mass of
women who do not wish for it, to gratify the few who do."</p>

<p><i>Tenth</i>&mdash;Women now have the sympathy of judges and juries "to an
extent which would warrant loud complaint on the part of their
adversaries of the sterner sex."</p>

<p><i>Eleventh</i>&mdash;Such a change should be made, if at all, by the
States. Three-fourths of the States should not force it on the
others. In any State in which "any considerable part of the women
wish for the right to vote, it will be granted without the
intervention of congress." </p></blockquote>

<p>The first objection of the committee is to the large increase of
the number of the voting population. We believe on the other hand,
that to double the numbers of the constituent body, and to compose
one-half<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_136" id="Page_136">[Pg 136]</a></span> that body of women, would tend to elevate the standard of
the representative both for ability and manly character. Macaulay
in one of his speeches on the Reform bill refers to the quality of
the men who had for half a century been members for the five most
numerous constituencies in England&mdash;Westminster, Southwark,
Liverpool, Bristol and Norwich. Among them were Burke, Fox,
Sheridan, Romilly, Windham, Tierney, Canning, Huskisson. Eight of
the nine greatest men who had sat in parliament for forty years sat
for the five largest represented towns. To increase the numbers of
constituencies diminishes the opportunity for corruption. Size is
itself a conservative force in a republic. As a permanent general
rule the people will desire their own best interest. Disturbing
forces, evil and selfish passions, personal ambitions, are
necessarily restricted in their operation. The larger the field of
operation, the more likely are such influences to neutralize each
other.</p>

<p>The objection of inexperience in public affairs applies, of course,
alike to every voter when he first votes. If it be valid, it would
have prevented any extension of the suffrage, and would exclude
from the franchise a very large number of masculine voters of all
ages.</p>

<p>That women are quite generally dependent on the other sex is true.
So it is true that men are quite generally dependent on the other
sex. It is impossible so to measure this dependence as to declare
that man is more dependent on woman or woman upon man. It is by no
means true that the dependence of either on the other affects the
right to the suffrage.</p>

<p>Capacity for military duty has no connection with capacity for
suffrage. The former is wholly physical. It will scarcely be
proposed to disfranchise men who are unfit to be soldiers by reason
of age or bodily infirmity. The suggestion that the country may be
plunged into wars by a majority of women who are secure from
military dangers is not founded in experience. Men of the military
profession, and men of the military age are commonly quite as eager
for war as non-combatants, and will hereafter be quite as
indifferent to its risks and hardships as their mothers and wives.</p>

<p>The argument that women are without the power to enforce the laws
which their numerical strength may enable them to make, proceeds
from the supposition that it is probable that all the women will
range themselves upon one side in politics and all the men on the
other. Such supposition flatly contradicts the other arguments
drawn from the dependence of women and from their alleged
unwillingness to assume political burdens. So men over fifty years
of age are without the power to enforce obedience to laws against
which the remainder of the voters forcibly rebel. It is not
physical power alone, but power aided by the respect for law of the
people, on which laws depend for their enforcement.</p>

<p>The sixth, eighth and ninth reasons of the committee are the same
proposition differently stated. It is that a share in the
government of the country is a burden, and one which, in the
judgment of a majority of the women of the country, they ought not
to be required to assume. If any citizen deem the exercise of this
franchise a burden and not a privilege, such person is under no
constraint to exercise it. But if it be a birthright, then it is
obvious that no other power than that of the individual<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_137" id="Page_137">[Pg 137]</a></span> concerned
can rightfully restrain its exercise. The committee concede that
women ought to be clothed with the ballot in any State where any
considerable part of the women desire it. This is a pretty serious
confession. On the vital, fundamental question whether the
institutions of this country shall be so far changed that the
number of persons in it who take a part in the government shall be
doubled, the judgment of women is to be and ought to be decisive.
If woman may fitly determine this question, for what question of
public policy is she unfit? What question of equal importance will
ever be submitted to her decision? What has become of the argument
that women are unfit to vote because they are dependent on men, or
because they are unfit for military duty, or because they are
inexperienced, or because they are without power to enforce
obedience to their laws?</p>

<p>The next argument is that by the present arrangement the
administration of justice is so far perverted that one-half the
citizens of the country have an advantage from the sympathies of
juries and judges which "would warrant loud complaint" on the part
of the other half. If this be true, it is doubtless due to an
instinctive feeling on the part of juries and judges that existing
laws and institutions are unjust to women, or to the fact that
juries composed wholly of men are led to do injustice by their
susceptibility to the attractions of women. But certainly it is a
grave defect in any system of government that it does not
administer justice impartially, and the existence of such a defect
is a strong reason for preferring an arrangement which would remove
the feeling that women do not have fair play, or for so composing
juries that, drawn from both sexes, they would be impartial between
the two.</p>

<p>The final objection of the committee is that "such a change should
be made, if at all, by the States. Three-fourths of the States
should not force it upon the others. Whenever any considerable part
of the women in any State wish for the right to vote, it will be
granted without the intervention of congress." Who can doubt that
when two-thirds of congress and three-fourths of the States have
voted for the change, a considerable number of women in the other
States will be found to desire it, so that, according to the
committee's own belief, it can never be forced by a majority on
unwilling communities? The prevention of unjust discrimination by
States against large classes of people in respect to suffrage is
even admitted to be a matter of national concern and an important
function of the national constitution and laws. It is the duty of
congress to propose amendments to the constitution whenever
two-thirds of both houses deem them necessary. Certainly an
amendment will be deemed necessary, if it can be shown to be
required by the principles on which the constitution is based, and
to remove an unjust disfranchisement from one-half the citizens of
the country. The constitutional evidence of general public demand
is to be found not in petitions, but in the assent of three-fourths
of the States through their legislatures or conventions.</p>

<p>The lessons of experience favor the conclusion that woman is fit
for a share in government. It may be true that in certain
departments of intellectual effort the greatest achievements of
women have as yet never<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_138" id="Page_138">[Pg 138]</a></span> equaled the greatest achievements of men.
But it is equally true that in those same departments women have
exhibited an intellectual ability very far beyond that of the
average of men and very far beyond that of most men who have shown
very great political capacity. But let the comparison be made in
regard to the very thing with which we have to deal. Of men who
have swayed chief executive power, a very considerable proportion
have attained it by usurpation or by election, processes which
imply extraordinary capacity on their part as compared with other
men. The women who have held such power have come to it as
sovereigns by inheritance, or as regents by the accident of bearing
a particular relation to the lawful sovereign when he was under
some incapacity. Yet it is an undisputed fact that the number of
able and successful female sovereigns bears a vastly greater
proportion to the whole number of such sovereigns, than does the
number of able and successful male sovereigns to the whole number
of men who have reigned. An able, energetic, virtuous king or
emperor is the exception and not the rule in the history of modern
Europe. With hardly an exception the female sovereigns or regents
have been wise and popular. Mr. Mill, who makes this point, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>We know how small a number of reigning queens history presents in
comparison with that of kings. Of this small number a far larger
proportion have shown talents for rule, though many of them have
occupied the throne in difficult periods. When to queens and
empresses we add regents and viceroys of provinces, the list of
women who have been eminent rulers of mankind swells to a great
length.... Especially is this true if we take into consideration
Asia as well as Europe. If a Hindoo principality is strongly,
vigilantly and economically governed; if order is preserved
without oppression; if cultivation is extending and the people
prosperous, in three cases out of four that principality is under
a woman's rule. This fact, to me an entirely unexpected one, I
have collected from a long official knowledge of Hindoo
governments. </p></blockquote>

<p>Certainly history gives no warning that should deter the American
people from carrying out the principles upon which their government
rests to this most just and legitimate conclusion. Those persons
who think that free government has anywhere failed, can only claim
that this tends to prove, not the failure of universal suffrage,
but the failure of masculine suffrage. Like failure has attended
the operation of every other great human institution, the family,
the school, the church, whenever woman has not been permitted to
contribute to it her full share. As to the best example of the
perfect family, the perfect school, the perfect church, the love,
the purity, the truth of woman are essential, so they are equally
essential to the perfect example of the self-governing State.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">
Geo. F. Hoar,<br />
John H. Mitchell,<br />
Angus Cameron.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>Thousands of copies of this report were published and franked to
every part of the country. On February 7, just one week after the
presentation of the able minority report, the bill allowing women
to practice before the Supreme Court passed the Senate<a name="FNanchor_47_47" id="FNanchor_47_47"></a><a href="#Footnote_47_47" class="fnanchor">[47]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_139" id="Page_139">[Pg 139]</a></span></a> and
received the signature of President Hayes. Senators McDonald, Hoar
and Sargent made the principal speeches. We give Mr. Hoar's speech
in full because of its terse and vigorous presentation of the fact
that congress is a body superior to the Supreme Court of the United
States. Mr. Hoar said:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Mr. President</i>&mdash;I understand the brief statement which was made,
I think, during this last session by the majority of the
Judiciary Committee in support of their opposition to this bill,
did not disclose that the majority of that committee were opposed
to permitting women to engage in the practice of law or to be
admitted to practice it in the Supreme Court of the United
States, but the point they made, was that the legislation of the
United States left to the Supreme Court the power of determining
by rule who should be admitted to practice before that tribunal,
and that we ought not by legislation to undertake to interfere
with its rules. Now, with the greatest respect for that tribunal,
I conceive that the law-making and not the law-expounding power
in this government ought to determine the question what class of
citizens shall be clothed with the office of the advocate. I
believe that leaving to the Supreme Court by rule to determine
the qualifications or disqualifications of attorneys and
counselors in that court is an exception to the nearly uniform
policy of the States of the Union. Would it be tolerated if the
Supreme Court undertook by rule to establish any other
disqualification, any of those disqualifications which have
existed in regard to holding any other office in the country?
Suppose the court were of the opinion we had been too fast in
relieving persons who took part in the late rebellion from their
disabilities, and that it would not admit persons who had so
taken part to practice before the Supreme Court; is there any
doubt that congress would at once interfere? Suppose the Supreme
Court were of opinion that the people of the United States had
erred in the amendment which had removed the disqualification
from colored persons and declined to admit such persons to
practice in that court; is there any doubt that congress would
interfere and would deem it a fit occasion for the exercise of
the law-making power?</p>

<p>Now, Mr. President, this bill is not a bill merely to admit women
to the privilege of engaging in a particular profession; it is a
bill to secure to the citizen of the United States the right to
select his counsel, and that is all. At present a case is tried
and decided in the State courts of any State of this Union which
may be removed to the Supreme Court of the United States. In the
courts of the State, women are permitted to practice as
advocates, and a woman has been the advocate under whose
direction and care and advocacy the case has been won in the
court below. Is it tolerable that the counsel who has attended
the case from its commencement to its successful termination in
the highest court of the State<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_140" id="Page_140">[Pg 140]</a></span> should not be permitted to attend
upon and defend the rights of that client when the case is
transferred to the Supreme Court of the United States? Everybody
knows, at least every lawyer of experience knows, the
impossibility of transferring with justice to the interests of a
client, a cause from one counsel to another. A suit is instituted
under the advice of a counsel on a certain theory, a certain
remedy is selected, a certain theory of the cause is the one on
which it is staked. Now that must be attended to and defended by
the counsel under whose advice the suit has taken its shape; the
pleadings have been shaped in the courts below.</p>

<p>Under the present system, a citizen of any State in the Union
having selected a counsel of good moral character who has
practiced three years, who possesses all-sufficient professional
and personal qualifications, and having had a cause brought to a
successful result in the State court, is denied by the present
existing and unjust rule having counsel of his choice argue the
cause in the Supreme Court of the United States.</p>

<p>The greatest master of human manners, who read the human heart
and who understood better than any man who ever lived the
varieties of human character, when he desired to solve just what
had puzzled the lawyers and doctors, placed a woman upon the
judgment seat; and yet, under the present existing law, if Portia
herself were alive, she could not defend the opinion she had
given, before the Supreme Court of the United States. </p></blockquote>

<p>The press commented favorably upon this new point gained for women.
We give a few extracts:</p>

<blockquote><p>The senators who voted to-day against the bill "to relieve
certain legal disabilities of women" are marked men and have
reason to fear the result of their action.&mdash;[Telegraph to the New
York <i>Tribune</i>, February 7.</p>

<p>The women get into the Supreme Court in spite of the
determination of the justices. They gained a decided advantage
to-day in the passage by the Senate of a bill providing that any
woman who shall have been a member of the highest court in any
State or territory, or of the Supreme Court of the District of
Columbia, for three years, may be admitted to the Supreme Court.
The bill was called up by Senator McDonald, in antagonism to Mr.
Edmunds' amendment to the constitution which was the pending
order. Mr. Edmunds objected to the consideration of the bill and
voted against it. There was not much discussion, the main
speeches being by Mr. Sargent and Mr. Hoar.&mdash;[Special dispatch to
the New York <i>World</i>, February 7.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">A Woman's Rights Victory in the Senate</span>.&mdash;The Lockwood bill,
giving women authority to practice before the Supreme Court of
the United States, passed the Senate yesterday by a vote of two
to one, and now it only requires the approval of Mr. Hayes to
become a law. The powerful effect of persistent and industrious
lobbying is manifested in the success of this bill. When it was
first introduced, it is doubtful if one-fourth the members of
congress would have voted for it. Some of the strong-minded
women, who were interested in the bill, stuck to it, held the
fort from day to day, and talked members and senators into
believing it a just measure. Senator McDonald gave Mr. Edmunds a
rebuff yesterday that he will not soon forget. The latter
attempted to administer a rebuke to the Indiana senator for
calling up a bill during the absence of the senator who had
reported it. Mr. McDonald retorted that he knew the objection of
the senator from Vermont was made for the purpose of defeating
the bill and not, as pretended, to give an absent senator
opportunity to speak upon it.&mdash;[Washington <i>Post</i>, February 8.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_141" id="Page_141">[Pg 141]</a></span></p>

<p>The credit for this victory belongs to Mrs. Belva Lockwood, of
this city, who, having been refused admission to the bar of the
United States Supreme Court, appealed to congress, and by dint of
hard work has finally succeeded in having her bill passed by both
houses. She called on Mrs. Hayes last evening, who complimented
her upon her achievement, and informed her that she had sent a
bouquet to Senator Hoar, in token of his efforts in behalf of the
bill.&mdash;[Washington <i>Star</i>, February 8.</p>

<p>The bill was carried through merely by the energetic advocacy of
Senators McDonald, Sargent and Hoar, whose oratorical efforts
were reënforced by the presence of Mrs. Lockwood. After the
struggle was over, all the senators who advocated the bill were
made the recipients of bouquets, while the three senators whose
names we have given received large baskets of flowers. This is a
pleasing omen of that purification of legal business which it is
hoped will flow from the introduction of women to the courts. It
was not flowers that used to be distributed at Washington and
Albany in the old corrupt times, among legislators, in testimony
of gratitude for their votes. Let us hope that venal legislation
at Washington will be extirpated by the rise of this beautiful
custom.&mdash;[New York <i>Nation</i>.</p>

<p>It was noticeable that all the presidential candidates dodged the
issue except Senator Blaine, who voted for the bill.&mdash;[Chicago
<i>Inter-Ocean</i>.</p>

<p>How humiliated poor old Judge Magruder must feel, since the
congress of the United States paid the woman whom he forbade to
open her mouth in his august presence, in his little court, so
much consideration as to pass an act opening to her the doors of
the Supreme Court of the United States. All honor to the brave
woman, who by her own unaided efforts thus achieved honor,
fortune and fame&mdash;the just rewards of her own true
worth.&mdash;[<i>Havre Republican</i>, Havre de Grace, Maryland.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Enter Portia</span>.&mdash;An act of congress was not necessary to authorize
women to be lawyers, if their legal acquirements fitted them for
that vocation; nor was it necessary to state, as an expression of
opinion by the national legislature, that some women are so fully
qualified for the legal profession that no barriers should be
permitted to stand in their way. It was needed simply as a key
whereby the hitherto locked door of the Supreme Court of the
United States may be opened if a woman lawyer, with the usual
credentials, should knock thereon. That is all; and there is no
new question opened for profitless debate. The ability of some
women to be lawyers is like the ability of others to make
bread&mdash;it rests upon the facts. There is no room for elaborate
argument to prove either their fitness or unfitness for legal
studies, so long as in Missouri, Wisconsin, Michigan, the
District of Columbia, Iowa and North Carolina there are women in
more or less successful practice and repute. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> Nowhere are
these great attributes of civilization and regulated
liberty&mdash;law, conservatism, justice, equity and mercy in the
administration of human affairs put in broader light or truer,
than they are by the words that Shakespeare puts in the mouth of
this woman jurist.&mdash;[<i>Public Ledger</i>, Philadelphia, February 12.</p>

<p>When congress recently passed a law allowing women to practice in
the Supreme Court, it was not a subject of any special or eager
comment. A woman who is a lawyer sent flowers to the desks of the
members who voted for the bill, and before they had faded,
comment was at an end. The home was still safe and the country
was not in peril. It was one of the questions which had settled
itself and was a foregone conclusion. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> United States Senator
Edmunds of Vermont, has fallen into disfavor with the ladies for
voting against the above bill.&mdash;[From John W. Forney's
<i>Progress</i>, February 22. </p></blockquote>

<p>On March 3, by motion of Hon. A. G. Riddle, Mrs. Lockwood was
admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court,<a name="FNanchor_48_48" id="FNanchor_48_48"></a><a href="#Footnote_48_48" class="fnanchor">[48]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_142" id="Page_142">[Pg 142]</a></span></a> taking
the official oath and receiving the classic sheep-skin; and the
following week she was admitted to practice before the Court of
Claims. The forty-sixth congress contained an unusually large
proportion of new representatives, fresh from the people, ready for
the discussion of new issues, and manifesting a chivalric spirit
toward the consideration of woman's claims as a citizen. On
Tuesday, April 29, the following resolution was submitted to the
Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a select committee of nine members be appointed
by the speaker, to be called a Committee on the Rights of Women,
whose duty it shall be to consider and report upon all petitions,
memorials, resolutions and bills that may be presented in the
House relating to the rights of women. </p></blockquote>

<p>Admitting the justice of a fair consideration of a question
involving every human right of one-half of the population of this
country, Alex. H. Stephens of Georgia, James A. Garfield of Ohio,
Wm. P. Frye of Maine, immediately declared themselves in favor of
the appointment of said committee, and Speaker Randall, the
chairman, ordered it reported to the House. A similar resolution
was introduced in the Senate, before the adjournment of the special
session. This showed a clearer perception of the magnitude of the
question, and the need of its early and earnest consideration, than
at any time during the previous thirty years of argument, heroic
struggle and sacrifice on the altar of woman's freedom.</p>

<p>The anniversary of 1879 was held in St. Louis, Missouri, May 7, 8,
9. Mrs. Virginia L. Minor and Miss Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins made all
possible arrangements for the success of the meeting and the
comfort of the delegates.<a name="FNanchor_49_49" id="FNanchor_49_49"></a><a href="#Footnote_49_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a> Mrs. Minor briefly stated the object
of the convention and announced that, as the president of the
association had not arrived, Mrs. Joslyn Gage would take the chair.
Miss Couzins gave the address of welcome:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Mrs. President and Members of the National Woman Suffrage
Association:</i></p>

<p>It becomes my pleasant duty to welcome you to the hospitalities
of my native city. To extend to you who for the first time meet
beyond the Mississippi, a greeting&mdash;not only in behalf of the
friends of woman suffrage, but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_143" id="Page_143">[Pg 143]</a></span> for those of our citizens who,
while not in full sympathy with your views, have a desire to hear
you in deliberative council and to cordially tender you the same
courtesies offered other conventions which have chosen St. Louis
as their place of annual gathering.</p>

<p>And I am the more happy to do this because of the opportunity it
affords me to disabuse your minds of certain impressions which
have gone abroad concerning our slowness of action in the line of
advanced ideas. Certainly in some phases of that reformation to
which you and your co-laborers have pledged your lives, your
fortunes&mdash;the cause of woman&mdash;St. Louis is the leader.</p>

<p>When, eighteen or twenty years since, Harriet Hosmer desired to
study anatomy, to perfect herself in her art, not a college in
New England would open its doors to her; she traveled West, and
through the generous patronage of Wayman Crow of this city, she
became a pupil of the dean of the St. Louis Medical college.</p>

<p>When other cities had refused equality of wages and position, St.
Louis placed Miss Brackett at the head of our normal school,
giving her&mdash;a heretofore exclusively male prerogative&mdash;the
highest wages, added to the highest educational rank.</p>

<p>And here in St. Louis began the advance march which has finally
broken down the walls of the highest judicial fortress, the
Supreme Court of the United States. Washington University, in
response to my request, unhesitatingly opened its doors, and for
the first time in the history of America, woman was accorded the
right to a legal course of training with man, and, at its close,
after successful examination, I was freely accorded the degree of
Bachelor of Laws! A city or a State that could perpetrate the
anomaly of a female bachelor, is certainly not far behind the
radicalism of the age.</p>

<p>Again, as I turn to its record on suffrage, I find as early as
1866 the Hon. B. Gratz Brown of Missouri made a glowing speech
for woman's enfranchisement, in the United States Senate, on Mr.
Cowan's motion to strike out "male" from the District of Columbia
suffrage bill, which resulted in an organization in 1867, through
the efforts of Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, its first president. And
again, I remember when that hydra-headed evil arose in our midst,
degrading all women and violating all the sweet and sacred
sanctities of life&mdash;a blow at our homes and a lasting stigma on
our civilization&mdash;the people of this community, led by the
chancellor of Washington University, at the ballot-box but
recently laid that monster away in a tomb, never, I trust, to be
resurrected.</p>

<p>And now, Mrs. President, let me add, in words which but faintly
express the emotion of my heart, the gratitude we feel towards
the noble women who have borne the burden and heat of the day.
They who have been ridiculed, villified, maligned, but through it
all maintained an unswerving allegiance to truth. In the name of
all true womanhood I welcome this association in our midst as
worthy of the highest honor.</p>

<p>We have lived to see the enlargement of woman's thought in all
directions. From our laboratories, libraries, observatories,
schools of medicine and law, universities of science, art and
literature, she is advancing to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_144" id="Page_144">[Pg 144]</a></span> examination of the problems
of life, with an eye single only to the glory of truth. Like the
Spartan of old she has thrown her spear into the thickest of the
fray, and will fight gloriously in the midst thereof till she
regains her own. No specious sophistry or vain delusion&mdash;no
time-honored tradition or untenable doctrine can evade her
searching investigation. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Gage responded to this address in a few earnest, appropriate
words.</p>

<p>Of the many letters<a name="FNanchor_50_50" id="FNanchor_50_50"></a><a href="#Footnote_50_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a> read in the convention none was received
with greater joy than the few lines, written with trembling hand,
from Lucretia Mott, then in the eighty-seventh year of her age:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Roadside</span>, Fourth Month, 26, 1879.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Susan Anthony</span>&mdash;It would need no urgent appeal to draw me
to St. Louis had I the strength for the journey. You will have no
need of my worn-out powers. Our cause itself has become
sufficiently attractive. Edward M. Davis has a joint letter on
hand for my signature, so this is enough, with my mite toward
expenses. And to all assembled in St. Louis best wishes for&mdash;yes,
full faith in your success. I have signed Edward's letter, so it
is hardly necessary for me to say,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Lucretia Mott.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The distinguishing feature of this convention was an afternoon
session of ladies alone, prompted by an attempt to reënact a law
for the license of prostitution, which had been enforced in St.
Louis a few years before and repealed through the united efforts of
the best men and women of the city. Mrs. Joslyn Gage opened the
meeting by reading extracts from the Woman's Declaration of Rights
presented at the centennial celebration, and drew especial
attention to the clause referring to two separate codes of morals
for men and women, arising from woman's inferior political
position:</p>

<blockquote><p>There are two points which may be considered open for discussion
during the afternoon&mdash;one, the fact that there are existing in
all forms of society, barbaric, semi-civilized, civilized or
enlightened, two separate<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_145" id="Page_145">[Pg 145]</a></span> codes of morals; the strict code to
which women are held accountable, and the lax code which governs
the conduct of men.</p>

<p>The other question which can very properly be discussed at the
present time is, "Why in this country, and in all civilized
nations, do one-half of the population die under five years of
age, and in some countries a very large proportion under one
year?" </p></blockquote>

<p>A letter was read from Mrs. Josephine E. Butler. As the experiment
of licensing prostitution had been extensively tried in England,
and she had watched the effects of the system not only in her own
country but on the continent, her opinions on this question are
worthy of consideration:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Annual Meeting of the National Suffrage Association in
St. Louis:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Friends</span>&mdash;As I am unable to be present at your convention on
May 7, 8, 9, and as you ask for a communication from me, I gladly
write you on some of the later phases of our struggle against
legalized prostitution. A brave battle has been fought in St.
Louis against that iniquity, and we have regarded it with
sympathy and admiration; but you are not yet safe against the
devices of those who uphold this white slavery, nor are we safe,
although we know that in the end we shall be conquerors. You tell
me that "England is held up as an example of the beneficial
working of the legalizing of vice." England holds a peculiar
position in regard to the question. She was the last to adopt
this system of slavery and she adopted it in that thorough manner
which characterizes the Anglo-Saxon race. In no other country has
prostitution been regulated by law. It has been understood by the
Latin races, even when morally enervated, that the law could not
without risk of losing its majesty violate justice. In England
alone the regulations are law. Their promoters, by their
hardihood in asking parliament to decree injustice, have brought
on unconsciously to themselves, the beginning of the end of the
whole system. The Englishman is a powerful agent for evil as for
good. In the best times of our history my countrymen possessed
preëminently vigorous minds in vigorous bodies. But when the
animal nature has outgrown the moral, the appetites burst their
proper restraints, and man has no other notion of enjoyment save
bodily pleasure; he passes by a quick and easy transition into a
powerful brute. And this is what the upper-class Englishman has
to a deplorable extent become. There is no creature in the world
so ready as he to domineer, to enslave, to destroy. But together
with this development towards evil, there has been in our country
a counter development. Moral faith is still strong among us.
There are powerful women, as well as strong, pure, and
self-governed men, of the real old Anglo-Saxon type. It was in
England then, which adopted last the hideous slavery, that there
arose first a strong national protest in opposition. English
people rose up against the wicked law before it had been in
operation three months. English men and women determined to carry
abolition not at home only, but abroad, and they promptly carried
their standard to every country on the continent of Europe. In
all these countries men and women came forward at the first
appeal, and said, "We are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_146" id="Page_146">[Pg 146]</a></span> ready, we only waited for you,
Anglo-Saxons, to take the lead; we have groaned under the
oppression, but there was not force enough among us to take the
initiative step."</p>

<p>We have recently had a visit from Monsieur Aimi Humbert of
Switzerland, our able general secretary for the continent. Much
encouragement was derived from the reports which reached us from
France, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and even Spain, where a noble
lady, Donna Concepcion Arenal of Madrid, and several gentlemen
have warmly espoused our cause. The progress is truly
encouraging; yet, on the other hand, it is obvious that the
partisans of this legislation have recently been smitten with a
kind of rage for extending the system everywhere, and are on the
watch to introduce it wherever we are off our guard. In almost
all British colonies they are very busy. At the Cape of Good
Hope, where the Cape parliament had repealed the law, the
governor, Sir Bartle Frere, has been induced by certain
specialists and immoral men, to reïntroduce it. But since he
could not count on the parliament at Cape Town for doing this, he
has reintroduced the miserable system by means of a proclamation
or edict, without the sanction and probably, to a great extent,
without the knowledge of parliament. The same game is being
played in other colonies. These facts seem to point to a more
decided and bitter struggle on the question than we have yet
seen. An energetic member of our executive committee, M. Pierson
of Zetten, in Holland, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I look upon legalized prostitution as the system in which the
immorality of our age is crystalized, and that in attacking it we
attack in reality the great enemies which are hiding themselves
behind its ramparts. But if we do not soon overthrow these
ramparts we must not think our work is fruitless. A great work is
already achieved; sin is once more called sin instead of
necessary evil, and the true standard of morality&mdash;equal for men
and women, for rich and poor&mdash;is once more raised in the face of
all the nations. </p></blockquote>

<p>This legalization of vice which recognized the "necessity" of
impurity for man and the institution of slavery for woman, is the
most open denial which modern times have seen of the principle of
the sacredness of the individual human being. It is the embodiment
of socialism in its worst form. An English high-class journal
confessed this, when it dared to demand that women who are unchaste
shall henceforth be dealt with "not as human beings, but as foul
sewers," or some such "material nuisance" without souls, without
rights and without responsibilities. When the leaders of public
opinion in a country have arrived at such a point of combined
depotism as to recommend such a manner of dealing with human
beings, there is no crime which that country may not legalize. Were
it possible to secure the absolute physical health of a whole
province, or an entire continent by the destruction of one, only
one poor and sinful woman, woe to that nation which should dare, by
that single act of destruction, to purchase this advantage to the
many! It will do it at its peril.</p>

<p>We entreat our friends in America to renew their alliance with us
in the sacred conflict. Union will be strength. The women of
England are beginning to understand their responsibilities. Like
yourselves, we are laboring to obtain the suffrage. The wrong which
has fallen upon us in this legalizing of vice has taught us the
need of power in legislation.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_147" id="Page_147">[Pg 147]</a></span> Meanwhile, the crusade against
immorality is educating women for the right use of suffrage when
they obtain it. The two movements must go hand in hand. </p></blockquote>

<p>Altogether this was an impressive occasion in which women met heart
to heart in discussing the deepest humiliations of their sex. After
eloquent speeches by Mrs. Meriwether, Mrs. Spencer, Mrs. Leonard,
Mrs. Thompson and Rev. Olympia Brown, the audience slowly
dispersed.</p>

<p>The closing scenes of the evening were artistic and interesting.
The platform was tastefully decked with flags and flowers, and the
immense audience that had assembled at an early hour&mdash;hundreds
unable to gain admission&mdash;made this the crowning session of the
convention. Miss Couzins announced the receipt of an invitation
from Mr. John Wahl, inviting the convention to visit the Merchants'
Exchange, "with assurances of high regard." The announcement was
heard with considerable merriment by those who remembered her
criticisms on Mr. Wahl for his failure to deliver the address of
welcome at the opening of the convention. She also announced the
receipt of an invitation from Secretary Kalb to visit the
fair-grounds, and moved that the convention first visit the
Exchange and then proceed to the fair-grounds in carriages, the
members of the Merchants' Exchange, of course paying the bill. The
motion was carried amidst applause. An invitation was also received
from Dr. Eliot, chancellor of Washington University, to attend the
art lecture of Miss Schoonmaker at the Mary Institute, Monday
evening. In a letter to the editor of the <i>National Citizen</i>, Mrs.
Stanton thus describes the incident of the evening:</p>

<blockquote><p>The delegates from the different States, through May Wright
Thompson of Indianapolis, presented Miss Anthony with two baskets
of exquisite flowers. She referred in the most happy way to Miss
Anthony's untiring devotion to all the unpopular reforms through
years of pitiless persecution, and thanked her in behalf of the
young womanhood of the nation, that their path had been made
smoother by her brave life. Miss Anthony was so overcome with the
delicate compliments and the fragrant flowers at her feet, that
for a few moments she could find no words to express her
appreciation of the unexpected acknowledgement of what all
American women owe her. As she stood before that hushed audience,
her silence was more eloquent than words, for her emotion was
shared by all. With an effort she at last said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Friends, I have no words to express my gratitude for this marked
attention. I have so long been the target for criticism and
ridicule, I am so unused to praise, that I stand before you
surprised and disarmed. If any one had come to this platform and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_148" id="Page_148">[Pg 148]</a></span>
abused all womankind, called me hard names, ridiculed our
arguments or denied the justice of our demands, I could with
readiness and confidence have rushed to the defence, but I cannot
make any appropriate reply for this offering of eloquent words
and flowers, and I shall not attempt it. </p></blockquote>

<p>Being advertised as the speaker of the evening, she at once began
her address, and as she stood there and made an argument worthy a
senator of the United States, I recalled the infinite patience with
which, for upwards of thirty years, she had labored for temperance,
anti-slavery and woman suffrage, with a faithfulness worthy the
martyrs in the early days of the Christian church, and said to
myself, verily the world now as ever crucifies its saviors.</p>

<p>Thanks to the untiring industry of Mrs. Minor and Miss Couzins, the
convention was in every way a success, morally, financially, in
crowded audiences, and in the fair, respectful and complimentary
tone of the press. Looking over the proceedings and resolutions,
the thought struck me that the National Association is the only
organization that has steadily maintained the doctrine of federal
power against State rights. The great truths set forth in the
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments of United States supremacy, so
clearly seen by us, seem to be vague and dim to our leading
statesmen and lawyers if we may judge by their speeches and
decisions. Your superb speech on State rights should be published
in tract form and scattered over this entire nation. How can we
ever have a homogeneous government so long as universal principles
are bounded by State lines. </p></blockquote>

<p>The delegates remaining in the city went on Change in a body at 12
o'clock Saturday, on invitation of the president, John Wahl. They
were courteously received and speeches were made by Mesdames
Couzins, Stanton, Anthony, Meriwether and Thompson. Mrs.
Meriwether's speech was immediately telegraphed in full to Memphis.
All wore badges of silk on which in gold letters appeared "N. W. S.
A., May 10, 1879, Merchants' Exchange." From the Exchange the
ladies proceeded in carriages to the fair-grounds, and Zoölogical
Gardens where they took refreshments.</p>

<p>On Saturday evening Miss Couzins gave a delightful reception. Her
parlors were crowded until a late hour, where the friends of woman
suffrage had an opportunity to use their influence socially in
converting many distinguished guests. On Sunday night Mrs. Stanton
was invited by the Rev. Ross C. Houghton to occupy his pulpit in
the Union Methodist church, the largest in the city of that
denomination. She preached from the text in Genesis i., 27, 28. The
sermon was published in the <i>St. Louis Globe</i> the next morning.<a name="FNanchor_51_51" id="FNanchor_51_51"></a><a href="#Footnote_51_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a>
Mrs. Thompson was also invited<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_149" id="Page_149">[Pg 149]</a></span> to occupy a Presbyterian pulpit,
but imperative duties compelled her to leave the city.</p>

<p>The enthusiasm aroused by the convention in woman's enfranchisement
was encouraging to those who had so long and earnestly labored in
this cause.<a name="FNanchor_52_52" id="FNanchor_52_52"></a><a href="#Footnote_52_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> This was indeed a week of profitable work. With
arguments and appeals to man's reason and sense of justice on the
platform, to his religious emotions and conscience in the pulpit,
to his honor and courtesy in the parlor, all the varied influences
of public and private life were exerted with marked effect; while
the press on the wings of the wind carried the glad tidings of a
new gospel for woman to every town and hamlet in the State.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_20_20" id="Footnote_20_20"></a><a href="#FNanchor_20_20"><span class="label">[20]</span></a>
The annual convention of the National Woman Suffrage
Association will be held in Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C.,
January 16, 17, 1877.
</p><p>
As by repeated judicial decisions, woman's right to vote under the
fourteenth amendment has been denied, we must now unitedly demand a
sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, that shall
secure this right to the women of the nation. In certain States and
territories where women had already voted, they have been denied
the right by legislative action. Hence it must be clear to every
thinking mind that this fundamental right of citizenship must not
be left to the ignorant majorities in the several States; for
unless it is secured everywhere, it is safe nowhere.
</p><p>
We urge all suffrage associations and friends of woman's
enfranchisement throughout the country to send delegates to this
convention, freighted with mammoth petitions for a sixteenth
amendment. Let all other proposed amendments be held in abeyance to
the sacred rights of the women of this nation. The most reverent
recognition of God in the constitution would be justice and
equality for woman.</p>

<p class="ltr-closing">On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association,</p>
<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span>, <i>President</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Chairman Ex. Committee</i>.<br />
<span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><i>Tenafly, N. J.</i>, November 10, 1876.</p>
</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_21_21" id="Footnote_21_21"></a><a href="#FNanchor_21_21"><span class="label">[21]</span></a> Committees: <i>Finance</i>&mdash;Sara A. Spencer, Ellen Clark
Sargent, Lillie Devereux Blake. <i>Resolutions</i>&mdash;Matilda Joslyn Gage,
Susan B. Anthony. Belva A. Lockwood, Edward M. Davis, C. B. Purvis,
M. D., Jane G. Swisshelm. <i>Business</i>&mdash;John Hutchinson. Mary F.
Foster, Rosina M. Parnell, Mary A. S. Carey, Ellen H. Sheldon, S.
J. Messer, Susan A. Edson, M. D.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_22_22" id="Footnote_22_22"></a><a href="#FNanchor_22_22"><span class="label">[22]</span></a> The speakers at this May anniversary were Mrs.
Devereux Blake, Rev. Olympia Brown, Clara Neyman, Helen Cooke,
Helen M. Slocum, Mrs. Hooker, Mrs. Gage and Acting-Governor Lee of
Wyoming territory.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_23_23" id="Footnote_23_23"></a><a href="#FNanchor_23_23"><span class="label">[23]</span></a> This reception-room, a great convenience to the
ladies visiting the Capitol, has since been removed; and a small,
dark, inaccessible room on the basement floor set aside for their
use.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_24_24" id="Footnote_24_24"></a><a href="#FNanchor_24_24"><span class="label">[24]</span></a> <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Anthony, Bruce, Burnside, Cameron of Wis.,
Dawes, Ferry, Hoar, Matthews, Mitchell, Rollins, Sargent, Saunders,
Teller&mdash;13.
</p><p>
<i>Nays</i>&mdash;Bailey, Bayard, Beck, Booth, Butler, Christiancy, Cockrell,
Coke, Conkling, Davis of W. Va., Eaton, Edmunds, Eustis, Grover,
Hamlin, Harris, Hereford, Hill, Howe, Kernan, Kirkwood, Lamar,
McDonald, McMillan, McPherson, Morgan, Plumb, Randolph, Saulsbury,
Thurman, Wadleigh&mdash;31.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_25_25" id="Footnote_25_25"></a><a href="#FNanchor_25_25"><span class="label">[25]</span></a> Grace Greenwood, Clara Barton, Abby Hutchinson
Patton, Mrs. Juan Lewis, Mrs. Morgan of Mississippi, Dr. Mary A.
Thompson of Oregon, Marilla M. Ricker, Julia E. Smith, Rev. Olympia
Brown, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Lockwood, Mrs. Spencer, Mrs. Gage, Mrs.
Stanton, Dr. Lozier and others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_26_26" id="Footnote_26_26"></a><a href="#FNanchor_26_26"><span class="label">[26]</span></a> This argument was subsequently given before the
Committee on Privileges and Elections and will be found on page
80.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_27_27" id="Footnote_27_27"></a><a href="#FNanchor_27_27"><span class="label">[27]</span></a> The members of the committee were Belva A. Lockwood,
Matilda Joslyn Gage, Mary A. Thompson, M. D., Marilla M. Ricker,
Elizabeth Boynton Harbert.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_28_28" id="Footnote_28_28"></a><a href="#FNanchor_28_28"><span class="label">[28]</span></a> At this hearing the speakers were Clemence S. Lozier,
M. D., New York; Julia E. Smith, Connecticut; Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, New Jersey; Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Illinois; Matilda
Joslyn Gage, New York; Priscilla Rand Lawrence, Massachusetts; Rev.
Olympia Brown, Connecticut; Mary A. Thompson, M. D., Oregon; Mary
Powers Filley, New Hampshire; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York; Sara
Andrews Spencer, District of Columbia; Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Connecticut; Mary A. Stewart, Delaware.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_29_29" id="Footnote_29_29"></a><a href="#FNanchor_29_29"><span class="label">[29]</span></a> In the whole course of our struggle for equal rights
I never felt more exasperated than on this occasion, standing
before a committee of men many years my juniors, all comfortably
seated in armchairs, I pleading for rights they all enjoyed though
in no respect my superiors, denied me on the shallow grounds of
sex. But this humiliation I had often felt before. The peculiarly
aggravating feature of the present occasion was the studied
inattention and contempt of the chairman, Senator Wadleigh of New
Hampshire. Having prepared my argument with care, I naturally
desired the attention of every member of the committee, all of
which, with the exception of Senator Wadleigh, I seemingly had. He
however took special pains to show that he did not intend to
listen. He alternately looked over some manuscripts and newspapers
before him, then jumped up to open or close a door or window. He
stretched, yawned, gazed at the ceiling, cut his nails, sharpened
his pencil, changing his occupation and position every two minutes,
effectually preventing the establishment of the faintest magnetic
current between the speakers and the committee. It was with
difficulty I restrained the impulse more than once to hurl my
manuscript at his head.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_30_30" id="Footnote_30_30"></a><a href="#FNanchor_30_30"><span class="label">[30]</span></a> The first hearing was held in the committee room, but
that not being large enough to accommodate the crowds that wished
to hear the arguments, the use of the Senate reception room was
granted for the second, which although very much larger, was
packed, with the corridors leading to it, long before the committee
took their places.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_31_31" id="Footnote_31_31"></a><a href="#FNanchor_31_31"><span class="label">[31]</span></a> Mr. and Mrs. Holt, of 1,339 L street, entertained
their friends and a numerous company of distinguished guests on
Friday evening, in honor of Mrs. Beecher Hooker. She delivered one
of her ablest speeches on the woman suffrage question. She was
listened to with breathless silence by eminent men and women, who
confessed, at the termination of her speech, that they were "almost
persuaded" to join her ranks&mdash;the highest tribute to her eloquent
defense of her position. Mrs. Hooker's intellect is not her only
charm. Her beautiful face and attractive manners all help to make
converts. Mrs. Julia N. Holmes, the poet, one of the most admired
ladies present, and Mrs. Southworth, the novelist, wore black
velvet and diamonds. Mrs. Hodson Burnett, that "Lass o' Lowrie," in
colored and rose silk with princess scarf, looked charmingly. Mrs.
Senator Sargent, Mrs. Charles Nordhoff and her friends, the elegant
Miss Thurman, of Cincinnati, and Miss Joseph, a brilliant brunette
with scarlet roses and jet ornaments, of Washington, were much
observed. Mrs. Dr. Wallace, of the <i>New York Herald</i>, wore cuir
colored gros-grain with guipure lace trimmings, flowers and
diamonds. Miss Coyle was richly attired. Mrs. Ingersoll, wife of
the exceptional orator, was the center of observation with Mrs.
Hooker; she wore black velvet, roses, and diamonds&mdash;has a noble
presence and Grecian face. General Forney, of Alabama, Hon. John F.
Wait, M. C., Captain Dutton and Colonel Mallory, of U. S. Army,
Judge Tabor (Fourth Auditor), Dr. Cowes, Col. Ingersol, Mrs.
Hoffman, of New York, a prominent lady of the Woman's Congress,
lately assembled in this city, wore a distinguished toilette. Mrs.
Spofford, of the Riggs House, was among the most noticeable ladies
present, elegant and delightful in style and manner. Dr. Josephs
and Col. G. W. Rice, of Boston, were of the most conspicuous
gentlemen present, who retired much edified with the entertainment
of the evening.
</p>
<p class="ltr-from">H. Louise Gates.</p>
<p>
Society was divided Saturday evening between the literary club
which met at Willard's under the auspices of Mrs. Morrell, and the
reception given at the residence of Senator Rollins, on Capitol
Hill, to Mrs. Beecher Hooker, who spoke on the question of woman
suffrage. It was said of Theodore Parker, if all his hearers stood
on the same lofty plane that he did, his theology would be all
right for them, and so in this matter of woman's rights. If all the
advocates were as cultivated, refined, and convincing as Mrs.
Hooker, one might almost be tempted to surrender. She certainly
possesses that rare magnetic influence which seems to say, "Lend me
your ears and I shall take your heart." Among her listeners we
noticed Mrs. Joseph Ames, Grace Greenwood, Senator and Mrs.
Rollins, Senator and Mrs. Wadleigh, Miss Rollins, Mrs. Solomon
Bundy, Mrs. J. M. Holmes, Mrs. Brainerd, Mr. and Mrs. Doolittle,
Dr. Patton and son, Prof. Thomas Taylor, Miss Robena Taylor, Mrs.
Spofford, of the Riggs House, Prof. G. B. Stebbins, Mrs. Captain
Platt, and Mr. and Mrs. Holt.&mdash;[Washington <i>Post</i>.
</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_32_32" id="Footnote_32_32"></a><a href="#FNanchor_32_32"><span class="label">[32]</span></a> The members of the committee present were Hon.
Proctor Knott (the chairman), General Benjamin F. Butler, Messrs.
Lynde, Frye, Conger, Lapham, Culberson, McMahon. Among the ladies
were Mesdames Knott, Conger, Lynde, Frye.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_33_33" id="Footnote_33_33"></a><a href="#FNanchor_33_33"><span class="label">[33]</span></a> Mrs. Hooker has won, just as we predicted she would.
Senators Howe, Ferry, Coke, Randolph, Jones, Blaine, Beck, Booth,
Allison, Wallace, Eaton, Johnston, Burnside, Saulsbury, Merrimon,
and Presiding-officer Wheeler, together with nineteen other
senators, have formally invited her to address the Committee on
Privileges and Elections on February 22, an invitation which she
has enthusiastically accepted. Nobody but congressmen will be
admitted to hear the distinguished advocate of woman
suffrage.&mdash;[Washington <i>Post</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_34_34" id="Footnote_34_34"></a><a href="#FNanchor_34_34"><span class="label">[34]</span></a> Among those present were Mrs. Senator Beck, Mrs.
Stanley Matthews, Mrs. Sargent, Mrs. Spofford, Mrs. Holmes, Mrs.
Snead, Mrs. Baldwin, Miss Blodgett of New York; Mrs. Baldwin, Mrs.
Spencer, Mrs. Juan Lewis of Philadelphia; Mrs. Morgan of
Mississippi, Mrs. Brooks, Mrs. Olcott, Mrs. Bartlett, Miss Sweet,
Mrs. Myers, Mrs. Gibson, Miss Jenners, Mrs. Levison, Mrs. Hereford,
Mrs. Folsom, Mrs. Mitchell, Mrs. Lynde, Mrs. Eldridge, Miss Snowe,
Mrs. Curtis, Mrs. Hutchinson Patton, Mrs. Boucher and many others.
Of the committee and Senate there were Senators Wadleigh, Cameron
of Wisconsin; Merrimon, Mitchell, Hoar, Vice-president Wheeler,
Senators Jones, Bruce, Beck and others. Several representatives and
their wives also were there, and seemed deeply
interested.&mdash;[Washington <i>Post</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_35_35" id="Footnote_35_35"></a><a href="#FNanchor_35_35"><span class="label">[35]</span></a> Mrs. Ricker makes a specialty of looking after the
occupants of the jail&mdash;so freely is her purse opened to the poor
and unfortunate that she is known as the prisoners' friend. Many an
alleged criminal owes the dawning of a new life, and the
determination to make it a worthy one, to the efforts of this noble
woman. And Mrs. Ricker's special object in seeking this office was
that prisoners might make depositions before her and thus be saved
the expense of employing notaries from the city.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_36_36" id="Footnote_36_36"></a><a href="#FNanchor_36_36"><span class="label">[36]</span></a> <span class="smcap">The Selfish Rats</span>&mdash;<span class="smcap">A Fable by Lillie Devereux
Blake.</span>&mdash;Once some gray old rats built a ship of State to save
themselves from drowning. It carried them safely for awhile until
they grew eager for more passengers, and so took on board all
manner of rats that had run away from all sorts of places&mdash;Irish
rats and German rats, and French rats, and even black rats and
dirty sewer rats.
</p><p>
Now there were many lady mice who had followed the rats, and the
rats therefore thought them very nice, but in spite of that would
not let them have any place on the ship, so that they were forced
to cling to a few planks and were every now and then overwhelmed by
the waves. But when the mice begged to be taken on board saying,
"Save us also, we beg you!" The rats only replied, "We are too
crowded already; we love you very much, and we know you are very
uncomfortable, but it is not expedient to make room for you." So
the rats sailed on safely and saw the poor little mice buffeted
about without doing the least thing to save them.
</p><p>
<i>Moral</i>: Woe to the weaker.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_37_37" id="Footnote_37_37"></a><a href="#FNanchor_37_37"><span class="label">[37]</span></a> Senator Blair has just been elected (June, 1885) to a
second term, thus insuring his services to our cause in the Senate
for another six years.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_38_38" id="Footnote_38_38"></a><a href="#FNanchor_38_38"><span class="label">[38]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Delegates to the Thirtieth Anniversary.</span>&mdash;Alabama,
Priscilla Holmes Drake; California, Ellen Clark Sargent; District
of Columbia, Frederick Douglass, Belva A. Lockwood, Sara Andrews
Spencer, Caroline B. Winslow, M. D.; Indiana, Margaret C. Conklin,
Mary B. Naylor, May Wright Thompson; Massachusetts, Harriet H.
Robinson, Harriette R. Shattuck; Maryland, Lavinia C. Dundore;
Michigan, Catherine A. F. Stebbins, Frances Titus, Sojourner Truth;
Missouri, Phoebe W. Couzins; New Hampshire, Parker Pillsbury; North
Carolina, Elizabeth Oakes Smith; New Jersey, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, Sarah M. Hurn; New York, <i>Albany county</i>, Arethusa L.
Forbes; <i>Dutchess</i>, Helen M. Loder; <i>Lewis</i>, Mrs. E. M. Wilcox;
<i>Madison</i>, Helen Raymond Jarvis; <i>Monroe</i>, Susan B. Anthony, Amy
Post, Sarah H. Willis, Mary H. Hallowell, Mary S. Anthony, Lewia C.
Smith and many others; <i>Orleans</i>, Mrs. Plumb, Mrs. Clark;
<i>Onondaga</i>, Lucy N. Coleman, Dr. Amelia F. Raymond, Matilda Joslyn
Gage; <i>Ontario</i>, Elizabeth C. Atwell, Catherine H. Sands, Elizabeth
Smith Miller, Helen M. Pitts; <i>Queens</i>, Mary A. Pell; <i>Wayne</i>,
Sarah K. Rathbone, Rebecca B. Thomas; <i>Wyoming</i>, Charlotte A.
Cleveland; <i>Genesee</i>, the Misses Morton; <i>New York</i>, Clemence S.
Lozier, M. D., Helen M. Slocum, Sara A. Barret, M. D., Hamilton
Wilcox; Ohio, Mrs. Ellen Sully Fray; Pennsylvania, Lucretia Mott,
Sarah Pugh, Adeline Thomson, Maria C. Arter, M. D., Mrs. Watson;
South Carolina, Martha Schofield; Wisconsin, Mrs. C. L. Morgan.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_39_39" id="Footnote_39_39"></a><a href="#FNanchor_39_39"><span class="label">[39]</span></a> From Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Lucy
Stone, Caroline H. Dall, Boston; Hon. A. A. Sargent, Washington;
Clara Barton, Mathilde F. Wendt, Abby Hutchinson Patton, Aaron M.
Powell, Father Benson, Margaret Holley, Mary L. Booth, Sarah
Hallock, Priscilla R. Lawrence, Lillie Devereux Blake, New York;
Samuel May, Elizabeth Powell Bond, John W. Hutchinson, Lucinda B.
Chandler, Sarah E. Wall, Massachusetts; Caroline M. Spear, Robert
Purvis, Edward M. Davis, Philadelphia; Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Julia E. Smith, Lavinia Goodell, Connecticut; Lucy A. Snowe, Ann T.
Greeley, Maine; Caroline F. Barr, Bessie Bisbee Hunt, Mary A.
Powers Filley, New Hampshire; Catherine Cornell Knowles, Rhode
Island; Antoinette Brown Blackwell, New Jersey; Annie Laura Quinby,
Joseph B. Quinby, Sarah R. L. Williams, Rosa L. Segur, Ohio; Sarah
C. Owen, Michigan; Laura Ross Wolcott, M. D., Mary King, Angie
King, Wisconsin; Frances E. Williard, Clara Lyons Peters, Elizabeth
Boynton Harbert, Illinois; Rachel Lockwood Child, Janet Strong,
Nancy R. Allen, Amelia Bloomer, Iowa; Sarah Burger Stearns, Hattie
M. White, Minnesota; Mary F. Thomas, M. D., Emma Molloy, Indiana;
Matilda Hindman, Sarah L. Miller, Pennsylvania; Anna K. Irvine,
Virginia L. Minor, Missouri; Elizabeth H. Duvall, Kentucky; Mrs.
G.W. Church, Tennessee; Mrs. Augusta Williams, Elsie Stuart,
Kansas; Ada W. Lucas, Nebraska; Emeline B. Wells, Annie Godbe,
Utah; Mary F. Shields, Alida C. Avery, M. D., Colorado; Harriet
Loughary, Mrs. L. F. Proebstel, Mrs. Coburn, Abigail Scott Duniway,
Oregon; Clarina I. H. Nichols, Elizabeth B. Schenck, Sarah J.
Wallis, Abigail Bush, Laura de Force Gordon, California; Mrs.
A.H.H. Stuart, Washington Territory; Helen M. Martin, Arkansas;
Helen R. Holmes, District of Columbia; Caroline V. Putnam,
Virginia; Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Tennessee; Elizabeth L.
Saxon, Louisiana; Martha Goodwin Tunstall, Texas; Priscilla Holmes
Drake, Buell D. M'Clung, Alabama; Ellen Sully Fray, Ontario;
Theodore Stanton, France; Ernestine L. Rose, Caroline Ashurst
Biggs, Lydia E. Becker, England.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_40_40" id="Footnote_40_40"></a><a href="#FNanchor_40_40"><span class="label">[40]</span></a> While May Wright Thompson was speaking she turned to
Mrs. Stanton and said. "How thankful I am for these bright young
women now ready to fill our soon-to-be vacant places. I want to
shake hands with them all before I go, and give them a few words of
encouragement. I do hope they will not be spoiled with too much
praise."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_41_41" id="Footnote_41_41"></a><a href="#FNanchor_41_41"><span class="label">[41]</span></a> For account of this International Congress, see
chapter on Continental Europe in this volume.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_42_42" id="Footnote_42_42"></a><a href="#FNanchor_42_42"><span class="label">[42]</span></a> Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Coleman, Mr.
Wilcox, Mrs. Slocum, Mrs. Dundore, Mrs. Stebbins, Mrs. Sands, Mrs.
Amy Post, and Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes-Smith, who having resided in
North Carolina had not been on our platform for many years, were
among the speakers.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_43_43" id="Footnote_43_43"></a><a href="#FNanchor_43_43"><span class="label">[43]</span></a> By Miss Couzins, Mr. Douglass, Mrs. Spencer.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_44_44" id="Footnote_44_44"></a><a href="#FNanchor_44_44"><span class="label">[44]</span></a> Mr. Robinson, as "Warrington," was well known as one
of the best writers on the <i>Springfield Republican</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_45_45" id="Footnote_45_45"></a><a href="#FNanchor_45_45"><span class="label">[45]</span></a> Ellen Clark Sargent, California; Elizabeth Oakes
Smith, North Carolina; Elizabeth Cady Stanton, New Jersey; Mrs.
Devereux Blake, Mrs. Joslyn Gage, Helen M. Slocum, Helen Cooke,
Susan B. Anthony, New York; Julia Brown Dunham, Iowa; Marilla M.
Ricker, New Hampshire; Lavinia C. Dundore, Maryland; Robert Purvis,
Julia and Rachel Foster, Pennsylvania; Emeline B. Wells, Zina Young
Williams, Utah; Ellen H. Sheldon, Dr. Caroline Winslow, Sara
Andrews Spencer, Belva A. Lockwood, Frederick Douglass, Julia A.
Wilbur, Dr. Cora M. Bland, Washington.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_46_46" id="Footnote_46_46"></a><a href="#FNanchor_46_46"><span class="label">[46]</span></a> The president invited the ladies into the library,
that they might be secure from interruption, and gave them
throughout a most respectful and courteous hearing, asking
questions and showing evident interest in the subject, and at the
close promising sincere consideration of the question.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_47_47" id="Footnote_47_47"></a><a href="#FNanchor_47_47"><span class="label">[47]</span></a> At its final action, the bill was called up by Hon.
J. E. McDonald of Indiana. After some discussion it was passed
without amendment&mdash;40 to 20. <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Allison, Anthony, Barnum,
Beck, Blaine, Booth, Burnside, Cameron (Pennsylvania), Cameron
(Wisconsin), Dawes, Dorsey, Ferry, Garland, Gordon, Hamlin, Hoar,
Howe, Ingalls, Jones (Florida), Jones (Nevada), Kellogg, Kirkwood,
McCreery, McDonald, McMillan, McPherson, Matthews, Mitchell,
Oglesby, Ransom, Rollins, Sargent, Teller, Voorhees, Wadleigh,
Windom, Withers. <i>Nays</i>&mdash;Baily, Chaffee, Coke, Davis (Illinois),
Davis (West Virginia), Eaton, Edmunds, Eustis, Grover, Harris,
Hereford, Hill, Kernan, Maxey, Merrimon, Morgan, Randolph,
Saulsbury, Wallace, White.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_48_48" id="Footnote_48_48"></a><a href="#FNanchor_48_48"><span class="label">[48]</span></a> Conspicuous in the large and distinguished audience
present were Senator M'Donald, Attorney-general Williams, Hon.
Jeremiah Wilson, Judge Shellabarger, Hon. George W. Julian, who
with many others extended hearty congratulations to Mrs. Lockwood.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_49_49" id="Footnote_49_49"></a><a href="#FNanchor_49_49"><span class="label">[49]</span></a> <i>Washington, D. C.</i>&mdash;Sara A. Spencer.
<i>Illinois</i>&mdash;Clara Lyon Peters, Watseka; Mrs. G. P. Graham, Martha
L. Mathews, Amanda E. and Matilda S. Frazer, Aledo; Hannah J.
Coffee, Abby B. Trego, Orion; Mrs. Senator Hanna, Fairfield; Sarah
F. Nourse, Moline; Mrs. E. P. Reynolds, Rock Island; Cynthia
Leonard, Chicago. <i>Missouri</i>&mdash;Virginia L. Minor, Mrs. M. A.
Peoquine, Mrs. P. W. Thomas, Eliza J. Patrick, Mrs. E. M. Dan,
Eliza A. Robbins, Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins, Alex. Robbins, St. Louis;
James L. Allen, Oregon; Miss A. J. Sparks, Warrensburg.
<i>Wisconsin</i>&mdash;Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine. <i>New York</i>&mdash;Susan B.
Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Mary R. Pell, Florence Pell.
<i>Indiana</i>&mdash;Helen Austin, Richmond; May Wright Thompson, Amy E.
Dunn, Gertrude Garrison, Mary E. Haggart, Indianapolis.
<i>Tennessee</i>&mdash;Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Minor Lee Meriwether,
Memphis, <i>Kentucky</i>&mdash;Mary B. Clay, Richmond. <i>Louisiana</i>&mdash;Emily P.
Collins, Ponchatoula. <i>Ohio</i>&mdash;Eva L. Pinney, South Newbury.
<i>Pennsylvania</i>&mdash;Mrs. L. P. Danforth, Julia and Rachel Foster,
Philadelphia.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_50_50" id="Footnote_50_50"></a><a href="#FNanchor_50_50"><span class="label">[50]</span></a> Letters sympathizing with the purposes of the
convention were received from Lucretia Mott, Pa.; Clarina I. H.
Nichols, Cal.; Lucinda B. Chandler, N. J.; Annie Laura Quinby, Ky.;
Mrs. N. R. Allen, Ia.; Isabella B. Hooker, Ct.; Emeline B. Wells,
Utah; Sarah Burger Stearns, Minn.; Mary A. Livermore, Mass.;
Elizabeth Oakes Smith, N. Y.; Hannah Tracy Cutler, M. D., Ill.;
Mrs. S. F. Proebstell, Ore.; Mrs. C. C. Knowles, R. I.; Dr.
Clemence S. Lozier, Lillie Devereux Blake, N. Y. (with a fable,
"Nothing New"); Lavinia Goodell, Wis.; Elizabeth H. Duvall, Ky.;
Alida C. Avery, M. D., Col.; Hattie M. Crumb, Mo.; Mrs. J. H.
Pattee, Ill.; Caroline B. Winslow, M. D., Washington; Miss Kate
Trimble, Ky.; Mrs. M. M'Clellan Brown, Pa.; Alice Black, Mo.;
Margaret M. Baker, Mo.; Mrs. Elsie Stewart, Kan.; Edward M. Davis,
Pa.; Mrs. Scott Saxton, Louisville; Kate Gannett Wells, Boston;
Anna R. Irvine, Mo.; Sarah M. Kimball, Salt Lake; Lelia E.
Partridge, Pa.; Ellen H. Sheldon, D. C.; Rev. W. C. Gannett, Minn.;
Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans; Mrs. J. Swain, Ill.; Geo. M.
Jackson, John Finn, A Practical Woman, St. Louis; Maria Harkner,
Mrs. J. Martin, Kate B. Ross, Ill.; Emma Molloy, Ind.; Maria J.
Johnston, Mo.; Zenas Brockett, N.Y.; Kate N. Doggett, president of
the Association for the Advancement of Women; Rebecca N. Hazard,
president of the American Woman Suffrage Society; Madam Anneke, for
the Wisconsin Suffrage Association; The Hutchinson Family ("Tribe
of John"); South Newbury Ohio Woman Suffrage Society. Foreign
letters were also received from Jessie Morrison Wellstood,
Edinburgh; Lydia E. Becker, Manchester, England, editor <i>Woman's
Suffrage Journal</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_51_51" id="Footnote_51_51"></a><a href="#FNanchor_51_51"><span class="label">[51]</span></a> Though an extra edition was struck off not a paper
was to be had by 10 o'clock in the morning. Gov. Stannard and other
prominent members of the suffrage association bought and mailed
every copy they could obtain.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_52_52" id="Footnote_52_52"></a><a href="#FNanchor_52_52"><span class="label">[52]</span></a> On the Tuesday following the convention a large
number of St. Louis people met and formed a woman suffrage society,
auxiliary to the National. Miss Anthony who had remained over,
called the meeting to order; Mrs. E. C. Johnson made an effective
speech; Mrs. Minor was chosen president. Over fifty persons
enrolled as members. The second meeting held a fortnight after, was
also crowded&mdash;twenty-five new members were obtained.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_150" id="Page_150">[Pg 150]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXIX" id="CHAPTER_XXIX"></a>CHAPTER XXIX.</h2>

<h3>CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS AND CONVENTIONS.</h3>

<h3>1880-1881.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Why we Hold Conventions in Washington&mdash;Lincoln Hall
Demonstration&mdash;Sixty-six Thousand Appeals&mdash;Petitions Presented in
Congress&mdash;Hon. T. W. Ferry of Michigan in the Senate&mdash;Hon. George
B. Loring of Massachusetts in the House&mdash;Hon. J. J. Davis of
North Carolina Objected&mdash;Twelfth Washington Convention&mdash;Hearings
before the Judiciary Committees of both Houses&mdash;1880&mdash;May
Anniversary at Indianapolis&mdash;Series of Western
Conventions&mdash;Presidential Nominating Conventions&mdash;Delegates and
Addresses to each&mdash;Mass-meeting at Chicago&mdash;Washington
Convention, 1881&mdash;Memorial Service to Lucretia Mott&mdash;Mrs.
Stanton's Eulogy&mdash;Discussion in the Senate on a Standing
Committee&mdash;Senator McDonald of Indiana Championed the
Measure&mdash;May Anniversary in Boston&mdash;Conventions in the Chief
Cities of New England. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">The</span> custom of holding conventions at the seat of government in
mid-winter has many advantages. Congress is then in session, the
Supreme Court sitting, and society, that mystic, headless, power,
at the height of its glory. Being the season for official
receptions, where one meets foreign diplomats from every civilized
nation, it is the time chosen by strangers to visit our beautiful
capital. Washington is the modern Rome to which all roads lead, the
bright cynosure of all eyes, and is alike the hope and fear of
worn-out politicians and aspiring pilgrims. From this great center
varied influences radiate to the vast circumference of our land.
Supreme-court decisions, congressional debates, presidential
messages and popular opinions on all questions of fashion,
etiquette and reform are heralded far and near, awakening new
thought in every State in our nation and, through their
representatives, in the aristocracies of the old world. Hence to
hold a suffrage convention in Washington is to speak to the women
of every civilized nation.</p>

<p>The Twelfth Annual Convention of the National Association assembled
in Lincoln Hall, January 21, 1880. Many distinguished ladies and
gentlemen occupied the platform, which was tastefully decorated
with flags and flowers, and around the walls<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_151" id="Page_151">[Pg 151]</a></span> hung familiar
mottoes,<a name="FNanchor_53_53" id="FNanchor_53_53"></a><a href="#Footnote_53_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> significant of the demands of the hour. On taking the
chair Susan B. Anthony made some appropriate remarks as to the
importance of the work of the association during the presidential
campaign. Mrs. Spencer called the roll, and delegates<a name="FNanchor_54_54" id="FNanchor_54_54"></a><a href="#Footnote_54_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a> from
sixteen States responded.</p>

<p>Mrs. Gage read the call:</p>

<blockquote><p>The National Association will hold its twelfth annual convention
in Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C., January 21, 22, 1880.</p>

<p>The question as to whether we are a nation, or simply a
confederacy of States, that has agitated the country from the
inauguration of the government, was supposed to have been settled
by the war and confirmed by the amendments, making United States
citizenship and suffrage practically synonymous. Not, however,
having been pressed to its logical results, the question as to
the limits of State rights and national power is still under
discussion, and is the fundamental principle that now divides the
great national parties. As the final settlement of this principle
involves the enfranchisement of woman, our question is one of
national politics, and the real issue of the hour. If it is the
duty of the general government to protect the freedmen of South
Carolina and Louisiana in the exercise of their rights as United
States citizens, the government owes the same protection to the
women in Massachusetts and New York. This year will again witness
an exciting presidential election, and this question of momentous
importance to woman will be the issue then presented. Upon its
final decision depends not only woman's speedy enfranchisement,
but the existence of the republic.</p>

<p>A sixteenth amendment to the national constitution, prohibiting
the States from disfranchising United States citizens on the
ground of sex, will be urged upon the forty-sixth congress by
petitions, arguments and appeals. The earnest, intelligent and
far-seeing women of every State should assemble at the coming
convention, and show by their wise counsels that they are worthy
to be citizens of a free republic. All associations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_152" id="Page_152">[Pg 152]</a></span> in the
United States which believe it is the duty of congress to submit
an amendment protecting woman in the exercise of the right of
suffrage, are cordially invited to send delegates. Those who
cannot attend the convention, are urged to address letters to
their representatives in congress, asking them to give as careful
attention to the proposed amendment and to the petitions and
arguments urged in its behalf, as though the rights of men, only,
were involved. A delegate from each section of the country will
be heard before the committees of the House and Senate, to whom
our petitions will be referred.<a name="FNanchor_55_55" id="FNanchor_55_55"></a><a href="#Footnote_55_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Spencer presented a series of resolutions which were ably
discussed by the speakers and adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That we are a nation and not a mere confederacy, and
that the right of citizens of the United States to
self-government through the ballot should be guaranteed by the
national constitution and protected everywhere under the national
flag.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while States may have the right to regulate the
time, place and manner of elections, and the qualifications of
voters upon terms equally applicable to all citizens, they should
be forbidden under heavy penalties to deprive any citizen of the
right to self-government on account of sex.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the duty of the forty-sixth congress to
immediately submit to the several States the amendment to the
national constitution recently proposed by Senator Ferry and
Representative Loring, and approved by the National Suffrage
Association.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the duty of the House of Representatives
to pass immediately the resolution recommended by the Committee
on Rules directing the speaker to appoint a committee on the
rights of women.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the giant labor reform of this age lies in
securing to woman, the great unpaid and unrecognized laborer and
producer of the whole earth, the fruits of her toil.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the theory of a masculine head to rule the
family, the church, or the State, is contrary to republican
principles, and the fruitful source of rebellion and corruption.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the assumption of the clergy, that woman has no
right to participate in the ministry and offices of the church is
unauthorized theocratic tyranny, placing a masculine mediator
between woman and her God, which finds no authority in reason,
and should be resisted by all women as an odious form of
religious persecution.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the duty of the congress of the United
States to provide a reform school for girls and a home for the
children whom no man owns or protects, and who are left to die
upon the streets of the nation's capital, or to grow up in
ignorance, vice and crime.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That since man has everywhere committed to woman the
custody and ownership of the child born out of wedlock, and has
required it to bear its mother's name, he should recognize
woman's right as a mother to the custody of the child born in
marriage, and permit it to bear her name.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the National Association will send a delegate
and an alternate to each presidential nominating convention to
demand the rights of woman, and to submit to each party the
following plank for presidential platform: <i>Resolved</i>, That the
right to use the ballot <i>inheres</i> in the citizen of the United
States, and we pledge ourselves to secure protection in the
exercise of this right to all citizens irrespective of sex.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That one-half of the number of the supervisors of the
tenth census, and one-half of the collectors of said census,
should be educated, intelligent women, who can be safely
entrusted to enumerate women and children, their occupations,
ages,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_153" id="Page_153">[Pg 153]</a></span> diseases and deaths, and who would not be likely to
overlook ten millions of housekeepers.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That Ulysses S. Grant won his first victories through
the military plans and rare genius of a woman, Anna Ella Carroll,
of Maryland, and while he has been rewarded with the presidential
office through two terms, and a royal voyage around the world,
crowned with glory and honor, Miss Carroll has for fifteen years
been suffering in poverty unrecognized and unrewarded.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of this association are hereby
tendered to Governor Chas. B. Andrews, of Connecticut, for
remembering in each annual message to ask for justice to women. </p></blockquote>

<p>The comments of the press<a name="FNanchor_56_56" id="FNanchor_56_56"></a><a href="#Footnote_56_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> were very complimentary, and their
daily reports of the convention full and fair. Among the many
letters<a name="FNanchor_57_57" id="FNanchor_57_57"></a><a href="#Footnote_57_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> to the convention, the following from a Southern lady
is both novel and amusing:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Memphis</span>, Tenn., December 11, 1889.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Mrs. Spencer</span>: You want petitions. Well I have two which I
got up some time ago, but did not send on because I thought the
names too few to count much. The one is of <i>white</i> women 130 in
number. The other contains 110 names of black women. This last is
a curiosity, and was gotten up under the following circumstances:</p>

<p>Some ladies were dining with me and we each promised to get what
names we could to petitions for woman suffrage. My servant who
waited<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_154" id="Page_154">[Pg 154]</a></span> on table was a coal-black woman. She became interested
and after the ladies went away asked me to explain the matter to
her, which I did. She then said if I would give her a paper she
could get a thousand names among the black women, that many of
them felt that they were as much slaves to their husbands as ever
they had been to their white masters. I gave her a petition, and
said to her, "Tell the women this is to have a law passed that
will not allow the men to <i>whip their wives</i>, and will put down
drinking saloons." "Every black woman will go for that law!" She
took the paper and procured these 110 signatures against the
strong opposition of black men who in some cases threatened to
whip their wives if they signed. At length the opposition was so
great my servant had not courage to face it. She feared some
bodily harm would be done her by the black men. You can see this
is a genuine negro petition from the odd way the names are
written, sometimes the capital letter in the middle of the name,
sometimes at the end.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Avery Meriwether</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In response to 66,000 documents containing appeals to women, issued
by the National Association, 250 petitions, signed by over 12,000,
arrived in Washington in time for presentation to congress before
the assembling of the convention, and were read on the floor of the
Senate, with the leading names, January 14, 16, 20, 21, by
forty-seven senators.</p>

<p>In the House of Representatives this courtesy (reading petitions
and names), requires unanimous consent, and one man, Hon. J. J.
Davis of North Carolina, who had no petition from the women of his
State, objected. Sixty-five representatives presented the petitions
at the clerk's desk, under the rule, January 14, 15, 16. In answer
to these appeals to both Houses, on Monday, January 19, Hon. T. W.
Ferry, of Michigan, introduced in the Senate a joint resolution for
a sixteenth amendment, which with all the petitions was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary. Tuesday, January 20, Hon. George B.
Loring, of Massachusetts, introduced the same resolution in the
House of Representatives, and it was referred, with all the
petitions, to the Committee on the Judiciary. There were also
during this congress presented over 300 petitions from law-abiding,
tax-paying women, praying for the removal of their political
disabilities.</p>

<p>On Friday and Saturday, January 23, 24, these committees granted
hearings of two hours each to delegates from ten States who had
been in attendance at the convention. Thoughtful attention was
given to arguments upon every phase of the question, and senators
and representatives expressed a strong determination to bring the
subject fairly before the people.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_155" id="Page_155">[Pg 155]</a></span></p>

<p>The committees especially requested that only the delegates should
be present, wishing, as they said, to give their sole attention to
the arguments undisturbed by the crowds who usually seek
admittance. Even the press was shut out. These private sessions
with most of the members present, and the close attention they gave
to each speaker, were strong proof of the growth of our reform, as
but a few years before representatives sought excuses for absence
on all such occasions.</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">The Committee on the Judiciary, U. S. Senate,</span> }<br />
Friday, Jan. 23, 1880.            }</p>

<p>The committee assembled at half-past 10 o'clock <span class="smcap">a.m.</span> Present, Mr.
Thurman, <i>chairman</i>, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Bayard, Mr. Davis of
Illinois, Mr. Edmunds.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span>: Several members of the committee are unable to be
here. Mr. Lamar is detained at his home in Mississippi by
sickness; Mr. Carpenter is confined to his room by sickness; Mr.
Conkling has been unwell; I do not know how he is this morning;
and Mr. Garland is chairman of the Committee on Territories,
which has a meeting this morning that he could not fail to
attend. I do not think we are likely to have any more members of
the committee than are here now, and we will hear you, ladies.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Zerelda G. Wallace</span> of Indiana said: <i>Mr. Chairman, and
Gentlemen of the Committee</i>: It is scarcely necessary to say that
there is not an effect without a cause. Therefore it would be
well for the statesmen of this nation to ask themselves the
question, What has brought the women from all parts of this
nation to the capital at this time? What has been the strong
motive that has taken us away from the quiet and comfort of our
own homes and brought us before you to-day? As an answer to that
question I will read an extract from a speech made by one of
Indiana's statesmen. He found out by experience and gave us the
benefit of it:</p>

<blockquote><p>You can go to meetings; you can vote resolutions; you can attend
great demonstrations in the street; but, after all, the only
occasion where the American citizen expresses his acts, his
opinions, and his power is at the ballot-box; and that little
ballot that he drops in there is the written sentiment of the
times, and it is the power that he has as a citizen of this great
republic. </p></blockquote>

<p>That is the reason why we are here; the reason why we want to vote.
We are not seditious women, clamoring for any peculiar rights; it
is not the woman question that brings us before you to-day; it is
the human question underlying this movement. We love and appreciate
our country; we value its institutions. We realize that we owe
great obligations to the men of this nation for what they have
done. To their strength we owe the subjugation of all the material
forces of the universe which give us comfort and luxury in our
homes. To their brains we owe the machinery that gives us leisure
for intellectual culture and achievement. To their education we owe
the opening of our colleges and the establishment of our public
schools, which give us these great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_156" id="Page_156">[Pg 156]</a></span> and glorious privileges. This
movement is the legitimate result of this development, and of the
suffering that woman has undergone in the ages past.</p>

<p>A short time ago I went before the legislature of Indiana with a
petition signed by 25,000 of the best women in the State. I appeal
to the memory of Judge McDonald to substantiate the truth of what I
say. Judge McDonald knows that I am a home-loving, law-abiding,
tax-paying woman of Indiana, and have been for fifty years. When I
went before our legislature and found that one hundred of the
vilest men in our State, merely by the possession of the ballot,
had more influence with our lawmakers than the wives and mothers it
was a startling revelation.</p>

<p>You must admit that in popular government the ballot is the most
potent means for all moral and social reforms. As members of
society, we are deeply interested in all the social problems with
which you have grappled so long unsuccessfully. We do not intend to
depreciate your efforts, but you have attempted to do an impossible
thing; to represent the whole by one-half, and because we are the
other half we ask you to recognize our rights as citizens of this
republic.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Julia Smith Parker</span> of Glastonbury, Conn., said: <i>Gentlemen</i>: You
may be surprised to see a woman of over four-score years appear
before you at this time. She came into the world and reached years
of discretion before any person in this room was born. She now
comes before you to plead that she can vote and have all the
privileges that men have. She has suffered so much individually
that she thought when she was young she had no right to speak
before the men; but still she had courage to get an education equal
to that of any man at the college, and she had to suffer a great
deal on that account. She went to New Haven to school, and it was
noised around that she had studied the languages. It was such an
astonishing thing for girls at that time to have the advantages of
education, that I had actually to go to cotillon parties to let
people see that I had common sense. [Laughter.]</p>

<p>She has had to pay $200 a year in taxes without knowing what
becomes of it. She does not know but that it goes to support
grog-shops. She knows nothing about it. She has had to suffer her
cows to be sold at the sign-post six times. She suffered her meadow
land, worth $2,000, to be sold for a tax less than $50. If she
could vote as the men do she would not have suffered this insult;
and so much would not have been said against her as has been said
if men did not have the whole power. I was told that they had the
power to take anything that I owned if I would not exert myself to
pay the money. I felt that I ought to have some little voice in
determining what should be done with what I paid. I felt that I
ought to own my own property; that it ought not to be in these
men's hands; and I now come to plead that I may have the same
privileges before the law that men have. I have seen what a
difference there is, when I have had my cows sold, by having a
voter to take my part.</p>

<p>I have come from an obscure town on the banks of the Connecticut,
where I was born. I was brought up on a farm. I never had an idea
that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_157" id="Page_157">[Pg 157]</a></span> I should come all the way to Washington to speak before those
who had not come into existence when I was born. Now, I plead that
there may be a sixteenth amendment, and that women may be allowed
the privilege of owning their own property. I have suffered so much
myself that I felt it might have some effect to plead before this
honorable committee. I thank you, gentlemen, for hearing me so
kindly.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Elizabeth L. Saxon</span> of Louisiana, said: <i>Gentlemen</i>: I feel that
after Mrs. Wallace's plea there is no necessity for me to say
anything. I come from the extreme South, she from the West. People
have asked me why I came. I care nothing for suffrage merely to
stand beside men, or rush to the polls, or to take any privilege
outside of my home, only, as Mrs. Wallace says, for humanity. I
never realized the importance of this cause, until we were beaten
back on every side in the work of reform. If we attempted to put
women in charge of prisons, believing that wherever woman sins and
suffers women should be there to teach, help and guide, every place
was in the hands of men. If we made an effort to get women on the
school-boards we were combated and could do nothing.</p>

<p>In the State of Texas, I had a niece living whose father was an
inmate of a lunatic asylum. She exerted as wide an influence as any
woman in that State; I allude to Miss Mollie Moore, who was the
ward of Mr. Cushing. I give this illustration as a reason why
Southern women are taking part in this movement. Mr. Wallace had
charge of that lunatic asylum for years. He was a good, honorable,
able man. Every one was endeared to him; the State appreciated him
as superintendent of this asylum. When a political change was made
and Gov. Robinson came in, Dr. Wallace was ousted for political
purposes. It almost broke the hearts of some of the women who had
sons, daughters or husbands there. They determined at once to try
and have him reinstated. It was impossible, he was out, and what
could they do?</p>

<p>A gentleman said to me a few days ago, "These women ought to
marry." I am married; I am a mother; and in our home the sons and
brothers are all standing like a wall of steel at my back. I have
cast aside the prejudices of the past. They lie like rotted hulks
behind me.</p>

<p>After the fever of 1878, when our constitutional convention was
about to convene, I suppressed the agony and grief of my own heart
(for one of my children had died) and took part in the suffrage
movement in Louisiana with the wife of Chief-Justice Merrick, Mrs.
Sarah A. Dorsey, and Mrs. Harriet Keating of New York, the niece of
Dr. Lozier. These three ladies aided me faithfully and ably. I went
to Lieutenant-Governor Wiltz, and asked him if he would present or
consider a petition which I wished to bring before the convention.
He read the petition. One clause of our State law is that no woman
can sign a will. Some ladies donated property to an asylum. They
wrote the will and signed it themselves, and it was null and void,
because they were women. That clause, perhaps, will be wiped out.
Many gentlemen signed the petition on that account. Governor Wiltz,
then lieutenant-governor, told me he would present the petition. He
was elected president of the convention. I presented my first
petition, signed by the best names in the city of New Orleans and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_158" id="Page_158">[Pg 158]</a></span>
in the State. I had the names of seven of the most prominent
physicians. Three prominent ministers signed it for moral purposes
alone. When Mrs. Dorsey was on her dying bed the last time she ever
signed her name was to a letter to go before that convention. Mrs.
Merrick and myself addressed the convention. We made the petition
then that we make here; that we, the mothers of the land, should
not be barred on every side in the cause of reform. I pledged my
father on his dying bed that I would never cease work until woman
stood with man equal before the law.</p>

<p>I beg of you, gentlemen, to consider this question seriously. We
stand precisely in the position of the colonies when they plead,
and, in the words of Patrick Henry, were "spurned with contempt
from the foot of the throne." We have been jeered and laughed at;
but the question has passed out of the region of ridicule. This
clamor for woman suffrage, for woman's rights, for equal
representation, is extending all over the land.</p>

<p>I plead because my work has been combated in the cause of reform
everywhere that I have tried to accomplish anything. The children
that fill the houses of prostitution are not of foreign blood and
race. They come from sweet American homes, and for every woman that
went down some mother's heart broke. I plead by the power of the
ballot to be allowed to help reform women and benefit mankind.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Mary A. Stewart</span> of Delaware said: The negroes are a race inferior,
you must admit, to your daughters, and yet that race has the
ballot, and why? It is said they earned it and paid for it with
their blood. Whose blood paid for yours? The blood of your
forefathers and our forefathers. Does a man earn a hundred thousand
dollars and lie down and die, saying, "It is all my boys'"? Not a
bit of it. He dies saying, "Let my children, be they cripples, be
they idiots, be they boys, or be they girls, inherit all my
property alike." Then let us inherit the sweet boon of the ballot
alike. When our fathers were driving the great ship of State we
were willing to sail as deck or cabin passengers, just as we felt
disposed; we had nothing to say; but to-day the boys are about to
run the ship aground, and it is high time that the mothers should
be asking, "What do you mean to do?" In our own little State the
laws have been very much modified in regard to women. My father was
the first man to blot out the old English law allowing the eldest
son the right of inheritance to the real-estate. He took the first
step, and like all those who take first steps in reform he received
a mountain of curses from the oldest male heirs.</p>

<p>Since 1868 I have, by my own individual efforts, by the use of
hard-earned money, gone to our legislature time after time and have
had this law and that law passed for the benefit of women; and the
same little ship of State has sailed on. To-day our men are just as
well satisfied with the laws in force in our State for the benefit
of women as they were years ago. A woman now has a right to make a
will. She can hold bonds and mortgages of her own. She has a right
to her own property. She cannot sell it though, if it is
real-estate, simply because the moment she marries, her husband has
his right of courtesy. The woman does not grumble at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_159" id="Page_159">[Pg 159]</a></span> that; but
still when he dies owning real-estate, she gets only the rental
value of one-third, which is called the widow's dower. Now I think
the man ought to have the rental value of one-third of the woman's
maiden property or real-estate, and it ought to be called the
widower's dower. It would be just as fair for one as for the other.
All that I want is equality.</p>

<p>The women of our State, as I said before, are taxed without
representation. The tax-gatherer comes every year and demands
taxes. For twenty years I have paid tax under protest, and if I
live twenty years longer I shall pay it under protest every time.
The tax-gatherer came to my place not long since. "Well," said I,
"good morning, sir." Said he, "Good morning." He smiled and said,
"I have come bothering you." Said I, "I know your face well. You
have come to get a right nice little woman's tongue-lashing." Said
he, "I suppose so, but if you will just pay your tax I will leave."
I paid the tax, "But," said I, "remember I pay it under protest,
and if I ever pay another tax I intend to have the protest written
and make the tax-gatherer sign it before I pay the tax, and if he
will not sign that protest then I shall not pay, and there will be
a fight at once," Said he, "Why do you keep all the time protesting
against paying this small tax?" Said I, "Why do you pay your tax?"
"Well," said he, "I would not pay it if I did not vote." Said I,
"That is the very reason why I do not want to pay it. I cannot
vote." Who stay at home from the election? The women, and the black
and white men who have been to the whipping-post. Nice company to
put your wives and daughters in.</p>

<p>It is said that the women do not want to vote. Every woman sitting
here wants to vote, and must we be debarred the privilege of voting
because some luxurious woman, rolling around in her carriage in her
little downy nest that some good, benevolent man has provided for
her, does not want to vote? There was a society that existed up in
the State of New York called the Covenanters that never voted. Were
all you men disfranchised because that class or sect up in New York
would not vote? Did you all pay your taxes and stay at home and
refrain from voting because the Covenanters did not vote? Not a bit
of it. You went to the election and told them to stay at home if
they wanted to, but that you, as citizens, were going to take care
of yourselves. That was right. We, as citizens, want to take care
of ourselves.</p>

<p>One more thought, and I will be through. The fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a great
many smart men in the country, and smart women, too, give the right
to women to vote without any "if's" or "and's" about it, and the
United States protects us in it; but there are a few who construe
the law to suit themselves, and say that those amendments do not
mean that, because the congress which passed the fourteenth and
fifteenth amendments had no such intention. Well, if that congress
overlooked us, let the wiser congress of to-day take the eighth
chapter and the fourth verse of the Psalms, which says, "What is
man that Thou art mindful of him?" and amend it by adding, "What is
woman, that they never thought of her?"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_160" id="Page_160">[Pg 160]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Nancy R. Allen</span> of Iowa said: <i>Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
Judiciary Committee</i>: I am a representative of a large class of
women of Iowa, who are heavy taxpayers. There is now a petition
being circulated throughout our State, to be presented to the
legislature, praying that women be exempted from taxation until
they have some voice in the management of the affairs of the State.
You may ask, "Do not your husbands protect you? Are not all the men
protecting you?" We answer that our husbands are grand, noble men,
who are willing to do all they can for us, but there are many who
have no husbands and who own a great deal of property in the State
of Iowa. Particularly in great moral reforms the women there feel
the need of the ballot. By presenting long petitions to the
legislature they have succeeded in having better temperance laws
enacted, but the men have failed to elect the officials who will
enforce those laws. Consequently they have become as dead letters
upon the statute books.</p>

<p>To refer again to taxes. I have a list showing that in my city
three women pay more taxes than all the city officials together.
They are good temperance women. Our city council is composed almost
entirely of saloon-keepers, brewers and men who patronize them.
There are some good men, but they are in the minority, and the
voices of these women are but little regarded. All these officials
are paid, and we have to help support them. As Sumner said,
"Equality of rights is the first of rights." If we can only be
equal with man under the law, it is all that we ask. We do not
propose to relinquish our domestic life, but we do ask that we may
be represented. </p></blockquote>

<p>Remarks were also made by Mrs. Chandler, Mrs. Archibald and Mrs.
Spencer. The time having expired, the committee voted to give
another hour to Miss Anthony to state the reasons why we ask
congress to submit a proposition to the several legislatures for a
sixteenth amendment, instead of asking the States to submit the
question to the popular vote of their electors.<a name="FNanchor_58_58" id="FNanchor_58_58"></a><a href="#Footnote_58_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a> When Miss
Anthony had finished, the chairman, Senator Thurman of Ohio, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I have to say, ladies, that you will admit that we have listened
to you with great attention, and I can certainly say, with great
interest; your appeals will be duly and earnestly considered by
the committee.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Wallace</span>: I wish to make just one remark in reference to what
Senator Thurman said as to the popular vote being against woman
suffrage. The popular vote is against it, but not the popular
voice. Owing to the temperance agitation in the last six years,
the growth of the suffrage sentiment among the wives and mothers
of this nation has largely increased.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_161" id="Page_161">[Pg 161]</a></span></p>

<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">House of Representatives, Washington, D. C.</span>, Jan. 24, 1880.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Chairman</span> <i>pro tem.</i> (Mr. <span class="smcap">Harris</span> of Virginia): The order of
business for the present session of the committee is the delivery
of arguments by delegates of the Woman Suffrage Convention now
holding its sessions in Washington. I am informed that the
delegates are in attendance upon the committee. We will be
pleased to hear them. A list of the names, of the ladies
proposing to speak, with a memorandum of the limit of time
allotted to each, has been handed to me for my guidance; and, in
the absence of the chairman [Mr. Knott] it will be my duty to
confine the speakers to the number of minutes apportioned to them
respectively upon the paper before me. As an additional
consideration for adhering to the regulation, I will mention that
members of the committee have informed me that, having made
engagements to be at the departments and elsewhere on business
appointments, they will be compelled to leave the committee-room
upon the expiration of the time assigned. The first name upon the
list is that of Mrs. Emma Mont. McRae of Indiana, to whom five
minutes are allowed.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">McRae</span> said: <i>Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Judiciary
Committee</i>: In Indiana the cause of woman has made marked
advancement. At the same time we realize that we need the right
to vote in order that we may have protection. We need the ballot
because through the medium of its power alone we can hope to
wield that influence in the making of laws affecting our own and
our children's interests.</p>

<p>Some recent occurences in Indiana, one in particular in the
section of the State from which I come, have impressed us more
sensibly than ever before with the necessity of this right. The
particular incident to which I refer was this: In the town of
Muncie, where I reside, a young girl, who for the past five years
had been employed as a clerk in the post-office, and upon whom a
widowed mother was dependent for support, was told on the first
of January that she was no longer needed in the office. She had
filled her place well; no complaint had been made against her.
She very modestly asked the postmaster the cause of her
discharge, and he replied: "We have a man who has done work for
the party and we must give that man a place; I haven't room for
both of you." Now, there you have at once the reason why we want
the ballot; we want to be able to do something for the party in a
substantial way, so that men may not tell us they have no room
for us because we do nothing <i>for the party</i>. When they have the
ballot women will work for "the party" as a means of enabling
them to hold places in which they may get bread for their mothers
and for their children if necessity requires.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Jessie T. Waite</span> of Illinois said: <i>Mr. Chairman, and
Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee</i>: In the State of Illinois
we have attained to almost every right except that of the ballot.
We have been admitted to all the schools and colleges; we have
become accustomed to parliamentary usages; to voting in literary
societies and in all matters connected with the interests of the
colleges and schools; we are considered members in good standing
of the associations, and, in some cases, the young ladies in the
institutes have been told they hold the balance of power. The
same<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_162" id="Page_162">[Pg 162]</a></span> reason for woman suffrage that has been given by the
delegate from Indiana [Mrs. McRae] holds good with reference to
the State of Illinois. Women must have the ballot that they may
have protection in getting bread for themselves and their
families, by giving to the party that looks for their support
some substantial evidence of their strength. Experience has
demonstrated, especially in the temperance movement, how
fruitless are all their efforts while the ballot is withheld from
their hands. They have prayed; they have petitioned; they have
talked; they have lectured; they have done all they could do,
except to vote; and yet all avails them nothing. Miss Frances
Williard presented to the legislature of Illinois a petition of
such length that it would have reached around this room. It
contained over 180,000 signatures. The purpose of the petition
was to have the legislature give the women of the State the right
to vote upon the question of license or no license in their
respective districts.</p>

<p>In some of the counties of our State we have ladies as
superintendents of schools and professors in colleges. One of the
professors in the Industrial University at Champaign is a lady.
Throughout the State you may find ladies who excel in every
branch of study and in every trade. It was a lady who took the
prize at "the Exposition" for the most beautiful piece of
cabinet-work. This is said to have been a marvel of beauty and
extraordinary as a specimen of fine art. She was a foreigner; a
Scandinavian, I believe. Another lady is a teacher of
wood-carving. We have physicians, and there are two attorneys,
Perry and Martin, now practicing in the city of Chicago.
Representatives of our sex are also to be found among real-estate
agents and journalists, while, in one or two instances as
preachers they have been recognized in the churches.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Catherine A. Stebbins</span> of Michigan said: "Better fifty years of
Europe than a cycle of Cathay!" So said the poet; and I say,
Better a week with these inspired women in conference than years
of an indifferent, conventional society! Their presence has been
a blessing to the people of this District, and will prove in the
future a blessing to our government. These women from all
sections of our country, with a moral and spiritual enthusiasm
which seeks to lift the burdens of our government, come to you,
telling of the obstacles that have beset their path. They have
tried to heal the stricken in vice and ignorance; to save our
land from disintegration. One has sought to reform the drunkard,
to save the moderate drinker, to convert the liquor-seller;
another, to shelter the homeless; another, to lift and save the
abandoned woman. "Abandoned?" once asked a prophet-like man of
our time, who added, "There never was an abandoned woman without
an abandoned man!" Abandoned of whom? let us ask. Surely not by
the merciful Father. No; neither man nor woman is ever abandoned
by him, and he sends his instruments in the persons of some of
these great-hearted women, to appeal to you to restore their
God-given freedom of action, that "the least of these" may be
remembered.</p>

<p>But in our councils no one has dwelt upon <i>one</i> of the great
evils of our civilization, the scourge of war; though it has been
said that women will<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_163" id="Page_163">[Pg 163]</a></span> fight. It is true there are instances in
which they have considered it a duty; there were such in the
rebellion. But the majority of women would not declare war, would
not enlist soldiers and would not vote supplies and equipments,
because many of the most thoughtful believe there <i>is</i> a better
way, and that women can bring a moral power to bear that shall
make war needless.</p>

<p>Let us take one picture representative of the general features of
the war&mdash;we say nothing of our convictions in regard to the
conflict. Ulysses S. Grant or Anna Ella Carroll makes plans and
maps for the campaign; McClellan and Meade are commanded to
collect the columbiads, muskets and ammunition, and move their
men to the attack. At the same time the saintly Clara Barton
collects her cordials, medicines and delicacies, her lint and
bandages, and, putting them in the ambulance assigned, joins the
same moving train. McClellan's men meet the enemy, and
men&mdash;brothers&mdash;on both sides fall by the death-dealing missiles.
Miss Barton and her aids bear off the sufferers, staunch their
bleeding wounds, soothe the reeling brain, bandage the crippled
limbs, pour in the oil and wine, and make as easy as may be the
soldier's bed. What a solemn and heartrending farce is here
enacted! And yet in our present development men and women seek to
reconcile it with the requirements of religion and the
necessities of our conflicting lives. So few recognize the
absolute truth!</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Devereux Blake</span> said: <i>Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
Committee</i>: I come here with your own laws in my hands&mdash;and the
volume is quite a heavy one, too&mdash;to ask you whether women are
citizens of this nation? I find in this book, under the heading
of the chapter on "Citizenship," the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Sec. 1,992. All persons born in the United States and not subject
to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared
to be citizens of the United States. </p></blockquote>

<p>I suppose you will admit that women are, in the language of the
section, "persons," and that we cannot reasonably be included in
the class spoken of as "Indians not taxed." Therefore I claim that
we are "citizens." The same chapter also contains the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Sec. 1,994. Any woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a
citizen of the United States, and who might herself be lawfully
naturalized, shall be deemed a citizen. </p></blockquote>

<p>Under this section also we are citizens. I am myself, as indeed are
most of the ladies present, married to a citizen of the United
States; so that we are citizens under this count if we were not
citizens before. Then, further, in the legislation known as "The
Civil Rights Bill," I find this language:</p>

<blockquote><p>All persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall
have the same right, in every State and territory, to make and
enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, give evidence, and to the
full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the
security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens,
and shall be subject to like punishments, pains, penalties, etc. </p></blockquote>

<p>One would think the logical conclusion from that which I have last
read would be that <i>all citizens</i> are entitled to equal protection
everywhere.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_164" id="Page_164">[Pg 164]</a></span> It appears to mean that. Then I turn to another piece
of legislation&mdash;that which is known as "The Enforcement Act"&mdash;one
which some of you, gentlemen, did not like very much when it was
enacted&mdash;and there I find another declaration on the same question.
The act is entitled "An Act to Enforce the Right of Citizens of the
United States to Vote in the Several States of this Union, and for
other purposes." The right of "citizens" to vote appears to be
conceded by this act. In the second section it says:</p>

<blockquote><p>It shall be the duty of every such person and officer to give to
all citizens of the United States the same and equal opportunity
to perform such prerequisite, and to become qualified to vote,
without distinction of race, color or previous condition of
servitude. </p></blockquote>

<p>I ask you, gentlemen of the committee, as lawyers, whether you do
not think that, after we have been declared to be citizens, we have
the right to claim the protection of this enforcement act? When you
gentlemen from the North rise in your places in the halls of
congress and make these walls ring with your eloquence, you are
prone to talk a great deal about the right of every United States
citizen to the ballot, and the necessity of protecting every such
citizen in its exercise. What do you mean by it?</p>

<p>It occurs to me here to call your attention to a matter of recent
occurrence. As you know, there has been a little unpleasantness in
Maine&mdash;a State which is not without a representative among the
members of the Judiciary Committee&mdash;and certain gentlemen there,
especially Mr. Blaine, have been greatly exercised in their minds
because, as they allege, the people of Maine have not been
permitted to express their will at the polls. Why, gentlemen, I
assert that a majority of the people of Maine have never been
permitted to express their will at the polls. A majority of the
people of Maine are women, and from the foundation of this
government have never exercised any of the inalienable rights of
citizens. Mr. Blaine made a speech a day or two ago in Augusta. He
began by reciting the condition of affairs, owing to the effort, as
he states, "to substitute a false count for an honest ballot," and
congratulated his audience upon the instrumentalities by which they
had triumphed&mdash;</p>

<blockquote><p>Without firing a gun, without shedding a drop of blood, without
striking a single blow, without one disorderly assemblage. <i>The
people</i> have regained their own right through the might and
majesty of their own laws. </p></blockquote>

<p>He goes on in this vein to speak of those whom he calls "the people
of Maine." Well, gentlemen, I do not think you will deny that
<i>women are people</i>. It appears to me that what Mr. Blaine said in
that connection was nonsense, unless indeed he forgot that there
were any others than men among the people of the State of Maine. I
don't suppose that you, gentlemen, are often so forgetful. Mr.
Blaine said further:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Republicans of Maine and throughout the land felt that they
were not merely fighting the battle of a single year, but for all
the future of the State; not merely fighting the battle of our
own State alone, but for all the States that are attempting the
great problem of State government throughout the world. The
corruption or destruction of the ballot is a crime against free
government, and when successful is a subversion of free
government. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_165" id="Page_165">[Pg 165]</a></span></p>

<p>Does that mean the ballot <i>for men only</i> or the ballot <i>for the
people</i>, men and women too? If it is to be received as meaning
anything, it ought to mean not for one sex alone, but for both. Mr.
Lincoln declared, in one of his noblest utterances, that no man was
good enough to govern another man without that man's consent. Of
course he meant it in its broadest terms; he meant that no man or
woman was good enough to govern another man or woman without that
other man's or woman's consent.</p>

<p>Mr. Blaine, on another occasion, in connection with the same
subject-matter, had much to say of the enormity of the oppression
practiced by his political opponents in depriving the town of
Portland of the right of representation in view of its paying such
heavy taxes as it does pay. He expressed the greatest indignation
at the attempt, forgetting utterly that great body of women who pay
taxes but are deprived of the right of representation. In this
connection it may be pertinent for me to express the hope, by way
of a suggestion, that hereafter, when making your speeches, you
will not use the term "citizens" in a broad sense, unless you mean
to include women as well as men, and that when you do not mean to
include women you will speak of male citizens as a separate class,
because the term, in its general application, is illogical and its
meaning obscure if not self-contradictory.</p>

<p>President Hayes was so pleased with one of the sentences in his
message of a year ago that in his message of this year he has
reiterated it. It reads thus:</p>

<blockquote><p>That no temporary or administrative interests of government will
ever displace the zeal of our people in defense of the primary
rights of citizenship, and that the power of public opinion will
override all political prejudices and all sectional and State
attachments in demanding that all over our wide territory the
name and character of citizen of the United States shall mean one
and the same thing and carry with them unchallenged security and
respect. </p></blockquote>

<p>Let me suggest what he ought to have said unless he intended to
include women, although I am afraid that Mr. Hayes, when he wrote
this, forgot that there were women in the United States,
notwithstanding that his excellent wife, perhaps, stood by his
side. He ought to have said:</p>

<blockquote><p>An act having been passed to enforce the rights of <i>male</i>
citizens to vote, the true vigor of <i>half</i> the population is thus
expressed, and no interests of government will ever displace the
zeal of <i>half</i> of our people in defense of the primary rights of
our <i>male</i> citizens. <i>The prosperity of the States depends upon
the protection afforded to our male citizens</i>; and the name and
character of <i>male</i> citizens of the United States shall mean one
and the same thing and carry with them unchallenged security and
respect. </p></blockquote>

<p>If Mr. Hayes had thus expressed himself, he would have made a
perfectly logical and clear statement. Gentlemen, I hope that
hereafter, when speaking or voting in behalf of the citizens of the
United States, you will bear this in mind and will remember that
women are citizens as well as men, and that they claim the same
rights.</p>

<p>This question of woman suffrage cannot much longer be ignored. In
the State from which I come, although we have not a right to vote,
we are confident that the influence which women brought to bear in
determining the result of the election last fall had something to
do with sending into retirement a Democratic governor who was
opposed to our reform, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_166" id="Page_166">[Pg 166]</a></span> electing a Republican who was in favor
of it. Recollect, gentlemen, that the expenditure of time and money
which has been made in this cause will not be without its effect.
The time is coming when the demand of an immense number of the
women of this country cannot be ignored. When you see these
representatives coming from all the States of the Union to ask for
this right, can you doubt that, some day, they will succeed in
their mission? We do not stand before you to plead as beggars; we
ask for that which is our right. We ask it as due to the memory of
our ancestors, who fought for the freedom of this country just as
bravely as did yours. We ask it on many considerations. Why,
gentlemen, the very furniture here, the carpet on this floor, was
paid for with our money. We are taxed equally with the men to
defray the expenses of this congress, and we have a right equally
with them to participate in the government.</p>

<p>In closing, I have only to ask, is there no man here present who
appreciates the emergencies of this hour? Is there no one among you
who will rise on the floor of congress as the champion of this
unrepresented half of the people of the United States? The time is
not far distant when we shall have our liberties, and the
politician who can now understand the importance of our cause, the
statesman who can now see, and will now appreciate the justice of
it, that man, if true to himself, will write his name high on the
scroll of fame beside those of the men who have been the saviors of
the country. Gentlemen I entreat you not to let this hearing go by
without giving due weight to all that we have said. You can no more
stay the onward current of this reform than you can fight against
the stars in their courses.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Willits</span> of Michigan: <i>Mr. Chairman</i>: I would like to make a
suggestion here. The regulation amendment, as it has heretofore
been submitted, provided that the right of citizens of the United
States to vote should not be abridged on account of sex. I notice
that the amendment which the ladies here now propose has prefixed
to it this phrase: "The right of suffrage in the United States
shall be based on citizenship." I call attention to this because I
would like to have them explain as fully as they may why they
incorporate the phrase, "shall be based on citizenship." Is the
meaning this, that all citizens shall have the right to vote, or
simply that citizenship shall be the basis of suffrage? The words,
"or for any reason not applicable to all citizens of the United
States," also seem to require explanation. The proposition in the
form in which it is now submitted, I understand, covers a little
more than has been covered by the amendment submitted in previous
years.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sara A. Spencer</span> of Washington, D. C.: If the committee will permit
me, I will say that the amendment in its present form is the
concentrated wish of the women of the United States. The women of
the country sent to congress petitions asking for three different
forms of constitutional amendment, and when preparing the one now
before the committee these three were concentrated in the one now
before you (identical with that of the resolution offered in the
House by Hon. George B. Loring and by Hon. T. W. Ferry in the
Senate), omitting, at the request of each of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_167" id="Page_167">[Pg 167]</a></span> three classes of
petitioners, all phrases which were regarded by any of them as
objectionable. The amendment as now presented is therefore the
combined wish of the women of the country, viz., that citizenship
in the United States shall mean suffrage, and that no one shall be
deprived of the right to vote for reasons not equally applicable to
all citizens.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span> said: It is necessary to refer to a remarkable
decision of the Supreme Court. The case of Virginia L. Minor,
claiming the right to vote under the fourteenth amendment, was
argued before the Supreme Court of the United States, October term,
1874; decision rendered adversely by Chief-Justice Waite, March,
1875, upon the ground that "the United States had no voters in the
States of its own creation." This was a most amazing decision to
emanate from the highest judicial authority of the nation, and is
but another proof how fully that body is under the influence of the
dominant political party.</p>

<p>Contrary to this decision, I unhesitatingly affirm that the United
States has possessed voters in States of its own creation from the
very date of the constitution. In Article I, Sec. 2, the
constitution provides that</p>

<blockquote><p>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 branch of the State
legislature. </p></blockquote>

<p>The persons so designated are voters under State laws; but by this
section of the national constitution they are made United States
voters. It is directed under what conditions of State qualification
they may cast votes in their respective States for members of the
lower house of congress. The constitution here created a class of
United States voters by adoption of an already voting class. Did
but this single instance exist, it would be sufficient to nullify
Chief-Justice Waite's decision, as Article VI, Sec. 2, declares</p>

<blockquote><p>The constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be
made in pursuance thereof <span class="spacious">* * *</span> shall be the supreme law of the
land. </p></blockquote>

<p>This supreme law at its very inception created a class of United
States voters. If in the Minor case alone, the premises of the
Supreme Court and Chief-Justice Waite were wrong, the decision
possesses no legal value; but in addition to this class, the United
States, by special laws and amendments has from time to time
created other classes of United States voters.</p>

<p>Under the naturalization laws citizenship is recognized as the
basis of suffrage. No State can admit a foreigner to the right of
the ballot, even under United States laws, unless he is already a
citizen, or has formally declared his intention of becoming a
citizen of the United States. The creation of the right here is
national; its regulation, local.</p>

<p>Men who commit crimes against the civil laws of the United States
forfeit their rights of citizenship. State law cannot re-habilitate
them, but within the last five years 2,500 such men have been
pardoned by congressional enactment, and thus again been made
voters in States by United States law. Is it not strange that with
a knowledge of these facts before him Chief-Justice Waite could
base his decision against the right of a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_168" id="Page_168">[Pg 168]</a></span> woman to the ballot, on
the ground that the United States had no voters in the States of
its own creation?</p>

<p>Criminals against the military law of the United States, who
receive pardon, are still another class of voters thus created. A
very large body of men, several hundred thousand, forfeited their
rights of citizenship, their ballot, by participation in the
rebellion; they were political criminals. When general amnesty was
proclaimed they again secured the ballot. They had been deprived of
the suffrage by United States law and it was restored to them by
the same law.</p>

<p>It may be replied that the rebellious States had been reduced to
the condition of territories, over whose suffrage the general
government had control. But let me ask why, then, a large class of
men remained disfranchised after these States again took up local
government? A large class of men were especially exempted from
general amnesty and for the restoration of their political rights
were obliged to individually petition congress for the removal of
their political disabilities, and these men then became "voters in
States," by action of the United States. Here, again, the United
States recognized citizenship and suffrage as synonymous. If the
United States has no voters of its own creation in the States, what
are these men? A few, the leaders in the rebellion, are yet
disfranchised, and no State has power to change this condition.
Only the United States can again make them voters in States.</p>

<p>Under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments the colored men of
the South, who never had possessed the ballot, and those colored
men of the North over whom some special disqualification hung, were
alike made voters by United States law. It required no action of
Delaware, Indiana, New York, or any of those States in which the
colored man was not upon voting equality with the white men, to
change their constitutions or statutes in order to do away with
such disqualifications. The fourteenth amendment created another
class of United States voters in States, to the number of a million
or more. The fourteenth amendment, and the act of congress to
enforce it, were at once recognized to be superior to State
law&mdash;abrogating and repealing State constitutions and State laws
contradictory to its provisions.</p>

<p>By an act of congress March 3, and a presidential proclamation of
March 11, 1865, all deserters who failed to report themselves to a
provost marshall within sixty days, forfeited their rights of
citizenship as an additional penalty for the crime of desertion,
thus losing their ballot without possibility of its restoration
except by an act of congress. Whenever this may be done
collectively or individually, these men will become State voters by
and through the United States law.</p>

<p>As proving the sophistry used by legal minds in order to hide from
themselves and the world the fact that the United States has power
over the ballot in States, mention may be made of a case which, in
1866, came before Justice Strong, then a member of the Supreme
Court of Pennsylvania, but since a justice of the Supreme Court of
the United States. For sophistical reasoning it is a curiosity in
legal decisions. One point made by Judge Strong was, that congress
may deprive a citizen of the opportunity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_169" id="Page_169">[Pg 169]</a></span> to enjoy a right
belonging to him as a citizen of a State even the right of voting,
but cannot deprive him of the right itself. This is on a par with
saying that congress may deprive a citizen of the opportunity to
enjoy a right belonging to him as an individual, even the right of
life, but cannot deprive him of life itself.</p>

<p>A still more remarkable class of United States voters than any yet
mentioned, exists. Soon after the close of the war congress enacted
a law that foreigners having served in the civil war and been
honorably discharged from the army, should be allowed to vote. And
this, too, without the announcement of their intention of becoming
citizens of the republic. A class of United States voters were thus
created out of a class of non-citizens.</p>

<p>I have mentioned eight classes of United States voters, and yet not
one of the States has been deprived of the powers necessary to
local self-government. To States belong all matters of strictly
local interest, such as the incorporation of towns and cities, the
settlement of county and other boundaries; laws of marriage,
divorce, protection of life and property, etc. It has been said,
the ordaining and establishment of a constitution for the
government of a State is always the act of a State in its highest
sovereign capacity, but if any question as to nationality ever
existed, it was settled by the war. Even State constitutions were
found unable to stand when in conflict with a law of the United
States or an amendment to its constitution. All are bound by the
authority of the nation.</p>

<p>This theory of State sovereignty must have a word. When the Union
was formed several of the States did not even frame a constitution.
It was in 1818 that Connecticut adopted her first State
constitution. Rhode Island had no constitution until 1842. Prior to
these years the government of these States was administered under
the authority of royal charters brought out from England.</p>

<p>Where was their State sovereignty? The rights even of suffrage
enjoyed by citizens of these States during these respective periods
of forty-two and sixty-six years, were either secured them by
monarchial England or republican United States. If by the latter
all voters in these two States during these years were United
States voters. It is a historical fact that no State save Texas was
ever for an hour sovereign or independent. The experience of the
country proves there is but one real sovereignty. It has been said,
with truth,</p>

<blockquote><p>There is but one sovereign State on the American continent known
to international or constitutional law, and that is the republic
itself. This forms the United States and should be so called. </p></blockquote>

<p>I ask for a sixteenth amendment because this republic is a nation
and not a confederacy of States. I ask it because the United States
not only possesses inherent power to protect its citizens but also
because of its national duty to secure to all its citizens the
exercise of their rights of self-government. I ask it because
having created classes of voters in numberless instances, it is
most flagrant injustice to deny this protection to woman. I ask it
because the Nation and not the State is supreme.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_170" id="Page_170">[Pg 170]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins</span> of Missouri, to whom had been assigned the next
thirty minutes, said: <i>Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Judiciary
Committee</i>: I am invited to speak of the dangers which beset us at
this hour in the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States
in Mrs. Minor's case, which not only stultifies its previous
interpretation of the recent constitutional amendments and makes
them a dead letter, but will rank, in the coming ages, in the
history of the judiciary, with the Dred Scott decision. The law, as
explained in the Dred Scott case, was an infamous one, which
trampled upon the most solemn rights of the loyal citizens of the
government, and declared the constitution to mean anything or
nothing, as the case might be. Yet the decision in that case had a
saving clause, for it was not the unanimous voice of a Democratic
judiciary. Dissenting opinions were nobly uttered from the bench.
In the more recent case, under the rule of a Republican judiciary
created by a party professing to be one of justice, the rights of
one-half of the people were deliberately abrogated without a
dissenting voice. This violation of the fundamental principles of
our government called forth no protest. In all of the decisions
against woman in the Republican court, there has not been found one
Lord Mansfield, who, rising to the supreme height of an unbiased
judgment, would give the immortal decree that shall crown with
regal dignity the mother of the race: "I care not for the dictates
of judges, however eminent, if they be contrary to principle. If
the parties will have judgment, let justice be done, though the
heavens fall."</p>

<p>The Dred Scott decision declared as the law of citizenship, "to be
a citizen is to have actual possession and enjoyment, or the
perfect right to the acquisition and enjoyment of an entire
equality of privileges, civil and political." But the slave-power
was then dominant and the court decided that a black man was not a
citizen because he had not the right to vote. But when the
constitution was so amended as to make "all persons born or
naturalized in the United States citizens thereof," a negro, by
virtue of his United States citizenship, was declared, under the
amendments, a voter in every State in the Union. And the Supreme
Court reaffirmed this right in the celebrated slaughter-house cases
(16 Wallace, 71). It said, "The negro, having by the fourteenth
amendment, been declared to be a citizen of the United States, is
thus made a voter in every State in the Union."</p>

<p>But when the loyal women of Missouri, apprehending that "all
persons beneath the flag were made citizens and voters by the
fourteenth amendment," through Mrs. Minor, applied to the Supreme
Court for protection in the exercise of that same right, this high
tribunal, reversing all its former decisions, proclaims State
sovereignty superior to national authority. This it does in this
strange language: "Being born in the United States, a woman is a
person and therefore a citizen"&mdash;we are much obliged to them for
that definition of our identity as persons&mdash;"but the constitution
of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any
one." And then, in the face of its previous decisions, the court
declared: "The United States has no voters in the States of its own
creation", that the elective officers of the United States are all
elected, directly or indirectly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_171" id="Page_171">[Pg 171]</a></span> by State voters. It remands woman
to the States for her protection, thus giving to the State the
supreme authority and overthrowing the entire results of the war,
which was fought to maintain national supremacy over any and all
subjects in which the rights and privileges of the citizens of the
United States are involved.</p>

<p>No supreme allegiance, gentlemen of the committee, can be claimed
for or by a government, if it has no citizens of its own creation,
and constitutional amendments cannot confer authority over matters
which have no existence in the constitution. Thus, our supreme
law-givers hold themselves up for obloquy and ridicule in their
interpretation of the most solemn rights of loyal citizens, and
make our constitutional law to mean anything or nothing as the case
may be. You will see, gentlemen, that the very point which the
South contended for as the true one is here acknowledged to be the
true one by the Supreme Court&mdash;that of State rights superior to
national authority. The whole of the recent contest hinged upon
this. The appeal to arms and the constitutional amendments were to
establish the subordination of the State to national supremacy, to
maintain the national authority over any and all subjects in which
the rights and privileges of the citizens of the United States were
involved; but this decision in Mrs. Minor's case completely
nullifies the supreme authority of the government, and gives the
States more than has hitherto been claimed for them by the
advocates of State rights. The subject of the franchise is thus
wholly withdrawn from federal supervision and control. If "the
United States has no citizens of its own creation," of course no
supreme allegiance can be claimed over the various citizens of the
States.</p>

<p>The constitutional amendments cannot confer authority over a matter
which has no existence in the constitution. If it has no voters, it
can have nothing whatever to do with the elections and voting in
the States; yet the United States invaded the State of New York,
sent its officers there to try, convict, and sentence Miss Anthony
for exercising a right in her own State which they declared the
United States had no jurisdiction over. They send United States
troops into the South to protect the negro in his right to vote,
and then declare they have no jurisdiction over his voting. Then,
mark the grave results which may and can follow this decision and
legislation. I do not imagine that the Supreme Court, in its
cowardly dodging of woman's right to all the rights and privileges
which citizenship involves, designed to completely abrogate the
principles established by the recent contest, or to nullify the
ensuing legislation on the subject. But it certainly has done all
this; for it must logically follow that if the United States has no
citizens, it cannot legislate upon the rights of citizens, and the
recent amendments are devoid of authority. It has well been
suggested by Mr. Minor, in his criticism of the decision, that if
members of the House of Representatives are elected by <i>State</i>
voters, as the Supreme Court has declared, there is no reason why
States may not refuse to elect them as in 1860, and thus deprive
congress of its power. And if a sufficient number could be united
to recall at their pleasure these representatives, what authority
has the federal government,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_172" id="Page_172">[Pg 172]</a></span> under this decision, for coërcing them
into subjection or refusing them a separation, if all these voters
in the States desired an independent existence? None whatever. Mr.
Garfield, in the House, in his speech last March, calls attention
to this subject, but does not allude to the fact that the Supreme
Court has already opened the door. He says:</p>

<blockquote><p>There are several ways in which our government may be annihilated
without the firing of a gun. For example, suppose the people of
the United States should say, we will elect no representatives to
congress. Of course this is a violent supposition; but suppose
that they do not. Is there any remedy? Does our constitution
provide any remedy whatever? In two years there would be no House
of Representatives; of course, no support of the government and
no government. Suppose, again, the States should say, through
their legislatures, we will elect no senators. Such abstention
alone would absolutely destroy this government; and our system
provides no process of compulsion to prevent it. Again, suppose
the two houses were to assemble in their usual order, and a
majority of one in this body or in the Senate should firmly band
themselves together and say, we will vote to adjourn the moment
the hour of meeting arrives, and continue so to vote at every
session during our two years of existence&mdash;the government would
perish, and there is no provision of the constitution to prevent
it. </p></blockquote>

<p>The States may inform their representatives that they can do this;
and, under this position, they have the power and the right so to
do.</p>

<p>Gentlemen, we are now on the verge of one of the most important
presidential campaigns. The party in power holds its reins by a
very uncertain tenure. If the decision shall favor the one which
has been on the anxious bench for lo! these twenty years, and in
probation until hope has well-nigh departed, what may be its action
if invested again with the control of the destinies of this nation?
The next party in power may inquire, and answer, by what right and
how far the Southern States are bound by the legislation in which
they had no part or consent. And if the Supreme Court of a
Republican judiciary now declares, <i>after</i> the war, <i>after</i> the
constitutional amendments, that federal suffrage does not exist and
never had an existence in the constitution, it follows that the
South has the right to regulate and control all of the questions
arising upon suffrage in the several States without any
interference on the part of an authority which declares it has no
jurisdiction. An able writer has said:</p>

<blockquote><p>All injustice at last works out a loss. The great ledger of
nations does not report a good balance for injustice. It has
always met fearful losses. The irrepealable law of justice will,
sooner or later, grind a nation to powder if it fail to establish
that equilibrium of allegiance and protection which is the
essential end of all government. Woe to that nation which thinks
lightly of the duties it owes to its citizens and imagines that
governments are not bound by moral laws. </p></blockquote>

<p>It was the tax on tea&mdash;woman's drink prerogative&mdash;which
precipitated the rebellion of 1776. To allay the irritation of the
colonies, all taxes were rescinded save that on tea, which was left
to indicate King George's dominion. But our revolutionary fathers
and mothers said, "No; the tax is paltry, but the principle is
great"; and Eve, as usual, pointed the moral for Adam's benefit. A
most suggestive picture, one which aroused the intensest patriotism
of the colonies, was that of a woman pinioned by her arms to the
ground by a British peer, with a British red-coat holding her with
one hand and with the other forcibly thrusting down her<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_173" id="Page_173">[Pg 173]</a></span> throat the
contents of a tea-pot, which she heroically spewed back in his
face; while the figure of Justice, in the distance, wept over this
prostrate Liberty. Now, gentlemen, we might well adopt a similar
representation. Here is Miss Smith of Glastonbury, Conn., whose
cows have been sold every year by the government, contending for
the same principle as our forefathers&mdash;that of resistance to
taxation without representation. We might have a picture of a cow,
with an American tax-collector at the horns, a foreign-born
assessor at the heels, forcibly selling the birthright of an
American citizen, while Julia and Abby Smith, in the background,
with veiled faces, weep over the degeneracy of Republican
leadership.</p>

<p>But there are those in authority in the government who do not
believe in this decision by the Supreme Court of the United States.
The attorney-general, in his instructions to the United States
marshals and their deputies or assistants in the Southern States,
when speaking of the countenance and support of all good citizens
of the United States in the respective districts of the marshals,
remarks:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is not necessary to say that it is upon such countenance and
support that the United States mainly rely in their endeavor to
enforce the right to vote which they have given or have secured. </p></blockquote>

<p>You notice the phraseology. Again, he says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The laws of the United States are supreme, and so, consequently,
is the action of officials of the United States in enforcing
them. </p></blockquote>

<p>Secretary Sherman said in his speech at Steubenville, July 6:</p>

<blockquote><p>The negroes are free and are citizens and voters. That, at least,
is a part of the constitution and cannot be changed. </p></blockquote>

<p>And President Hayes in his two last messages, as Mrs. Blake recited
to you, has declared that&mdash;</p>

<blockquote><p>United States citizenship shall mean one and the same thing and
carry with it all over our wide territory unchallenged security
and respect. </p></blockquote>

<p>And that is what we ask for women.</p>

<p>In conclusion, gentlemen, I say to you that a sense of justice is
the sovereign power of the human mind, the most unyielding of any;
it rewards with a higher sanction, it punishes with a deeper agony
than any earthly tribunal. It never slumbers, never dies. It
constantly utters and demands justice by the eternal rule of right,
truth and equity. And on these eternal foundation-stones we stand.</p>

<p>Crowning the dome of this great building there stands the majestic
figure of a woman representing Liberty. It was no idealistic
thought or accident of vision which gave us Liberty prefigured by a
woman. It is the great soul of the universe pointing the final
revelation yet to come to humanity, the prophecy of the ages&mdash;the
last to be first.<a name="FNanchor_59_59" id="FNanchor_59_59"></a><a href="#Footnote_59_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>When the proposition to print these speeches came before the House
a prolonged debate against it showed the readiness of the
opposition to avail themselves of every legal technicality to
deprive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_174" id="Page_174">[Pg 174]</a></span> women of equal rights and privileges. But the measure
finally passed and the documents were printed. To the Hon. Elbridge
G. Lapham of New York we were largely indebted for the success of
this measure.</p>

<p>The Washington <i>Republican</i> of February 6, 1880, describes a novel
event that took place at that time:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the Supreme Court of the United States, on Monday, on motion
of Mrs. Belva Lockwood, Samuel R. Lowry of Alabama was admitted
to practice. Mr. Lowry is president of the Huntsville, Ala.,
industrial school, and a gentleman of high attainments. It was
quite fitting that the first woman admitted to practice before
this court should move the admission of the first Southern
colored man. Both will doubtless make good records as
representatives of their respective classes. This scene was
characterized by George W. Julian as one of the most impressive
he ever witnessed&mdash;a fitting subject for an historical painting. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1880, women were for the first time appointed census
enumerators. Gen. Francis Walker, head of that department, said
there was no legal obstacle to the appointment of women as
enumerators, and he would gladly confirm the nomination of suitable
candidates. Very different was the action of the head of the
post-office department, who refused, on the ground of sex, the
application of 500 women for appointment as letter-carriers.</p>

<p>In view of the important work to be done in a presidential
campaign, the National Association decided to issue an appeal to
the women of the country to appoint delegates from each State and
territory, and prepare an address to each of the presidential
nominating conventions. In Washington a move was made for an act of
incorporation in order that the Association might legally receive
bequests. Tracts containing a general statement of the status of
the movement were mailed to all members of congress and officers of
the government.</p>

<p>At a meeting of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Randall, a Democratic
member of Pennsylvania, and Mr. Garfield, a Republican member of
Ohio, reminded Mr. Frye of Maine that he had been instructed by
that committee, nearly a year before, to present to the House a
resolution on the rights of women. The <i>Congressional Record</i> of
March 27 contains the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Frye</span>: I am instructed by the Committee on Rules to report a
resolution providing for the appointment of a special committee
on the political rights of women, and to move that it be placed
on the House calendar.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Conger</span>: Let it be read.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_175" id="Page_175">[Pg 175]</a></span></p>

<p>The clerk read the resolution as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved by the House of Representatives</i>, That the speaker
appoint a special committee of nine members, to whom shall be
referred all memorials, petitions, bills and resolutions relating
to the rights of the women of the United States, with power to
hear the same and report thereon by bill or otherwise. The
resolution was referred to the House calendar. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>This was a proof of the advancing status of our question that both
Republican and Democratic leaders regarded the "rights of women"
worthy the consideration of a special committee.</p>

<p>In the spring of 1880, the National Association held a series of
mass meetings in the States of Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and
Michigan, commencing with the May anniversary in Indianapolis, at
which sixteen States were represented.<a name="FNanchor_60_60" id="FNanchor_60_60"></a><a href="#Footnote_60_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a> The convention was held
in Park Theatre, Miss Anthony presiding. The arrangements devolved
chiefly on Mrs. May Wright Thompson, who discharged her
responsibilities in a most praiseworthy manner, providing
entertainment for the speakers, and paying all the expenses from
the treasury of the local association. A series of resolutions was
presented, discussed by a large number of the delegates, and
adopted.</p>

<p>In accordance with the plan decided upon in Washington of attending
all the nominating conventions, the next meeting was held in
Chicago, beginning on the same day with the Republican convention.
Farwell Hall was filled at an early hour; Miss Anthony in the
chair. A large number of delegates<a name="FNanchor_61_61" id="FNanchor_61_61"></a><a href="#Footnote_61_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a> were present<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_176" id="Page_176">[Pg 176]</a></span> from every
part of the Union, among whom were many of the most distinguished
advocates of woman suffrage. Mrs. Harbert gave an eloquent address
of welcome.</p>

<p>Committees were appointed to visit the delegates from the different
States to the Republican convention, to secure seats for the
members of the National Association, and to ask that a plank
recommending a sixteenth amendment be incorporated in the platform
adopted by the Republican party. The proprietor of the Palmer House
gave the use of a large parlor to the Association for business
meetings and the reception of Republican delegates, many of whom
were in favor of a woman's plank in their platform, and of giving
the ladies seats in the convention. Strenuous efforts had been made
to this end. One hundred and eighteen senators and representatives
addressed a letter to the chairman of the National Republican
committee&mdash;Don Cameron&mdash;asking that seventy-six seats should be
given in the convention to the representatives of the National
Woman Suffrage Association. It would naturally be deemed that a
request, proceeding from such a source, would be heeded. The men
who made it were holding the highest positions in the body politic;
but the party managers presumed to disregard this request, and also
the vote of the committee. The question of furnishing seats for our
delegates was brought up before the close of their deliberations by
Mr. Finnell, of Kentucky, who said:</p>

<blockquote><p>A committee of women have been here and they ask for seventy-six
seats in this convention. I move that they be furnished. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. Cary of Wyoming, made some remarks showing that woman suffrage
in his territory had been to the advantage of the Republican party,
and seconded the motion of Mr. Finnell, which was adopted. The
following resolution of the Arkansas delegation to the National
Republican convention was read and received with enthusiasm:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_177" id="Page_177">[Pg 177]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That we pledge ourselves to secure to women the
exercise of their right to vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>It is here to be noted that not only were the Arkansas delegation
of Republicans favorable to the recognition of woman suffrage in
the platform of that party, but that the Southern delegates were
largely united in that demand. Mr. New told the ladies that the
Grant men had voted as a unit in favor of the women, while the
Blaine and Sherman men unanimously voted against them.</p>

<p>But the ladies, well knowing the uncertainty of politicians, were
soon upon the way to the committee-room, to secure positive
assurance from the lips of the chairman himself&mdash;Don Cameron of
Pennsylvania&mdash;that such tickets should be forthcoming, when they
were stopped by a messenger hurrying after them to announce the
presence of the secretary of the committee, Hon. John New, at their
headquarters, in the grand parlor of the Palmer House, with a
communication in regard to the tickets. He said the seventy-six
seats voted by the committee had been reduced to <i>ten</i> by its
chairman, and these ten were not offered to the Association in its
official capacity, but as complimentary or "guest tickets," for a
seat on the platform back of the presiding officers.</p>

<p>The Committee on Resolutions, popularly known as the platform
committee, held a meeting in the Palmer House, June 2, to which
Belva A. Lockwood obtained admission. On motion of Mr. Fredley of
Indiana, Mrs. Lockwood was given permission to present the memorial
of the National Woman Suffrage Association to the Republican party.</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Republican Party in Convention assembled, Chicago, June
2, 1880</i>:</p>

<p>Seventy-six delegates from local, State and National suffrage
associations, representing every section of the United States,
are here to-day to ask you to place the following plank in your
platform:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That we pledge ourselves to secure to women the
exercise of their right to vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>We ask you to pledge yourselves to protect the rights of one-half
of the American people, and to thus carry your own principles to
their logical results. The thirteenth amendment of 1865, abolishing
slavery, the fourteenth of 1867, defining citizenship, and the
fifteenth of 1870, securing United States citizens in their right
to vote, and your prolonged and powerful debates on all the great
issues involved in our civil conflict, stand as enduring monuments
to the honor of the Republican party. Impelled by the ever growing
demand among women for a voice in the laws they are required to
obey, for their rightful share in the government of this republic,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_178" id="Page_178">[Pg 178]</a></span>
various State legislatures have conceded partial suffrage. But the
great duty remains of securing to woman her right to have her
opinions on all questions counted at the ballot-box.</p>

<p>You cannot live on the noble words and deeds of those who
inaugurated the Republican party. You should vie with those men in
great achievements. Progress is the law of national life. You must
have a new, vital issue to rouse once more the enthusiasm of the
people. Our question of human rights answers this demand. The two
great political parties are alike divided upon finance, free-trade,
labor reform and general questions of political economy. The
essential point in which you differ from the Democratic party is
national supremacy, and it is on this very issue we make our
demand, and ask that our rights as United States citizens be
secured by an amendment to the national constitution. To carry this
measure is not only your privilege but your duty. Your pledge to
enfranchise ten millions of women will rouse an enthusiasm which
must count in the coming closely contested election. But above
expediency is right, and to do justice is ever the highest
political wisdom. </p></blockquote>

<p>The committee then adjourned to meet at the Sherman-house club
room, where they reässembled at 8 o'clock. Soon after the calling
to order of our own convention in Farwell Hall, word came that a
hearing had been accorded before the platform committee. This
proved to be a sub-committee. Ten minutes were given Miss Anthony
to plead the cause of 10,000,000&mdash;yes, 20,000,000 citizens of this
republic(?), while, watch in hand, Mr. Pierrepont sat to strike the
gavel when this time expired. Ten minutes!! Twice has the great
Republican party, in the plentitude of its power, allowed woman
<i>ten</i> minutes to plead her cause before it. Ten minutes twice in
the past eight years, while all the remainder of the time it has
been fighting for power and place and continued life, heedless of
the wrongs and injustice it was constantly perpetrating towards
one-half the people. Ten minutes! What a period in the history of
time. Small hope remained of a committee, with such a chairman,
introducing a plank for woman suffrage.</p>

<p>The whole Arkansas delegation had expressed itself in favor; most
of the Kentucky delegation were known to be so, while New York not
only had friends to woman suffrage among its number, but even an
officer of the State association was a delegate to the Republican
convention. These men were called upon, a form of plank placed in
their hands and they were asked to offer it as an amendment when
the committee reported, but that plan was blocked by a motion that
all resolutions should be referred to the committee for action.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_179" id="Page_179">[Pg 179]</a></span></p>

<p>Senator Farr of Michigan, a colored man, was the only member of the
platform committee who suggested the insertion of a woman suffrage
plank, the Michigan delegation to a man, favoring such action. The
delegates were ready in case opportunity offered, to present the
address to the convention. But no such moment arrived.</p>

<p>The mass convention had been called for June 2, but the crowds in
the city gave promise of such extended interest that Farwell Hall
was engaged for June 1, and before the second day's proceedings
closed, funds were voluntarily raised by the audience to continue
the meeting the third day. So vast was the number of letters and
postals addressed to the convention from all parts of the country
from women who desired to vote, that the whole time of each session
could have been spent in reading them&mdash;one day's mail alone
bringing letters and postals from twenty-three States and three
territories. Some of these letters contained hundreds of names,
others represented town, county, and State societies. Many were
addressed to the different nominating conventions, Republican,
Greenback, Democratic, while the reasons given for desiring to
vote, ranged from the simple demand, through all the scale of
reasons connected with good government and morality. So highly
important a contribution to history did the Chicago Historical
Society<a name="FNanchor_62_62" id="FNanchor_62_62"></a><a href="#Footnote_62_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a> deem these expressions of woman's desire to vote, that
it made a formal request to be put in possession of <i>all</i> letters
and postals, with a promise that they should be carefully guarded
in a fire-proof safe.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_180" id="Page_180">[Pg 180]</a></span></p>

<p>After the eloquent speeches<a name="FNanchor_63_63" id="FNanchor_63_63"></a><a href="#Footnote_63_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a> of the closing session, Miss Alice
S. Mitchell sang Julia Ward Howe's "Battle Hymn of the Republic,"
Mrs. Harbert playing the accompaniment, and the immense audience of
3,000 people joining in the chorus. This convention held three
sessions each day, and at all except the last an admission fee was
charged, and yet the hall was densely crowded throughout. For
enthusiasm, nothing ever surpassed these meetings in the history of
the suffrage movement. A platform and resolution were adopted as
the voice of the convention.</p>

<blockquote><p>The special object of the National Woman Suffrage Association is
to secure national protection for women in the exercise of their
right of suffrage. It recognizes the fact that our government was
formed on the political basis of the consent of the governed, and
that the Declaration of Independence struck a blow at every
existing form by declaring the individual to be the source of all
power. The members of this association, outside of our great
question, have diverse political affiliations, but for the
purpose of gaining this great right to the ballot, its members
hold their party predilections in abeyance; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in this year of presidential nominations and
political campaigns, we announce our determination to support no
party by whatever name called, unless such party shall, in its
platform, first emphatically endorse our demand for a recognition
of the exact and permanent political equality of all citizens. </p></blockquote>

<p>A delegation<a name="FNanchor_64_64" id="FNanchor_64_64"></a><a href="#Footnote_64_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> went to the Greenback convention and presented the
following memorial:</p>

<blockquote><p>When a new political party is formed it should be based upon the
principles of justice to all classes hitherto unrecognized. The
finance question, as broad as it is, does not reach down to the
deepest wrong in the nation. Beneath this question lies that of
the denial of the right of self-government to one-half the
people. It is impossible to secure the property rights of the
people without first recognizing their personal rights. More than
any class of men, woman represents the great unpaid laborer of
the world&mdash;a slave, who, as wife and daughter, absolutely works
for her board and clothes. The question of finance deeply
interests<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_181" id="Page_181">[Pg 181]</a></span> woman, but her opinions upon it are valueless while
deprived of the right of enforcing them at the ballot box. You
are here in convention assembled, not alone to nominate a
candidate for president, but also to promulgate your platform of
principles to the world. Now is your golden opportunity. The
Republican party presents no vital issue to the country; its
platform is a repetition of the platitudes of the past twenty
years. It has ceased to be a party of principles. It lives on the
past. The deeds of dead men hold it together. Its disregard of
principles has thrown opportunity into your hands. Will you make
yourselves the party of the future? Will you recognize woman's
right of self-government? Will you make woman suffrage an
underlying principle in your platform? If you will make these
pledges, the National Association will work for the triumph of
your party in the approaching closely contested campaign. </p></blockquote>

<p>The ladies were accorded hearings by several delegations previous
to the assembling of the convention. A resolution committee of one
from each State was appointed, and each member allowed two minutes
to present either by speech or writing such principles as it
requested incorporated in the platform. Lucinda B. Chandler, being
a Greenbacker on principle, was a regularly elected delegate and by
courtesy was added to a sub-committee on resolutions. The one
prepared by the National Association was placed in her hands, but,
as she was forbidden to speak upon it, her support could only be
given by vote, and a meaningless substitute took its place. The
courtesy of placing Mrs. Chandler upon the committee was like much
of man's boasted chivalry to woman, a seeming favor at the expense
of right.</p>

<p>After trying in vain for recognition as a political factor from the
Republican and Greenback nominating conventions the delegates went
to Cincinnati.<a name="FNanchor_65_65" id="FNanchor_65_65"></a><a href="#Footnote_65_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a></p>

<p>Committees were at once appointed to visit the different
delegations. Women were better treated by the Democrats at
Cincinnati than by the Republicans at Chicago. A committee-room in
Music Hall was at once placed at their disposal, placards pointing
to their headquarters were printed by the local committee at its
own expense, and sixteen seats given to the ladies upon the floor
of the house, just back of the regular delegates. A hearing<a name="FNanchor_66_66" id="FNanchor_66_66"></a><a href="#Footnote_66_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a>
before the platform committee was granted with no limit as to time.
At the close a delegate approached the table, saying,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_182" id="Page_182">[Pg 182]</a></span> "I favor
giving woman a plank," "So do I," replied Mr. Watterson, chairman
of the committee. Many delegates in conversation, favored the
recognition of woman's political rights, and a large number of the
platform committee favored the introduction of the following plank:</p>

<blockquote><p>That the Democratic party, recognizing the rapid growth of the
woman suffrage question, suggests a consideration of this
important subject by the people in anticipation of the time, near
at hand, when it must become a political issue. </p></blockquote>

<p>But although the platform committee sat until 2 <span class="smcap">a.m.</span>, no such
result was reached, in consequence, it was said, of the objection
of the extreme Southern element which feared the political
recognition of negro women of the South.</p>

<p>The delegations from Maine, Kansas and New York were favorable, and
offered the Association the use of their committee-rooms at the
Burnett House and the Grand Hotel whenever desired. Mayor Prince of
Boston not only offered a committee-room but secured seats for the
delegates on the floor of the house. Mr. Henry Watterson, of the
Louisville <i>Courier-Journal</i>, as chairman of the Platform
Committee, extended every courtesy within his power. Mayor Harrison
of Chicago did his best to secure to the delegates a hearing before
the convention. He offered to escort Miss Anthony to the platform
that she might at least present the address. "You may be
prevented," suggested one. "I'd like to see them do it," he
replied. "Have I not just brought about a reconciliation between
Tammany and the rest of New York?" Taking Miss Anthony upon his arm
and telling her not to flinch, he made his way to the platform,
when the chairman, Hon. Wade Hampton of South Carolina, politely
offered her a seat, and ordered the clerk to read the address:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To the Democratic Party in Nominating Convention Assembled,
Cincinnati, June 22, 1880:</i></p>

<p>On behalf of the women of the country we appear before you,
asking the recognition of woman's political rights as one-half
the people. We ask no special privileges, no special legislation.
We simply ask that you live up to the principles enunciated by
the Democratic party from the time of Jefferson. By what
principle of democracy do men assume to legislate for women?
Women are part of the people; your very name signifies government
by the people. When you deny political rights to women you are
false to your own principles.</p>

<p>The Declaration of Independence recognized human rights as its
basis. Constitutions should also be general in character. But in
opposition to this principle the party in power for the last
twenty years has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_183" id="Page_183">[Pg 183]</a></span> perverted the Constitution of the United States
by the introduction of the word "male" three times, thereby
limiting the application of its guarantees to a special class. It
should be your pride and your duty to restore the constitution to
its original basis by the adoption of a sixteenth amendment,
securing to women the right of suffrage; and thus establish the
equality of all United States citizens before the law.</p>

<p>Not for the first time do we make of you these demands. At your
nominating convention in New York, in 1868, Susan B. Anthony
appeared before you, asking recognition of woman's inherent
natural rights. At your convention of 1872, in Baltimore,
Isabella Beecher Hooker and Susan B. Anthony made a similar
appeal. In 1876, at St. Louis, Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins and Virginia
L. Minor presented our claims. Now, in 1880, our delegates are
present here from the Middle States, from the West and from the
South. The women of the South are rapidly uniting in their demand
for political recognition, as they have been the most deeply
humiliated by a recognition of the political rights of their
former slaves.</p>

<p>To secure to 20,000,000 of women the rights of citizenship is to
base your party on the eternal principles of justice; it is to
make yourselves the party of the future; it is to do away with a
more extended slavery than that of 4,000,000 of blacks; it is to
secure political freedom to half the nation; it is to establish
on this continent the democratic theory of the equal rights of
the people.</p>

<p>In furtherance of this demand we ask you to adopt the following
resolution:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Believing in the self-evident truth that all persons are
created with certain inalienable rights, and that for the
protection of these rights governments are instituted, deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Democratic party pledges itself to use all
its powers to secure to the women of the nation protection in the
exercise of their right of suffrage. </p></blockquote>

<p>On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Chairman Executive Committee</i>.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>That the women however, in the campaign of 1880, received the best
treatment at the hands of the National Prohibition party is shown
by the following invitation received at the Bloomington convention:</p>

<blockquote>
<p><i>To the National Woman Suffrage Association of the United
States:</i></p>

<p>The woman suffragists are respectfully invited to meet with and
participate in the proceedings of the National Prohibition
Convention to be held at Cleveland, Ohio, June, 1880.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">James Black</span>, <i>Chairman of National Committee.</i></p>
<p class="ltr-to">Per <span class="smcap">J. W. Haggard</span>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A letter was received from Mr. Black urging the acceptance of the
invitation. Accordingly Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins was sent as a
delegate from the association. The Prohibition party in its
eleventh plank said:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_184" id="Page_184">[Pg 184]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>We also demand that women having privileges as citizens in other
respects, shall be clothed with the ballot for their own
protection, and as a rightful means for a proper settlement of
the liquor question. </p></blockquote>

<p>After attending all these nominating conventions, some of the
delegates<a name="FNanchor_67_67" id="FNanchor_67_67"></a><a href="#Footnote_67_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> went to Wisconsin where the State and National
Associations held a joint convention, in the Opera House at
Milwaukee, June 4, 5. Madam Anneke gave the address of welcome.<a name="FNanchor_68_68" id="FNanchor_68_68"></a><a href="#Footnote_68_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a>
Fresh from the exciting scenes of the presidential conventions, the
speakers were unusually earnest and aggressive. The resolutions
discussed at the Indianapolis convention were considered and
adopted. Carl Doerflinger read a greeting in behalf of the German
Radicals of the city. Letters were read from prominent persons,
expressing their interest in the movement.<a name="FNanchor_69_69" id="FNanchor_69_69"></a><a href="#Footnote_69_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> Dr. Laura Ross
Wolcott made all the arrangements and contributed largely to the
expenses of the convention. The roll of delegates shows that the
State, at least, was well represented.<a name="FNanchor_70_70" id="FNanchor_70_70"></a><a href="#Footnote_70_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p>

<p>Thus through the terrible heat of June this band of earnest women
held successive conventions in Bloomington, Ill., Grand Rapids,
Mich., Lafayette and Terre Haute, Ind. They were most hospitably
entertained, and immense audiences greeted them at every point.
Mrs. Cordelia Briggs took the entire responsibility of the social
and financial interests of the convention at Grand Rapids, which
continued for three days with increasing enthusiasm to the close.
Mrs. Helen M. Gougar made the arrangements for Lafayette which were
in every way successful.</p>

<p>After the holding of these conventions, delegations from the
National Association called on the nominees of the two great
parties to ascertain their opinions and proposed action, if any, on
the question of woman suffrage. Mrs. Blake, and other ladies
representing the New York city society, called on General Hancock
at his residence and were most courteously received. In<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_185" id="Page_185">[Pg 185]</a></span> the course
of a long conversation in which it was evident that he had given
some thought to the question, he said he would not veto a District
of Columbia Woman Suffrage bill, provided such a bill should pass
congress, thereby putting himself upon better record than Horace
Greely the year of his candidacy, who not only expressed himself as
opposed to woman suffrage, but also declared that, if elected, he
would veto such a bill provided it passed congress.</p>

<p>Miss Anthony visited James A. Garfield at his home in Mentor, Ohio.
He was very cordial, and listened with respect to her presentation
of the question. Although from time to time in congress he had
uniformly voted with our friends, yet he expressed serious doubts
as to the wisdom of pressing this measure during the pending
presidential campaign.</p>

<p>As it was deemed desirable to get some expression on paper from the
candidates the following letter, written on official paper, was
addressed to the Republican and Democratic nominees:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Rochester, N. Y.</span>, August 17, 1880.</p>

<p>Hon. <span class="smcap">James A. Garfield</span>: <i>Dear Sir</i>: As vice-president-at-large of
the National Woman Suffrage Association, I am instructed to ask
you, if, in the event of your election, you, as President of the
United States, would recommend to congress, in your message to
that body, the submission to the several legislatures of a
sixteenth amendment to the national constitution, prohibiting the
disfranchisement of United States citizens on account of sex.
What we wish to ascertain is whether you, as president, would use
your <i>official influence</i> to secure to the women of the several
States a <i>national guarantee</i> of their right to a voice in the
government on the same terms with men. Neither platform makes any
pledge to secure political equality to women&mdash;hence we are
waiting and hoping that one candidate or the other, or both, will
declare favorably, and thereby make it possible for women, with
self-respect, to work for the success of one or the other or both
nominees. Hoping for a prompt and explicit statement, I am, sir,
very respectfully yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Susan B. Anthony.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To this General Hancock vouchsafed no reply, while General Garfield
responded as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Mentor, O.</span>, August 25, 1880.</p>

<p>Dear <span class="smcap">Miss Anthony</span>: Your letter of the 17th inst. came duly to
hand. I take the liberty of asking your personal advice before I
answer your official letter. I assume that all the traditions and
impulses of your life lead you to believe that the Republican
party has been and is more nearly in the line of liberty than its
antagonist the Democratic party; and I know you desire to advance
the cause of woman. Now, in view of the fact that the Republican
convention has not discussed your question, do you not think it
would be a violation of the trust they have reposed in me, to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_186" id="Page_186">[Pg 186]</a></span>
speak, "as their nominee"&mdash;and add to the present contest an
issue that they have not authorized? Again, if I answer your
question on the ground of my own private opinion, I shall be
compelled to say, that while I am open to the freest discussion
and fairest consideration of your question, I have not yet
reached the conclusion that it would be best for woman and for
the country that she should have the suffrage. I may reach it;
but whatever time may do to me, that fruit is not yet ripe on my
tree. I ask you, therefore, for the sake of your own question, do
you think it wise to pick my apples now? Please answer me in the
frankness of personal friendship. With kind regards, I am very
truly yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">James A. Garfield.</p>
<p class="ltr-to">Miss <span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>, Rochester, N. Y.</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-clear"><span class="smcap">Rochester, N. Y.</span>, September 9, 1880.</p>

<p>Hon. <span class="smcap">James A. Garfield</span>: <i>Dear Sir</i>: Yours of the 25th ult. has
waited all these days that I might consider and carefully reply.</p>

<p><i>First</i>. The Republican party did run well for a season in the
"line of liberty"; but since 1870, its congressional enactments,
majority reports, Supreme Court decisions, and now its presidential
platform, show a retrograde movement&mdash;not only for women, but for
colored men&mdash;limiting the power of the national government in the
protection of United States citizens against the injustice of the
States, until what we gained by the sword is lost by political
surrenders. And we need nothing but a Democratic administration to
demonstrate to all Israel and the sun the fact, the sad fact, that
all <i>is lost</i> by the <i>Republican</i> party, and not <i>to be lost</i> by
the <i>Democratic</i> party. I mean, of course, the one vital point of
national supremacy in the protection of United States citizens in
the enjoyment of their right to vote, and the punishment of States
or individuals thereof, for depriving citizens of the exercise of
that right. The first and fatal mistake was in ceding to the States
the right to "abridge or deny" the suffrage to foreign-born men in
Rhode Island, and all women throughout the nation, in direct
violation of the principle of national supremacy. And from that
time, inch by inch, point by point has been surrendered, until it
is only in <i>name</i> that the Republican party is the party of
national supremacy. Grant did not protect the negro's ballot in
1876&mdash;Hayes cannot in 1880&mdash;nor could Garfield in 1884&mdash;for the
"sceptre has departed from Judah."</p>

<p><i>Second</i>. For the candidate of a party to <i>add</i> to the discussions
of the contest an issue unauthorized or unnoted in its platform,
when that issue was one vital to its very life, would, it seems to
me, be the grandest act imaginable. And, for doing that very thing,
with regard to the protection of the negroes of the South, you are
to-day receiving more praise from the best men of the party, than
for any and all of your utterances <i>inside</i> the line of the
platform. And I <i>know</i>, if you had in your letter of acceptance, or
in your New York speech, declared yourself in favor of "perfect
equality of rights for women, civil and political," you would have
touched an electric spark that would have fired the heart of the
women of the entire nation, and made the triumph of the Republican
party more grand and glorious than any it has ever seen.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_187" id="Page_187">[Pg 187]</a></span></p>

<p><i>Third</i>. As to picking fruit before it is ripe! Allow me to remind
you that very much fruit is <i>never</i> picked; some gets nipped in the
blossom; some gets worm-eaten and falls to the ground; some rots on
the trees before it ripens; some, too slow in ripening, gets bitten
by the early frosts of autumn; while some rich, rare, ripe apples
hang unpicked, frozen and worthless on the leafless trees of
winter! Really, Mr. Garfield, if, after passing through the war of
the rebellion and sixteen years in congress;&mdash;if, after seeing, and
hearing, and repeating, that <i>no class</i> ever got justice and
equality of chances from any government except it had the
power&mdash;the ballot&mdash;to clutch them for itself;&mdash;if, after all your
opportunities for growth and development, you cannot yet see the
truth of the great principle of individual self-government;&mdash;if you
have only reached the idea of class-government, and that, too, of
the most hateful and cruel form&mdash;bounded by sex&mdash;there must be some
radical defect in the ethics of the party of which you are the
chosen leader.</p>

<p>No matter which party administers the government, women will
continue to get only subordinate positions and half-pay, not
because of the party's or the president's lack of chivalric regard
for woman, but because, in the nature of things, it is impossible
for any government to protect a disfranchised class in equality of
chances. Women, to get justice, must have political freedom. But
pardon this long trespass upon your time and patience, and please
bear in mind that it is not for the many <i>good</i> things the
Republican party and its nominee have done in extending the area of
liberty, that I criticise them, but because they have failed to
place the women of the nation on the plane of political equality
with men. I do not ask you to go beyond your convictions, but I do
most earnestly beg you to look at this question from the
stand-point of woman&mdash;alone, without father, brother, husband,
son&mdash;battling for bread! It is to help the millions of these
unfortunate ones that I plead for the ballot in the hands of all
women. With great respect for your frank and candid talk with one
of the disfranchised, I am very sincerely yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Susan B. Anthony.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>As Mr. Garfield was the only presidential nominee of either of the
great parties who deigned a reply to the National Association, we
have given his letter an honored place in our history, and desire
to pay this tribute to his memory, that while not fully endorsing
our claims for political equality he earnestly advocated for woman
all possible advantages of education, equal rights in the trades
and professions, and equal laws for the protection of her civil
rights.</p>

<p>The Thirteenth Annual Washington Convention assembled in Lincoln
Hall, January 18, 1881. The first session was devoted to memorial
services in honor of Lucretia Mott. A programme<a name="FNanchor_71_71" id="FNanchor_71_71"></a><a href="#Footnote_71_71" class="fnanchor">[71]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_188" id="Page_188">[Pg 188]</a></span></a> for the
occasion was extensively circulated, and the response in character
and numbers was such an audience as had seldom before crowded that
hall. The spacious auditorium was brilliant with sunlight and the
gay dresses, red shawls and flowers of the ladies of the
fashionable classes. Mrs. Hayes with several of her guests from the
White House occupied front seats. The stage was crowded with
members of the association, Mrs. Mott's personal friends and wives
of members of congress. The decorations which had seldom been
surpassed in point of beauty and tastefulness of arrangement,
formed a fitting setting for this notable assemblage of women. The
background was a mass of colors, formed by the graceful draping of
national flags, here and there a streamer of old gold with heavy
fringe to give variety, while in the center was a national shield
surmounted by two flags. On each side flags draped and festooned,
falling at the front of the stage with the folds of the rich maroon
curtains. Graceful ferns and foliage plants had been arranged,
while on a table stood a large harp formed of beautiful red and
white flowers.<a name="FNanchor_72_72" id="FNanchor_72_72"></a><a href="#Footnote_72_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> At the other end was a stand of hot-house
flowers, while in the center, resting on a background of maroon
drapery, was a large crayon picture of Lucretia Mott. Above the
picture a snow-white dove held in its beak sprays of smilax,
trailing down on either side, and below was a sheaf of ripened
wheat, typical of the life that had ended. The occasion which had
brought the ladies together, the placid features of that kind and
well-remembered face, had a solemnizing effect upon all, and
quietly the vast audience passed into the hall. The late-comers
finding all the seats occupied stood in the rear and sat in the
aisles.</p>

<p>Presently Miss Couzins, stepping to the front of the stage said
gently, "In accordance with the custom of Mrs. Mott and the
time-honored practice of the Quakers, I ask you to unite in an
invocation to the Spirit." She bowed her head. The audience
followed her example. For several minutes the solemn stillness of
devotion pervaded the hall. When Miss Couzins had taken her seat
the quartette choir of St. Augustine's church (colored) which was
seated on the platform, sang sweetly an appropriate selection,
after which Mrs. Stanton delivered the eulogy,<a name="FNanchor_73_73" id="FNanchor_73_73"></a><a href="#Footnote_73_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a> holding<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_189" id="Page_189">[Pg 189]</a></span> the
rapt attention of her audience over an hour. At the close Frederick
Douglass said:</p>

<blockquote><p>He had listened with interest to the fine analysis of the life
and services of Lucretia Mott. He was almost unwilling to have
his voice heard after what had been said. He was there to show by
his presence his profound respect and earnest love for Lucretia
Mott. He recognized none whose services in behalf of his race
were equal to hers. Her silence even in that cause was more than
the speech of others. He had no words for this occasion. </p></blockquote>

<p>Robert Purvis at the request of a number of colored citizens of
Washington, presented a beautiful floral harp to Mr. Davis, the
son-in-law of Lucretia Mott, the only representative of her family
present. He paid a tender tribute to the noble woman whose
life-long friendship he had enjoyed. Mr. Davis having a seat on the
platform, received the gift with evident emotion, and returning
thanks, he said:</p>

<blockquote><p>He would follow the example of Mrs. Mott who seldom kept a gift
long, and present these rare flowers to Mrs. Spofford, the
treasurer of the Association.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Anthony</span> said: The highest tribute she could pay, was, that
during the past thirty years she had always felt sure she was
right when she had the approval of Lucretia Mott. Next to that of
her own conscience she most valued the approval of her sainted
friend. And it was now a great satisfaction that in all the
differences of opinion as to principles and methods in our
movement, Mrs. Mott had stood firmly with the National
Association, of which she was to the day of her death the honored
and revered vice-president. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Sewall, after speaking of the many admirable qualities of Mrs.
Mott, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>In looking around this magnificent audience I cannot help asking
myself the question, Where are the young girls? They should be
here. It is the birthright of every girl to know the life and
deeds of every noble woman. I think Lucretia Mott was as much
above the average woman as Abraham Lincoln above the average man. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Couzins closed with a few graceful words. She expressed her
pleasure in meeting so magnificent an audience, and thought the
whole occasion was a beautiful tribute to one of America's best and
noblest women. She hoped the mothers present would carry away the
impressions they had received and teach their daughters to hold the
name of Lucretia Mott ever in grateful remembrance. The choir sang
"Nearer, My God, to Thee." The entire audience arose and joined in
the singing, after which they slowly dispersed, feeling that it had
indeed been a pentacostal occasion.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_190" id="Page_190">[Pg 190]</a></span></p>

<p>An able paper from Alexander Dumas, on "Woman Suffrage as a means
of Moral Improvement and Prevention of Crime,"<a name="FNanchor_74_74" id="FNanchor_74_74"></a><a href="#Footnote_74_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a> was translated
for this meeting by Thomas Mott, the only son of James and Lucretia
Mott. This convention continued two days, with the usual number of
able speakers.<a name="FNanchor_75_75" id="FNanchor_75_75"></a><a href="#Footnote_75_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> It was announced at the last session that an
effort would be made by Senator McDonald, next day, to call up a
resolution providing for the appointment of a standing committee
for women; accordingly the ladies' gallery in the Senate was well
filled with delegates.</p>

<p>From the <i>Congressional Record</i>, January 20, 1881:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McDonald</span>: On February 16, 1880, I submitted a resolution
providing for the appointment of a committee of nine senators,
whose duty it shall be to receive, consider and report upon all
petitions, memorials, resolutions and bills relating to the
rights of women of the United States, said committee to be called
"Committee on the Rights of Women." It is on the calendar, and I
ask for its present consideration.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Vice-president</span> (Mr. Wheeler of New York): The senator from
Indiana calls up for consideration a resolution on the calendar,
which will be reported.</p>

<p>The chief clerk read the resolution, as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a committee of nine senators be appointed by the
Senate, whose duty it shall be to receive, consider and report
upon all petitions, memorials, resolutions and bills relating to
the rights of women of the United States, said committee to be
called the Committee on the Rights of Women. </p></blockquote>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Vice-president</span>: The question is, Will the Senate agree to the
resolution?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McDonald</span>: Mr. President, it seems to me that the time has
arrived when the rights of the class of citizens named in the
resolution should have some hearing in the national legislature. We
have standing committees upon almost every other subject, but none
to which this class of citizens can resort. When their memorials
come in they are sometimes sent to the Committee on the Judiciary,
sometimes to the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and
sometimes to other committees. The consequence is that they pass
around from committee to committee and never receive any
consideration. In the organization and growth of the Senate a
number of standing committees have been from time to time created
and continued from congress to congress, until many of them have
but very little duty now to perform. It seems to me to be very
appropriate to consider this question now, and provide some place
in the capitol, some room of the Senate, some branch of the
government, where this class of applicants can have a full and fair
hearing, and have such measures as may be desired to secure to them
such rights brought fairly and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_191" id="Page_191">[Pg 191]</a></span> properly before the country. I hope
there will be no opposition to the resolution but that it will be
adopted by unanimous consent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Conkling</span>: Does the senator from Indiana wish to raise a
permanent committee on this subject to take its place and remain on
the list of permanent committees?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McDonald</span>: That is precisely what I propose to do.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Conkling</span>: Mr. President, I was in hopes that the honorable
senator from Indiana, knowing how sincere and earnest he is in this
regard, intended that an end should be made soon of this subject;
that the prayer of these petitioners should be granted and the
whole right established; but now it seems that he wishes to create
a perpetual committee, so that it is to go on interminably, from
which I infer that he intends that never shall these prayers be
granted. I suggest to the senator from Indiana that, if he be in
earnest, if he wishes to crown with success this great and
beneficent movement, he should raise a special committee, which
committee would understand that it was to achieve and conclude its
purpose, and this presently, and not postpone indefinitely in the
vast forever the realization of this hope. I trust, therefore, that
the senator from Indiana will make this a special committee, and
will let that special committee understand that before the sun goes
down on the last day of this session it is to take final, serious,
intelligent action, for which it is to be responsible, whether that
action be one way or the other.<a name="FNanchor_76_76" id="FNanchor_76_76"></a><a href="#Footnote_76_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McDonald</span>: The senator from New York misapprehends one purpose
of this committee. I certainly have no desire that the rights of
this class of our citizens should be deferred to that far-distant
future to which he has made reference, nor would this committee so
place them. If it be authorized by the Senate, it will be the duty
of the committee to receive all petitions, memorials, resolutions
and bills relating to the rights of women, not merely presented now
but those presented at any future time. It is simply to provide a
place where one-half the people of the United States may have a
tribunal in this body before which they can have their cases
considered. I apprehend that these rights are never to be ended. I
do not suppose that the time will ever come in the history of the
human race when there will not be rights of women to be considered
and passed upon. Therefore, to make this merely a special committee
would not accomplish the purpose I had in view. While it would of
course give a committee that would receive and hear such petitions
as are now presented and consider such bills as should now be
brought forward, it would be better to have a committee from term
to term, where these same plaints could be heard, the same
petitions presented, the same bills considered, and where new
rights, whatever they might be, can be discussed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_192" id="Page_192">[Pg 192]</a></span> and acted upon.
Therefore I cannot accept the suggestion of the senator from New
York to make this a special committee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Davis</span> of West Virginia: I think it a bad idea to raise an extra
committee. I move that the resolution be referred to the Committee
on Rules, I think it ought to go there. That is where the rules
generally require all such resolutions to be referred.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Vice-president</span>: The question is on the motion of the senator
from Virginia, that the resolution be referred to the Committee on
Rules.</p>

<p>Which was agreed to by a vote of 26 yeas to 23 nays.<a name="FNanchor_77_77" id="FNanchor_77_77"></a><a href="#Footnote_77_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>Amid all the pleasure of political excitement the social amenities
were not forgotten. A brilliant reception<a name="FNanchor_78_78" id="FNanchor_78_78"></a><a href="#Footnote_78_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a> and supper were given
to the delegates by Mrs. Spofford at the Riggs House. During the
evening Mrs. Stanton presented the beautiful life-size photograph
of Lucretia Mott which had adorned the platform at the convention,
to Howard University, and read the following letter from Edward M.
Davis:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Madam</i>: As an expression of my
gratitude to the colored people of the District for their
beautiful floral tribute to the memory of my dear mother, I
desire in the name of her children to present to Howard
University the photograph of Lucretia Mott which adorned the
platform during the convention. It is a fitting gift to an
institution that so well illustrates her principles in opening
its doors to all youth without regard to sex or color. With
sincere regret that I cannot be present this evening at the
reception, I am gratefully yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Edward M. Davis.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In receiving the beautiful gift, Dr. Patton, president of the
institution, made a graceful response.</p>

<p>In the spring of 1881, the National Association held a series of
conventions through New England, beginning with the May anniversary
in Boston, of which we give the following description from the
<i>Hartford Courant</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>Among the many anniversaries in Boston the last week in May, one
of the most enthusiastic was that of the National Woman Suffrage
Association, held in Tremont Temple. The weather was cool and
fair and the audience fine throughout, and never was there a
better array of speakers at one time on any platform. The number
of thoughtful, cultured young women appearing in these
conventions, is one of the hopeful features for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_193" id="Page_193">[Pg 193]</a></span> the success of
this movement. The selection of speakers for this occasion had
been made at the Washington convention in January, and different
topics assigned to each that the same phases of the question
might not be treated over and over again.</p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 349px;">
<a name="v3_192" id="v3_192">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_192.jpg" width="349" height="500" alt="Jane H. Spofford" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>Mrs. Harriet Hansom Robinson (wife of "Warrington," so long the
able correspondent of the <i>Springfield Republican</i>), who with her
daughter made the arrangements for our reception, gave the
address of welcome, to which the president, Mrs. Stanton,
replied. Rev. Frederic Hinckley of Providence, spoke on "Unity of
Principle in Variety of Method," and showed that while differing
on minor points the various woman suffrage associations were all
working to one grand end. Anna Garlin Spencer made a few remarks
on "The Character of Reformers." Rev. Olympia Brown gave an
exceptionally brilliant speech a full hour in length on
"Universal Suffrage"; Harriette Robinson Shattuck's theme was
"Believing and Doing"; Lillie Devereux Blake's, "Demand for
Liberty"; Matilda Joslyn Gage's, "Centralization"; Belva A.
Lockwood's, "Woman and the Law". Mary F. Eastman followed showing
that woman's path was blocked at every turn, in the professions
as well as the trades and the whole world of work; Isabella
Beecher Hooker gave an able argument on the "Constitutional Right
of Women to Vote"; Martha McLellan Brown spoke equally well on
the "Ethics of Sex"; Mrs. Elizabeth Avery Meriwether of
Tennessee, gave a most amusing commentary on the spirit of the
old common law, cuffing Blackstone and Coke with merciless
sarcasm. Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon of Louisiana spoke with great
effect on "Woman's Intellectual Powers as Developed by the
Ballot." These two Southern ladies are alike able, witty and
pathetic in their appeals for justice to woman. Mrs. May Wright
Sewall's essay on "Domestic Legislation," showing how large a
share of the bills passed every year directly effect home life,
was very suggestive to those who in answer to our demand for
political power, say "Woman's sphere is home," as if the home
were beyond the control and influence of the State. Beside all
these thoroughly prepared addresses, Susan B Anthony, Dr.
Clemence Lozier, Dr. Caroline Winslow, ex-Secretary Lee of
Wyoming, spoke briefly on various points suggested by the several
speakers.</p>

<p>The white-haired and venerable philosopher, A. Bronson Alcott,
was very cordially received, after being presented in
complimentary terms by the president. Mr. Alcott paid a glowing
tribute to the intellectual worth of woman, spoke of the divinity
of her character, and termed her the inspiration font from which
his own philosophical ideas had been drawn. Not until the women
of our nation have been granted every privilege would the liberty
of our republic be assured.<a name="FNanchor_79_79" id="FNanchor_79_79"></a><a href="#Footnote_79_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a> The well-known Francis<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_194" id="Page_194">[Pg 194]</a></span> W. Bird
of Walpole, who has long wielded in the politics of the Bay
State, the same power Thurlow Weed did for forty years in New
York, being invited to the platform, expressed his entire
sympathy with the demand for suffrage, notwithstanding the common
opinion held by the leading men of Massachusetts, that the women
themselves did not ask it. He recommended State rather than
national action.</p>

<p>Rev. Ada C. Bowles of Cambridge, and Rev. Olympia Brown, of
Racine, Wis., opened the various sessions with prayer&mdash;striking
evidence of the growing self-assertion of the sex, and the rapid
progress of events towards the full recognition of the fact that
woman's hour has come. Touching deeper and tenderer chords in the
human soul than words could reach, the inspiring strains of the
celebrated organist, Mr. Ryder, rose ever and anon, now soft and
plaintive, now full and commanding, mingled in stirring harmony
with prayer and speech. And as loving friends had covered the
platform with rare and fragrant flowers, the æsthetic taste of
the most fastidious artist might have found abundant
gratification in the grouping and whole effect of the assemblage
in that grand temple. Thus through six prolonged sessions the
interest was not only kept up but intensified from day to day.</p>

<p>The National Association was received right royally in Boston. On
arriving they found invitations waiting to visit Governor Long at
the State House, Mayor Prince at the City Hall, the great
establishment of Jordan, Marsh &amp; Co., and the Reformatory Prison
for Women at Sherborn. Invitations to take part were extended to
woman suffrage speakers in many of the conventions of that
anniversary week. Among those who spoke from other platforms,
were Matilda Joslyn Gage, Ellen H. Sheldon, Caroline B. Winslow,
M. D., editor of <i>The Alpha</i>, and Rev. Olympia Brown. The
president of the association, Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
received many invitations to speak at various points, but had
time only for the "Moral Education," "Heredity," and "Free
Religious" associations. Her engagement at Parker Memorial Hall,
prevented her from accepting the governor's invitation, but
Isabella Beecher Hooker and Susan B Anthony led the way to the
State house and introduced the delegates from the East, the West,
the North and the South, to the honored executive head of the
State, who had declared himself, publicly, in favor of woman
suffrage. The ceremony of hand-shaking over, and some hundred
women being ranged in a double circle about the desk, Mrs. Hooker
stepped forward, saying:</p>

<blockquote><p>Speak a word to us, Governor Long, we need help. Stand here,
please, face to face with these earnest women and tell us where
help is to come from. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Governor responded, and then introduced his secretary, who
conducted the ladies through the building.</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Hooker</span> said: Permit me, sir, to thank you for this
unlooked-for and unusual courtesy in the name of our president
who should be here to speak for herself and for us, and in the
name of these loyal women who ask only that the right of the
<i>people</i> to govern themselves shall be maintained. In this great
courtesy extended us by good old Massachusetts as citizens of
this republic unitedly protesting against being taxed without
representation, and governed without our consent, we see the
beginning of the end&mdash;the end of our wearisome warfare&mdash;a warfare
which though bloodless, has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_195" id="Page_195">[Pg 195]</a></span> cost more than blood, by as much as
soul-suffering exceeds that of mere flesh. I see as did Stephen
of old, a celestial form close to that of the Son of Man, and her
name is Liberty&mdash;always a woman&mdash;and she bids us go on&mdash;go
on&mdash;even unto the end. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Anthony standing close to the governor, said in low, pathetic
tones:</p>

<blockquote><p>Yes, we are tired. Sir, we are weary with our work. For forty
years some of us have carried this burden, and now, if we might
lay it down at the feet of honorable men, such as you, how happy
we should be. </p></blockquote>

<p>The next day Mayor Prince, though suffering from a late severe
attack of rheumatism, cordially welcomed the delegates in his room
at the City Hall, and chatting familiarly with those who had been
at the Cincinnati convention and witnessed his great courtesy, some
one remarked that from that time Miss Anthony had proclaimed him
the prince among men, and Mrs. Stanton immediately suggested that
if the party with which he was identified were wise in their day
and generation they would accept his leadership, even to the
acknowledgement of the full citizenship of this republic, and thus
secure not only their gratitude but their enthusiastic support in
the next presidential election. Having compassion upon his Honor
because of his manifest physical disability, the ladies soon
withdrew and went directly to the house of Jordan, Marsh &amp; Co.,
where were assembled in a large hall at the top of the building
such a crowd of handsome, happy, young girls as one seldom sees in
this work-a-day world; that well-known Boston firm within the last
six months having fitted up a large recreation room for the use of
their employés at the noon hour. Half a hundred girls were merrily
dancing to the music of a piano, but ceased in order to listen to
words of cheer from Mrs. Lockwood, Mrs. Hooker and Mrs. Sewall. At
the close of their remarks Mr. Jordan brought forward a reluctant
young girl who could give us, if she would, a charming recitation
from "That Lass o' Lowrie's," in return for our kindness in coming
to them. And after saying in a whisper to one who kindly urged
compliance to this unexpected call, that this had been such a busy
day she feared her dress was not all right, her face became
unconscious of self in a moment, and with true dramatic instinct,
she gave page after page of that wonderful story of the descent
into the mine and the recognition there of one whom she loved,
precisely as you would desire to hear it were the scene put upon
the stage with all the accessories of scenery and companion actors.</p>

<p>From Jordan, Marsh &amp; Co.'s a large delegation proceeded to visit
the Reformatory Prison at Sherborn which was established three or
four years ago. The board of directors, consisting of three women
and two men, has charge of all the prisons of the State. Mrs.
Johnson, one of the directors, a noble, benevolent woman,
interested in the great charities of Boston, was designated by
Governor Long&mdash;through whose desire the Association visited the
prison&mdash;to do the honors and accompany the party from Boston. The
officers, matron and physician of the Sherborn prison, are all
women. Dr. Mosher, the superintendent, formerly the physician, is a
fair, noble-looking woman about thirty-five years of age. She has
her own separate house connected with the building.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_196" id="Page_196">[Pg 196]</a></span> The present
physician, a delicate, cultured woman, with sympathy for her
suffering charges, is a recent graduate of Ann Arbor.</p>

<p>The entire work is done by the women sent there for restraint, and
the prison is nearly self-supporting; it is expected that within
another year it will be entirely so. Laundry work is done for the
city of Boston, shirts are manufactured, mittens knit, etc. The
manufacturing machinery will be increased the coming year. The
graded system of reward has been found successful in the
development of better traits. It has four divisions, and through it
the inmates are enabled to work up by good behavior toward more
pleasant surroundings, better clothes and food and greater liberty.
From the last grade they reach the freedom of being bound out; of
seventy-eight thus bound during the past year but seven were
returned. The whole prison, chapel, school-room, dining-room, etc.,
possesses a sweet, clean, pure atmosphere. The rooms are light,
well-ventilated, vines trailing in the windows from which glimpses
of green trees and blue sky can be seen.</p>

<p>Added to all the other courtesies, there came the invitation to a
few of the representatives of the movement to dine with the Bird
Club at the Parker House, in the same cozy room where these astute
politicians have held their councils for so many years, and whose
walls have echoed to the brave words of many of New England's
greatest sons. The only woman who had ever been thus honored before
was Mrs. Stanton, who, "escorted by Warrington," dined with these
honorable gentlemen in 1871. On this occasion Susan B. Anthony and
Harriet H. Robinson accompanied her. Around the table sat several
well-known reformers and distinguished members of the press and
bar. There was Elizur Wright whose name is a household word in many
homes as translator of La Fontaine's fables for the children.
Beside him sat the well-known Parker Pillsbury and his nephew, a
promising young lawyer in Boston. At one end of the table sat Mr.
Bird with Mrs. Stanton on his right and Miss Anthony on his left.
At the other end sat Frank Sanborn with Mrs. Robinson (wife of
"Warrington") on his right. On either side sat Judge Adam Thayer of
Worcester, Charles Field, Williard Phillips of Salem, Colonel Henry
Walker of Boston, Mr. Ernst of the Boston <i>Advertiser</i>, and Judge
Henry Fox of Taunton. The condition of Russia and the Conkling
imbroglio in New York; the new version of the Testament and the
reason why German Liberals, transplanted to this soil, immediately
become conservative and exclusive, were all considered. Carl
Schurz, with his narrow ideas of woman's sphere and education, was
mentioned by way of example. In reply to the question how the
Suffrage Association felt in regard to Conkling's reëlection. Mrs.
Robinson said:</p>

<blockquote><p>That the leaders, who are students of politics were unitedly
against him. Their only hope is in the destruction of the
Republican party, which is too old and corrupt to take up any new
reform. </p></blockquote>

<p>Frank Sanborn, fresh from the perusal of the New Testament, asked
if women could find any special consolation in the Revised Version
regarding everlasting punishment. Mrs. Stanton replied: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_197" id="Page_197">[Pg 197]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>Certainly, as we are supposed to have brought "original sin" into
the world with its fearful forebodings of eternal punishment, any
modification of Hades in fact or name, for the <i>men</i> of the race,
the innocent victims of our disobedience, fills us with
satisfaction. </p></blockquote>

<p>From the club the ladies hastened to the beautiful residence of
Mrs. Fenno Tudor, fronting Boston Common, where hundreds of friends
had already gathered to do honor to the noble woman so ready to
identify herself with the unpopular reforms of her day. Among the
many beautiful works of art, a chief attraction was the picture of
the grand-mother of Parnell, the Irish agitator, by Gilbert Stuart.
The house was fragrant with flowers, and the unassuming manners of
Mrs. Tudor, as she moved about among her guests, reflected the
glory of our American institutions in giving the world a generation
of common-sense women who do not plume themselves on any
adventitous circumstances of wealth or position, but bow in respect
to morality and intelligence wherever they find it. At the close of
the evening Mrs. Stanton presented Mrs. Tudor with the "History of
Woman Suffrage" which she received with evident pleasure and
returned her sincere thanks. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the close of the anniversary week in Boston, successful meetings
were held in various cities,<a name="FNanchor_80_80" id="FNanchor_80_80"></a><a href="#Footnote_80_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> beginning at Providence, where Dr.
Wm. F. Channing made the arrangements. These conventions were the
first that the National Association ever held in the New England
States, presenting the national plan of woman's enfranchisement
through a sixteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_53_53" id="Footnote_53_53"></a><a href="#FNanchor_53_53"><span class="label">[53]</span></a> "True labor reform: the ballot for woman, the unpaid
laborer of the whole earth."
</p>
<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"Man's work is from sun to sun,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">But woman's work is never done."<br /></span>
</div></div>
<p>
"Taxation without representation is tyranny. Woman is taxed to
support pauperism and crime, and is compelled to feed and clothe
the law-makers who oppress her."
</p><p>
"Women are voting on education, the bulwark of the republic, in
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts."
</p><p>
"Women are voting on all questions in Wyoming and Utah. The vote of
women transformed Wyoming from barbarism to civilization."
</p><p>
"The financial problem for woman: equal pay for equal work, and one
hundred cents on the dollar."
</p><p>
"When a woman <i>Will</i>, she <span class="smcap">Will</span>, and you may depend on it, she WILL
vote."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_54_54" id="Footnote_54_54"></a><a href="#FNanchor_54_54"><span class="label">[54]</span></a> <i>California</i>, Jane B. Archibald; <i>Connecticut</i>, Julia
E. Smith (Parker), E. C. Champion; <i>Delaware</i>, Mary A. Stuart;
<i>District of Columbia</i>, Sara Andrews Spencer, Jane H. Spofford,
Ellen H. Sheldon, Sara J. Messer, Amanda M. Best, Belva A.
Lockwood, Mary A. S. Carey, Rosina M. Parnell, Mary L. Wooster,
Helen Rand Tindall, Lura McNall Orme; <i>Illinois</i>, Miss Jessie
Waite, daughter of Caroline V. and Judge Waite; <i>Indiana</i>, Zerelda
G. Wallace, Emma Mont McRae; Flora M. Hardin; <i>Iowa</i>, Nancy R.
Allen; <i>Kansas</i>, Della Ross; <i>Louisiana</i>, Elizabeth L. Saxon,
<i>Maine</i>, Sophronia C. Snow; <i>Maryland</i>, Lavinia Dundore;
<i>Michigan</i>, Catherine A. F. Stebbins; <i>Missouri</i>, Ph&oelig;be W.
Couzins; <i>New Hampshire</i>, Marilla M. Ricker; <i>New Jersey</i>, Lucinda
B. Chandler; <i>New York</i>, Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage,
Lillie Devereux Blake, Dr. A. W. Lozier, Jennie de M. Lozier, M.
D., Helen M. Slocum; <i>Pennsylvania</i>, Rachel G. Foster, Julia T.
Foster; <i>South Carolina</i>, Mary R. Pell.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_55_55" id="Footnote_55_55"></a><a href="#FNanchor_55_55"><span class="label">[55]</span></a> Signed by Matilda Joslyn Gage, <i>Chairman Executive
Committee</i>: Susan B. Anthony, <i>Vice-president-at-large</i>; Sara
Andrews Spencer, <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>: Jane H. Spofford,
<i>Treasurer</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_56_56" id="Footnote_56_56"></a><a href="#FNanchor_56_56"><span class="label">[56]</span></a> This week has been devoted almost exclusively to the
women, who as temperance leaders, female suffragists and general
reformers, have become a power in the land which can no longer be
ridiculed or ignored. Yesterday Lincoln Hall was packed to its
utmost capacity with such an audience as no other entertainment or
amusement has ever before gathered in this city. Women of
refinement and cultivation, of thought and purpose, women of
standing and position in society, mothers of families, wives of
clergymen, were there by the hundreds, to listen to the words of
wisdom and eloquence that fell from the lips of that assembly, the
most carefully organized, thoroughly governed, harmoniously acting
association in this great country. Members of congress, professors
of colleges, judges and gentlemen of leisure, sat or stood in
admiration of the progress of the women, who are so earnestly
striving to regenerate our beloved republic, over which the shadow
of anarchy and dissolution is hovering with outspread wings. These
women are no longer trembling suppliants, feeling their way
cautiously and feebly amid an overpowering mass of obstructions;
they are now strong in their might, in their unity, and in the
righteousness of their cause. Men will do wisely if they attract
this power instead of repelling it; if they permit women to work in
concert with them, instead of compelling them to be arrayed against
them. The fate of Governor Robinson and Senator Ecelstine of New
York, indicates what they can do, and what they will do, if obliged
to assume the attitude of aggressors. Congress has heard no such
eloquence upon its floors this week as we have listened to from the
lips of these noble women.&mdash;[Washington correspondent of the
Portland (Me.) <i>Transcript</i>, Jan. 23, 1880.
</p><p>
These conventions occur yearly and although the ladies have fought
long and hard, and seem to have not yet reached a positive
assurance of success, still they continue to force the fight with
greater earnestness and redoubled energy, and their meetings are
conducted with much wisdom and decided spirit. There is one thing
to the credit of these ladies which cannot be said of the opposite
sex, and that is, their conventions are models of good order and
parliamentary eloquence, and they put their work through in a
graceful, business-like manner.&mdash;[Washington <i>Critic</i>, Jan. 21,
1880.
</p><p>
The announcement that the public session of the National Woman
Suffrage Convention would begin at one o'clock yesterday afternoon
at Lincoln Hall sufficed to attract a most brilliant audience,
composed principally of ladies, occupying every seat and thronging
the aisles. The inconvenience of remaining standing was patiently
endured by hundreds who seemed loth to leave while the convention
was in progress.&mdash;[Washington <i>National Republican</i>, Jan. 22, 1880.
</p><p>
The session of the Woman Suffrage Convention in Washington this
week has developed the fact that these strong-minded women are
making progress. The convention itself was composed of women of
marked ability, and its proceedings were marked by dignity and
decorum. The very best citizens of the city attended the
meetings.&mdash;[Washington correspondent Syracuse <i>Daily Standard</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_57_57" id="Footnote_57_57"></a><a href="#FNanchor_57_57"><span class="label">[57]</span></a> Letters were read from Mary Powers Filley, N. H.;
Martha G. Tunstall, Texas; M. A. Darling, Mich.; May Wright
Thompson, Ind.; Sarah Burger Stearns, Minn.; Miss Martin, Ill.; W.
G. Myers, O.; Annie L. Quinby, Ky.; Zina Young Williams, Utah;
Barbara J. Thompson, Neb.; Mira L. Sturgis, Me.; Orra Langhorne,
Va.; Emily P. Collins, La.; Charles P. Wellman, esq., Ga.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_58_58" id="Footnote_58_58"></a><a href="#FNanchor_58_58"><span class="label">[58]</span></a> Judge Edmunds meeting Miss Anthony afterwards,
complimented her on having made an argument instead of what is
usually given before committees, platform oratory. He said her
logic was sound, her points unanswerable. Nor were the delegates
familiar with that line of argument less impressed by it, given as
it was without notes and amid many interruptions. It was one of
those occasions rarely reached, in which the speaker showed the
full height to which she was capable of rising. We have not space
for the whole argument, and the train of reasoning is too close to
be broken.&mdash;[M. J. G.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_59_59" id="Footnote_59_59"></a><a href="#FNanchor_59_59"><span class="label">[59]</span></a> Speeches were also made by Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Spencer
and Miss Anthony.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_60_60" id="Footnote_60_60"></a><a href="#FNanchor_60_60"><span class="label">[60]</span></a> <i>Alabama</i>, Mrs. P. Holmes Drake, Huntsville.
<i>Connecticut</i>, Elizabeth C. Champion, Bridgeport. <i>District of
Columbia</i>, Belva A. Lockwood, Eveleen L. Mason, Jerusha G. Joy,
Ellen H. Sheldon, Sara Andrews Spencer, Jane H. Spofford.
<i>Illinois</i>, Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, vice-president of the
National Association and editor of the "Woman's Kingdom" in the
<i>Chicago Inter-Ocean</i>, Evanston; Dr. Ann M. Porter, Danville.
<i>Indiana</i>, Mary E. Haggart, vice-president; Martha Grimes, Zerelda
G. Wallace, May Wright Thompson, A. P. Stanton, Indianapolis;
Salome McCain, Frances Joslin, Crawfordsville; Mrs. Helen M.
Gougar, editor of the "Bric-a-brac department" of the <i>Lafayette
Courier</i>, Lafayette; Thomas Atkinson, Oxford; Mrs. Dr. Rogers,
Greencastle; Florence M. Hardin, Pendelton. <i>Iowa</i>, Mrs. J. C.
M'Kinney, Mrs. Weiser, Decorah. <i>Kentucky</i>, Mary B. Clay, Richmond;
Mrs. Carr, Mrs. E. T. Housh, Louisville. <i>Louisiana</i>, Elizabeth L.
Saxon, New Orleans, <i>Maryland</i>; Mary A. Butler, Baltimore.
<i>Michigan</i>, Catherine A. F. Stebbins, Detroit. <i>Missouri</i>, Mrs.
Virginia L. Minor, Mrs. Eliza J. Patrick, Mrs. Annie T. Anderson,
Mrs. Caroline Johnson Todd, Mrs. Endie J. Polk, Miss Ph&oelig;be
Couzins, Miss M. A. Baumgarten, Miss Emma Neave, Miss Eliza B.
Buckley, St. Louis; Mrs. Frances Montgomery, Oregon. <i>New
Hampshire</i>, Parker Pillsbury, Concord. <i>New Jersey</i>, Lucinda B.
Chandler. <i>New York</i>, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Gage, Miss Anthony. <i>Ohio</i>,
Mrs. Amanda B. Merrian, Mrs. Cordelia A. Plimpton, Cincinnati;
Sophia L. O. Allen, Eva L. Pinney, South Newberry; Mrs. N. L.
Braffet, New Paris. <i>Pennsylvania</i>, Rachel Foster, Julia T. Foster,
Philadelphia. <i>South Carolina</i>, Mary R. Pell, Cowden P. O.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_61_61" id="Footnote_61_61"></a><a href="#FNanchor_61_61"><span class="label">[61]</span></a> <i>Colorado</i>, Florence M. Haynes, Greely.
<i>Connecticut</i>, Elizabeth C. Champion, Bridgeport. <i>District of
Columbia</i>; Belva A. Lockwood, Sara Andrews Spencer, Jane H.
Spofford, Ellen H. Sheldon, Eveleen L. Mason, Jersuha G. Joy, Helen
Rand Tindall, Amanda M. Best, Washington. <i>Illinois</i>, Elizabeth
Boynton Harbert, Sarah Hackett Stephenson, Kate Newell Doggett,
Catherine V. Waite, Elizabeth J. Loomis, Alma Van Winkle, Chicago;
Dr. Ann Porter, Danville; Mrs. F. Lillebridge, Rockford; Ann L.
Barnett, Lockport; Mrs. F. A. Ross, Mrs. I. R. Lewison, Mansfield;
Amanda Smith, Prophetstown. <i>Indiana</i>, Helen M. Gougar, Lafayette;
Dr. Rachel B. Swain, Gertrude Garrison, Indianapolis. <i>Iowa</i>, Nancy
R. Allen, Maquoketa; Jane C. M'Kinney, Mrs. Weiser, Decorah;
Virginia Cornish, Hamburg; Ellen J. Foster, Clinton; Clara F.
Harkness, Humboldt. <i>Kansas</i>, Amanda B. Way, Elizabeth M'Kinney,
Kenneth. <i>Kentucky</i>, Mary B. Clay, Sallie Clay Bennett, Richmond.
<i>Louisiana</i>, Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans. <i>Maryland</i>, Mary A.
Butler, Baltimore. <i>Massachusetts</i>, Addie N. Ayres, Boston.
<i>Minnesota</i>, A. H. Street, Albert Lee. <i>Michigan</i>, Catherine A. F.
Stebbins, Detroit; Eliza Burt Gamble, Miss Mattie Smedly, East
Saginaw; P. Engle Travis, Hartford; Dr. Elizabeth Miller, South
Frankford. <i>Missouri</i>, Virginia L. Minor, Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins,
Annie T. Anderson, Caroline J. Todd, St. Louis; Dr. Augusta Smith,
Springfield. <i>New Hampshire</i>, Parker Pillsbury, Concord.
<i>Nebraska</i>, Harriet S. Brooks, Omaha; Dr. Amy R. Post, Hastings.
<i>New Jersey</i>, Margaret H. Ravenhill. <i>New York</i>, Susan B. Anthony,
Rochester; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville; Lillie Devereux
Blake, New York city. <i>Ohio</i>, Eva L. Pinney, South Newbury; Julia
B. Cole. <i>Oregon</i>, Mrs. A. J. Duniway (as substitute), Portland.
<i>Pennsylvania</i>, Rachel Foster, Julia T. Foster, Lucinda B.
Chandler, Philadelphia; Cornelia H. Scarborough, New Hope. <i>South
Carolina</i>, Mary R. Pell, Cowden P. O. <i>Tennessee</i>, Elizabeth Avery
Meriwether, Memphis. <i>Wisconsin</i>, Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine;
Almedia B. Gray, Schofield Mills. <i>Wyoming Territory</i>, Amelia B.
Post.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_62_62" id="Footnote_62_62"></a><a href="#FNanchor_62_62"><span class="label">[62]</span></a>
</p>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Historical Society Rooms, 140-42 Dearborn Ave., Chicago</span>, May 19, 1880.</p>
<p>
<i>Mrs. E. C. Stanton, President National Woman Suffrage Association,
476 West Lake street:</i>
</p><p>
<i>Dear Madam:</i> I write you in behalf of the Chicago Historical
Society, and with the hope that you will obligingly secure for and
present to this society a full manuscript record of the
<i>mass-meeting</i> to be held in Farwell Hall in this city, June 2,
1880, duly signed by its officers. We hope too you will do the
society the great favor to deposit in its archives all the letters
and postals which you may receive in response to your invitations
to attend that meeting.
</p><p>
This meeting may be an important one and long to be remembered. It
is hard to measure the possibilities of 1880. I hope this meeting
will mark an epoch in American history equal to the convention held
in Independence Hall in 1776. How valuable would be the attested
manuscript record of that convention and the correspondence
connected therewith! The records of the Farwell-hall meeting may be
equally valuable one hundred years hence. Please let the records be
kept in the city in which the convention or mass-meeting is held.
</p><p>
I am a Republican. I hope the party to which I belong will be
consistent. On the highest stripe of its banner is inscribed
"Freedom and Equal Rights." I hope the party will not be so
inconsistent as to refuse to the "better half" of the people of the
United States the rights enjoyed by the liberated slaves at the
South.
</p><p>
The leaders should not be content <i>to suffer it to be so</i>, but
should work with a will to make it so. I have but little confidence
in the sincerity of the man who will shout himself hoarse about
"shot guns" and "intimidation" at the South, when ridicule and
sneers come from his "shot gun" pointed at those who advocate the
doctrine that our mothers, wives and sisters are as well qualified
to vote and hold official position as the average Senegambian of
Mississippi.
</p><p>
We should be glad to have you and your friends call at these rooms,
which are open and free for all.
</p>
<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">A. D. Hager</span>, <i>Librarian</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very Respectfully,</p>
</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_63_63" id="Footnote_63_63"></a><a href="#FNanchor_63_63"><span class="label">[63]</span></a> By Mrs. Saxon of New Orleans, La.; Mrs. Meriwether of
Memphis, Mrs. Sallie Clay Bennett, daughter of Cassius M. Clay of
Richmond Ky.; and others. Mrs. Bennett related a little home
incident. She said: A few days ago she was in her front yard
planting with her own hands some roses, when "our ex-governor,"
passing by, exclaimed: "Mrs. Bennett, I admire that in you;
whatever one wants well done he must do himself." She immediately
answered: "That is true Governor, and that is why we women
suffragists have determined to do our own voting hereafter." She
then informed him that she wanted to speak to him on that great
question. He was rather anxious to avoid the argument, and
expressed his surprise and "was sorry to see a woman like her,
surrounded by so many blessings, with a kind husband, numerous
friends and loving children, advocating woman suffrage! She ought
to be contented with these. She was not like Miss Anthony&mdash;" "Stop,
Governor," I exclaimed, "Don't think of comparing me to that lady,
for I feel that I am not worthy to touch the hem of her garments."
She was, she said, indeed the mother of five dear children, but she
[Miss Anthony] is the mother of a nation of women. She thought the
women feared God rather than man, and it was only this which
encouraged them to speak on this subject, so dear to their hearts,
in public. One lady gave as a reason why she wanted to vote, that
it was because "the men did not want them to," which evoked
considerable merriment. This induced the chair to remind the
audience of Napoleon's rule: "Go, see what your enemy does not want
you to do and do it." Of the audience the <i>Inter-Ocean</i> said: "The
speakers of all the sessions were listened to with rapt attention
by the audience, and the points made were heartily applauded. It
would be difficult to gather so large an audience of our sex whose
appearance would be more suggestive of refinement and
intelligence."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_64_64" id="Footnote_64_64"></a><a href="#FNanchor_64_64"><span class="label">[64]</span></a> Miss Anthony, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Chandler, Mrs. Spencer
and Mrs. Haggart.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_65_65" id="Footnote_65_65"></a><a href="#FNanchor_65_65"><span class="label">[65]</span></a> Twenty delegates from eleven different States, who
had been in attendance at Chicago, went to Cincinnati.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_66_66" id="Footnote_66_66"></a><a href="#FNanchor_66_66"><span class="label">[66]</span></a> Before which Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Meriwether, Miss
Anthony, Mrs. Spencer and Mrs. Blake spoke.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_67_67" id="Footnote_67_67"></a><a href="#FNanchor_67_67"><span class="label">[67]</span></a> Miss Anthony, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Meriwether,
Mrs. Saxon, Miss. Couzins, Rev. Olympia Brown, Misses Rachel and
Julia Foster.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_68_68" id="Footnote_68_68"></a><a href="#FNanchor_68_68"><span class="label">[68]</span></a> This was the last time this noble German woman
honored our platform, as her eventful life closed a few years
after.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_69_69" id="Footnote_69_69"></a><a href="#FNanchor_69_69"><span class="label">[69]</span></a> Among others, from Assemblyman Lord,
State-Superintendent-of-Public-Instruction Whitford, J. M. Bingham
and Superintendent MacAlister.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_70_70" id="Footnote_70_70"></a><a href="#FNanchor_70_70"><span class="label">[70]</span></a> The delegates were Olympia Brown, <i>Racine</i>; L. C.
Galt, M. M. Frazier, <i>Mukwonago</i>; E. A. Brown, <i>Berlin</i>; E. M.
Cooley, <i>Eureka</i>; E. L. Woolcott, <i>Ripon</i>; O. M. Patton, M. D.,
<i>Appleton</i>; H. Suhm, E. Hohgrave, <i>Sauk City</i>; M. W. Mabbs, C. M.
Stowers, <i>Manitowoc</i>; S. C. Guernsey, <i>Janesville</i>; H. T. Patchin,
<i>New London</i>; Jennie Pomeroy, <i>Grand Rapids</i>; Mrs. H. W. Rice,
<i>Oconomowoc</i>; Amy Winship, <i>Racine</i>; Almedia B. Gray, Matilda
Graves, Jessie Gray, <i>Scholfield Mills</i>; Mrs. Mary Collins,
<i>Mukwonago</i>; Mrs. Jere Witter, <i>Grand Rapids</i>; Mrs. Lucina E.
DeWolff, <i>Whitewater</i>. The Milwaukee delegates were: Dr. Laura R.
Wolcott, Mme. Mathilde Franceske Anneke, Mrs. A. M. Bolds, Mrs. A.
Flagge, Agnes B. Campbell, Mary A. Rhienart, Matilda Pietsch, N. J.
Comstock, Sarah R. Munro, M. D., Juliet H. Severance, M. D., Mrs.
Emily Firega, Carl Doerflinger. Maximillian Grossman and Carl
Herman Boppe.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_71_71" id="Footnote_71_71"></a><a href="#FNanchor_71_71"><span class="label">[71]</span></a> 1. Silent Invocation. 2. Music. 3. Eulogy, Elizabeth
Cady Stanton. 4. Tributes, Frederick Douglass, Susan B. Anthony. 5.
Music. 6. Tributes, Robert Purvis, May Wright Sewall, Ph&oelig;be W.
Couzins. 7. Closing Hymn&mdash;"<i>Nearer, my God, to Thee</i>."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_72_72" id="Footnote_72_72"></a><a href="#FNanchor_72_72"><span class="label">[72]</span></a> Of the floral decorations, to which reference is made
above as contributing so largely to the handsome appearance of the
stage, the harp was furnished through Mr. Wormley in behalf of the
colored admirers of Mrs. Mott, and the <i>epergne</i> was provided for
the occasion by the National Association. There was also a basket
of flowers, conspicuous for its beauty, sent in by Senator Cameron
of Pennsylvania.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_73_73" id="Footnote_73_73"></a><a href="#FNanchor_73_73"><span class="label">[73]</span></a> The eulogy will be found in Volume I., page <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_407">407</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_74_74" id="Footnote_74_74"></a><a href="#FNanchor_74_74"><span class="label">[74]</span></a> See <i>National Citizen</i> of February, 1881.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_75_75" id="Footnote_75_75"></a><a href="#FNanchor_75_75"><span class="label">[75]</span></a> Edward M. Davis, Susan B. Anthony, Marilla M. Ricker,
Rachel and Julia Foster, Frederick Douglass, Belva A. Lockwood,
Robert Purvis, Elizabeth Cady Stanton. This was the first time that
Mrs. Martha M'Clellan Brown, Miss Jessie Waite, Mrs. May Wright
Sewall and Mrs. Thornton Charles were on our Washington platform.
The latter read a poem on woman's sphere.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_76_76" id="Footnote_76_76"></a><a href="#FNanchor_76_76"><span class="label">[76]</span></a> A standing committee is a permanent one about which
no question can be raised in any congress. A special committee is a
transient one to be decided upon at the opening of each congress;
hence may be at any time voted out of existence. No one understood
this better than New York's Stalwart senator, and his plausible
manner of killing the measure deceived the very elect. Enough
senators were pledged to have carried Mr. McDonald's motion had it
been properly understood, but they, as well as some of the ladies
in the gallery, were entirely misled by Mr. Conkling's seeming
earnest intention to hasten the demands of the women by a
short-lived committee, and while those in the gallery applauded,
those on the floor defeated the measure they intended to carry.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_77_77" id="Footnote_77_77"></a><a href="#FNanchor_77_77"><span class="label">[77]</span></a> <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Messrs. Beck, Booth, Brown, Coke, Davis (W.
Va.), Eaton, Edmunds, Farley, Garland, Groome, Hill (Ga.), Harris,
Ingalls, Kernan, Lamar, Morgan, Morrill, Pendleton, Platt, Pugh,
Ransom, Saulsbury, Slater, Vance, Vest and Withers&mdash;26.
</p><p>
<i>Nays</i>&mdash;Messrs. Anthony, Blair, Burnside, Butler, Call, Cameron
(Pa.), Cameron (Wis.), Conkling, Dawes, Ferry, Hoar, Johnston,
Jonas, Kellogg, Logan, McDonald, McMillan, McPherson, Rollins,
Saunders, Teller, Williams and Windom&mdash;23.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_78_78" id="Footnote_78_78"></a><a href="#FNanchor_78_78"><span class="label">[78]</span></a> Of this reception the <i>National Republican</i> said: The
attractions presented by the fair seekers of the ballot were so
much superior to those of the dancing reception going on in the
parlors above, that it was almost impossible to form a set of the
lanciers until after the gathering in the lower parlors had
entirely dispersed.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_79_79" id="Footnote_79_79"></a><a href="#FNanchor_79_79"><span class="label">[79]</span></a> Miss Anthony was presented with a beautiful basket of
flowers from Mrs. Mary Hamilton Williams of Fort Wayne, Ind., and
returned her thanks. Another interesting incident during the
proceedings of the convention was the presentation of an exquisite
gold cross from the "Philadelphia Citizens' Suffrage Association,"
to Miss Anthony. Mrs. Sewall of Indianapolis, in a speech so tender
and loving as to bring tears to many eyes, conveyed to her the
message and the gift. Miss Anthony's acceptance was equally happy
and impressive. As during the last thirty years the press of the
country has made Susan B. Anthony a target for more ridicule and
abuse than any other woman on the suffrage platform, it is worth
noting that all who know her now vie with each other in
demonstrations of love and honor.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_80_80" id="Footnote_80_80"></a><a href="#FNanchor_80_80"><span class="label">[80]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Providence</span>, R. I.&mdash;First Light Infantry Hall, May 30,
31. Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley gave the address of welcome.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Portland</span>, Me.&mdash;City Hall, June 2, 3. Rev. Dr. McKeown of the M. E.
Church made the address of welcome. Letter read from Dr. Henry C.
Garrish. Among the speakers were Charlotte Thomas, A. J. Grover.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Dover</span>, N. H.&mdash;Belknap Street Church, June 3, 4. Marilla M. Ricker
took the responsibility of this meeting.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Concord</span>, N. H.&mdash;White's Opera House, June 4, 5. Speakers
entertained by Mrs. Armenia Smith White. Olympia Brown and Miss
Anthony spoke before the legislature in Representatives
Hall&mdash;nearly all the members present&mdash;the latter returned on Sunday
and spoke on temperance and woman suffrage at the Opera House in
the afternoon, Universalist church in the evening.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Keene</span>, N. H.&mdash;Liberty, Hall, June 9, 10. Prayer offered by Rev. Mr.
Enkins. Mayor Russell presided and gave the address of welcome.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Hartford</span>, Ct.&mdash;Unity Hall. June 13, 14. Mrs. Hooker presiding;
Frances Ellen Burr, Emily P. Collins, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford,
Caroline Gilkey Rogers, Mary A. Pell taking part in the meetings.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">New Haven</span>, Ct.&mdash;Athæneum, June 15, 16. Joseph and Abby Sheldon,
Catherine Comstock and others entertained the visitors and
speakers.
</p><p>
The speakers who made the entire New England tour were Rev. Olympia
Brown, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Meriwether, the Misses Foster
and Miss Anthony. The arrangements for all these conventions were
made by Rachel Foster of Philadelphia.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_198" id="Page_198">[Pg 198]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXX" id="CHAPTER_XXX"></a>CHAPTER XXX.</h2>

<h3>CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND CONVENTIONS.</h3>

<h3>1882-1883.</h3>


<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Prolonged Discussions in the Senate on a Special Committee to
Look After the Rights of Women, Messrs. Bayard, Morgan and Vest
in Opposition&mdash;Mr. Hoar Champions the Measure in the Senate, Mr.
Reed in the House&mdash;Washington Convention&mdash;Representative Orth and
Senator Saunders on the Woman Suffrage Platform&mdash;Hearings Before
Select Committees of Senate and House&mdash;Reception Given by Mrs.
Spofford at the Riggs House&mdash;Philadelphia Convention&mdash;Mrs. Hannah
Whitehall Smith's Dinner&mdash;Congratulations from the Central
Committee of Great Britain&mdash;Majority and Minority Reports in the
Senate&mdash;Nebraska Campaign&mdash;Conventions in Omaha&mdash;Joint Resolution
Introduced by Hon. John D. White of Kentucky, Referred to the
Select Committee&mdash;Washington Convention, January 24, 25, 26,
1883&mdash;Majority Report in the House. </p>
</div>

<p><span class="sc">Although</span> the effort to secure a standing committee on the political
rights of women was defeated in the forty-sixth congress, by New
York's Stalwart Senator, Roscoe Conkling, motions were made early
in the first session of the forty-seventh congress, by Hon. George
F. Hoar in the Senate, and Hon. John D. White in the House, for a
special committee to look after the interests of women.<a name="FNanchor_81_81" id="FNanchor_81_81"></a><a href="#Footnote_81_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> It
passed by a vote of 115 to 84 in the House, and by 35 to 23 in the
Senate. On December 13, 1881, the Senate Committee on Rules
reported the following resolution for the appointment of a special
committee on woman suffrage:</p>

<blockquote>
<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a select committee of seven senators be
appointed by the Chair, to whom shall be referred all
petitions, bills and resolves providing for the extension of
suffrage to women or the removal of their legal
disabilities. </p></blockquote>

<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">December</span> 14.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I move to take up the resolution reported by the
Committee on Rules yesterday, for the appointment of a select
committee on the subject of woman suffrage.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: Mr. President, I am constrained to object to the passage
of this resolution, and I do it with considerable reluctance. At
present we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_199" id="Page_199">[Pg 199]</a></span> have thirty standing committees of the Senate; four
joint and seven special committees, in addition to the one now
proposed.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The Chair will inform the senator from
Missouri that a majority of the Senate has to decide whether the
resolution shall be considered.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: I understood the Chair to state that it was before the
Senate.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: It is before the Senate if there be no
objection. The Chair thought the senator made objection to its
consideration.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: It went over under the rule yesterday and comes up now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>: It is the regular order now.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: Certainly. The Chair thought the
senator from Missouri objected to its consideration.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: No, sir.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The resolution is before the Senate
and open to debate.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: I have had the honor for a few years to be a member of
the Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds, and my colleagues on
that committee will bear witness with me to the trouble and
annoyance which at every session have arisen in regard to giving
accommodations to the special committees. Two sessions ago there
was a conflict between the Senate and House in regard to furnishing
committee-rooms for three special committees, and it is only upon
the doctrine of <i>pedis possessio</i> that the Senate to-day holds
three committee-rooms in the capitol, the House still laying claim
as a matter of law, through their Committee on Public Buildings and
Grounds, for the possession of these rooms. At the special session,
on account of the exigencies in regard to rooms, we were compelled
to take the retiring-room assigned near the gallery to the ladies,
and cut it into two rooms, to accommodate select committees.</p>

<p>At this session we have created two special committees more, and I
should like to make the inquiry when and where this manufacture of
special committees is to cease? As soon as any subject becomes one
of comment in the newspapers, or, respectfully I say it, a hobby
with certain zealous partisans throughout the country, application
is made to the Senate of the United States and a special committee
is to be appointed. For this reason, and for the simple reason that
a stop must be had somewhere to the raising of special committees,
I oppose the proposition now before the Senate.</p>

<p>But, Mr. President, I will be entirely ingenuous and give another
reason. This is simply a step toward the recognition of woman
suffrage, and I am opposed to it upon principle in its inception.
In my judgment it has nothing but mischief in it to the
institutions and to the society of this whole country. I do not
propose to enter into a discussion of that subject to-day, but it
will be proper for me to make this statement, and I make it
intending no reflection upon the zealous ladies who have engaged
for the past ten years in manufacturing a public sentiment upon
this question. I received to-day a letter from a distinguished lady
in my<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_200" id="Page_200">[Pg 200]</a></span> own State, for whom I have personally the greatest
admiration and respect, calling my attention to the fact that I
propose to deny justice to the women of the country. Mr. President,
I deny it. It is because I believe that the conservative influence
of society in the United States rests with the women of the country
that I propose not to degrade the wife and mother to the ward
politician, the justice of the peace, or the notary public. It is
because I believe honestly that all the best influences for the
conservation of society rest upon the women of the country in their
proper sphere that I shall oppose this and every other step now and
henceforth as violating, as I believe, one of the great essential
fundamental laws of nature and of society.</p>

<p>Mr. President, the revenges of nature are sure and unerring, and
these revenges are just as certain in political matters and in
social matters as in the physical world. Now and here I desire to
record once for all my conviction that in this movement to take the
women of the country out of their proper sphere of social
influence, that great and glorious sphere in which nature and
nature's God have placed them, and rush them into the political
arena, the attempt is made to put them where they were never
intended to be; and I now and here record my opposition to it. This
may seem to be but a small matter, but as this letter shows, and I
reveal no private confidence, it recognizes the first great step in
this reform, as its advocates are pleased to term it. My practice
and conviction as a public man is to fight every wrong wherever I
believe it to exist. I am opposed to this movement. I am opposed to
it upon principle, upon conviction, and I shall call for the yeas
and nays in order to record my vote against it.</p>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">December</span> 15.</p>

<p>The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th inst.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: Mr. President, I disclaim any intention again to incite
or excite any general discussion in regard to woman suffrage. The
senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar], for whom I have very great
regard, was yesterday pleased to observe that the State governments
furnished by the senator from Missouri and other senators in the
past had been no argument in favor of manhood suffrage. Mr.
President, I have been under the impression that the American
people to-day are the best governed, the best clothed, the best
fed, the best housed, the happiest people upon the face of the
globe, and that, too, notwithstanding the fact that they have been
under the domination of the Republican party for twenty long years.
I have also been under the impression that the institutions of the
States and of the United States are an improvement upon all
governmental theories and schemes hitherto known to mortal man; but
we are to learn to-day from the senator from Massachusetts that
this government and the State governments have been failures, and
that woman suffrage must be introduced in order to purify the
political atmosphere and elevate the suffrage.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: Will the senator allow me to interrupt him for a moment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: Of course.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_201" id="Page_201">[Pg 201]</a></span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I desire to disclaim the meaning which the honorable
senator seems to have put upon my words. I agree with him that the
American governments have been the best on the face of the earth,
but it is because of their adoption of that principle of equality
more than any other government, the logical effect of which will
compel them to yield the right prayed for to women, that they are
the best. But still best as they are, I said, and mean to say, that
the business of governing mankind has been the one business on the
face of the earth which has been done most clumsily, which has
been, even where most excellent, full of mistakes, expense,
injustice, and wrong-doing. What I said was that I did not think
the persons to whom that privileged function had been committed so
far were entitled to claim any special superiority for the
masculine intellect in the results which it had achieved.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: To say that the governments, State and national, now in
existence upon this continent are imperfect is but to announce the
truism that everything made by man is necessarily imperfect. But I
stand here to declare to-day that the governments of the States,
and the national government, in theory, although failing sometimes
in practice, are a standing monument to the genius and intellect of
the men who created them. But the senator from Massachusetts was
pleased to say further, that woman suffrage should obtain in this
country in the interest of education. I permit not that senator to
go further than myself in the line of universal public education. I
have declared, over and over again, in every county in my State for
the past ten years, that universal education should accompany
universal suffrage, that the school-house should crown every mound
in prairie and forest, that it was the temple of liberty and the
altar of law and order.</p>

<p>I well remember that I was thrilled with the eloquence of the
distinguished senator from Massachusetts at the last session of the
last congress, when, upon a bill to provide for general education
by a donation of the public lands, he so pathetically and justly
described the mass of dark ignorance and illiteracy projected upon
the people of the South under the policy of the Republican party,
and the senator then stood here and said that the people of
Massachusetts extended the public lands to relieve the people of
the South from this monstrous burden. What does the senator propose
to do to-day? He proposes with one stroke of the pen to double, and
more than double, the illiterate suffrage of the United States. The
senator says that one-half the people of the United States are
represented in this measure of woman suffrage. I deny it, sir. If
the senator means that the women of America, comprising one-half of
the population, are interested in this measure, I deny it most
emphatically and most peremptorily. Not one-tenth of them want it.
Not one-tenth of the mothers and sisters and Christian women of
this land want to be turned into politicians or to meddle in a
sphere to which God and nature have not assigned them.</p>

<p>Sir, there are some ladies&mdash;and I do not intend to term them
anything but ladies&mdash;who are zealously engaged in this cause, and
they have flooded this hall with petitions, and have called their
women's rights conventions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_202" id="Page_202">[Pg 202]</a></span> all over the land. I assail not their
motives, but I deny that they represent the women of the United
States. I say that if woman suffrage obtains, the worst class of
the women of the country will rush to the polls and the best class
will remain away by a large majority. That is my deliberate
judgment and firm conviction. But, Mr. President, a word in regard
to the committees. I desire no general discussion upon woman
suffrage, and simply alluded in passing to what had been said by
the senator from Massachusetts.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The hour of one o'clock has arrived,
and the morning hour is closed.</p>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">December</span> 16.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> of Florida: I desire to call up a resolution now lying on
the table, which I introduced on the 14th instant, calling for
information from the Secretary of War touching a ship-canal across
the peninsula of Florida.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: Mr. President&mdash;</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The senator from Florida asks leave to
call up a resolution submitted by him.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: My resolution was before the Senate yesterday, and comes
up in order. I hope we shall vote on it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> of Florida: I will only say that my resolution was laid
over temporarily on the objection of the senator from Vermont [Mr.
Edmunds], which he will not insist upon.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: Allow me to call the attention of the Chair to the fact;
it is not the question of a resolution which has not been taken up.
The resolution reported by me from the Committee on Rules was taken
up, and was under discussion when the senator from Missouri [Mr.
Vest] was taken from the floor by the expiration of the morning
hour, in the midst of his remarks. Certainly his right to conclude
his remarks takes precedence of other business under the usual
practice of the Senate.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The Chair thought the senator from
Missouri had ended his remarks, or he would not have interposed
when he did.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: No, sir.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> of Florida: My resolution involves no debate. It is
merely a resolution of inquiry.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: The other will be disposed of, I hope, in a few moments.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> of Florida: The resolution to which I refer went over
informally on the objection of the senator from Vermont, and I
think he has no objection now.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: The other will be disposed of in a moment, and I hope we
shall vote on it.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The Chair lays before the Senate the
resolution of the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar].</p>

<p>The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th instant.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The Chair would state to the senator
from Missouri [Mr. Vest] that the Chair supposed yesterday that he
had finished<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_203" id="Page_203">[Pg 203]</a></span> his remarks, or the Chair would not have stopped him
at that moment. The question is on agreeing to the resolution, on
which the senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest] is entitled to the
floor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: Mr. President, I was on the eve of finishing my remarks
yesterday when the morning hour expired, and I do not now wish to
detain the Senate. I was about to say at that time that the Senate
now has forty-one committees, with a small army of messengers and
clerks, one-half of whom, without exaggeration, are literally
without employment. I shall not pretend to specify the committees
of this body which have not one single bill, resolution, or
proposition of any sort pending before them, and have not had for
months. I am very well aware that if I should name one of them,
Liberty would lie bleeding in the streets at once, and that
committee would become the most important on the list of committees
of the Senate. I shall not venture to do that. I am informed by the
Sergeant-at-arms that if this resolution is adopted he must have
six additional messengers to be added to that body of ornamental
employés who now stand or sit at the doors of the respective
committee-rooms. I have heard that this committee is for the
purpose of giving a committee to a senator in this body. I have
heard the statement made, but I cannot believe it, and I am very
certain that no senator will undertake to champion the resolution
upon any such ground.</p>

<p>The senator from Massachusetts was pleased to say that the
Committee on the Judiciary had so many important questions pending
before it, that the subject of woman suffrage should not be added
to them. The Committee on Territories is open to any complaint or
suggestion by the ladies who advocate woman suffrage, in regard to
this subject in the territories; and the Committee on Privileges
and Elections to which this subject should go most appropriately,
as affecting the suffrage, has not now before it, as I am informed,
one single bill, resolution, or proposition of any sort whatever.
That committee is also open to inquiry upon this subject.</p>

<p>But, Mr. President, out of all committees without business, and
habitually without business, in this body, there is one that beyond
any question could take jurisdiction of this matter and do it ample
justice. I refer to that most respectable and antique institution,
the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. For thirty years it has been
without business. For thirty long years the placid surface of that
parliamentary sea has been without one single ripple. If the
senator from Massachusetts desires a tribunal for calm judicial
equilibrium and examination, a tribunal far from the "madding
crowd's ignoble strife," a tribunal eminently respectable,
dignified and unique, why not send this question to the Committee
on Revolutionary Claims? When I name the <i>personnel</i> of that
committee it will be evident that any consideration on any subject
touching the female sex would receive not only deliberate but
immediate attention, for the second member upon that committee is
my distinguished friend from Florida [Mr. Jones], and who can doubt
that he would give his undivided attention to the subject?
[Laughter.] It is eminently proper that this subject should go to
that committee because if there is any revolutionary claim in this
country it is that of woman suffrage. [Laughter.] It
revolutionizes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_204" id="Page_204">[Pg 204]</a></span> society; it revolutionizes religion; it
revolutionizes the constitution and laws; and it revolutionizes the
opinions of those so old-fashioned among us as to believe that the
legitimate and proper sphere of woman is the family circle as wife
and mother and not as politician and voter&mdash;those of us who are
proud to believe that&mdash;</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">A woman's noblest station is retreat;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Her fairest virtues fly from public sight;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Domestic worth&mdash;that shuns too strong a light.<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>Before that Committee on Revolutionary Claims why could not this
most revolutionary of all claims receive immediate and ample
attention? More than that, as I said before, if there is any
tribunal that could give undivided time and dignified attention, is
it not this committee? If there is one peaceful haven of rest,
never disturbed by any profane bill or resolution of any sort, it
is the Committee on Revolutionary Claims. It is, in parliamentary
life, described by that ecstatic verse in Watts' hymn:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">There shall I bathe my wearied soul<br /></span>
<span class="i1">In seas of endless rest,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And not one wave of trouble roll<br /></span>
<span class="i1">Across my peaceful breast.<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>For thirty years there has been no excitement in that committee,
and it needs to-day, in Western phrase, some "stirring-up." By all
natural laws stagnation breeds disease and death; and what could
stir up this most venerable and respectable institution more than
an application of the strong-minded, with short hair and shorter
skirts, invading its dignified realm and elucidating all the
excellences of female suffrage? Moreover, if these ladies could
ever succeed, in the providence of God, in obtaining a report from
that committee, it would end this question forever; for the public
at large and myself included, in view of that miracle of female
blandishment and female influence, would surrender at once, and
female suffrage would become constitutional and lawful. Sir, I
insist upon it that in deference to this committee, in deference to
the fact that it needs this sort of regimen and medicine, this
whole subject should be so referred. [Laughter.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morrill</span>: Mr. President, I do not desire to say anything as to
the merits of the resolution, but I understand the sole purpose of
raising this committee is to have a committee-room. So far as I
know, there are some five or six committees now which are destitute
of rooms, and it would be impossible for the Committee on Public
Buildings and Grounds to assign any room to this committee&mdash;the
object which I understand is at the foundation of the introduction
of the proposition; that is to say, to give these ladies an
opportunity to be heard in some appropriate committee-room on the
questions which they wish to agitate and submit.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: They would find room in some other committee-room. They
could have the room of the Committee on Privileges and Elections,
if there were no other place.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The question is on the adoption of the
resolution reported by the senator from Massachusetts.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_205" id="Page_205">[Pg 205]</a></span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Harris</span>: Did not the senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest] offer an
amendment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Garland</span>: As I understand, he moved to refer the subject to the
Committee on Revolutionary Claims.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: Does the Chair understand that the
senator from Missouri has offered an amendment?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span>: Yes, sir; I move to refer the matter to the Committee on
Revolutionary Claims.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Conger</span>: Let the resolution be reported.</p>

<p>The acting secretary read the resolution.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The senator from Missouri offers an
amendment, that the subject be referred to the standing Committee
on Revolutionary Claims. The question is on the amendment of the
senator from Missouri. [Putting the question.] The noes appear to
have it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Farley</span> called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered and
taken.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Blair</span> [after having voted in the negative]: I have voted
inadvertently. I am paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr.
Pugh]. Were he present he would have voted "yea," as I have voted
"nay." I withdraw my vote.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Windom</span>: I am paired with the senator from West Virginia [Mr.
Davis], but as I understand he would vote "nay" on this question, I
vote "nay."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ingalls</span>: I am paired with the senator from Mississippi [Mr.
Lamar].</p>

<p>The result was announced&mdash;yeas 22, nays 31. So the motion was not
agreed to.</p>

<p>The<span class="smcap"> President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The question recurs on the adoption of
the resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bayard</span>: Is it in order for me to move the reference of the
subject to the Committee on the Judiciary?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: It is in order to move to refer the
resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chair
understands.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bayard</span>: Then I make a motion that the resolution be sent to the
Committee on the Judiciary. I would state that I voted with some
regret and hesitancy upon the motion of the senator from Missouri
[Mr. Vest] to refer this matter to the Committee on Revolutionary
Claims. My regret was owing to the fact that I do not wish even to
seem to treat a subject of this character in a spirit of levity, or
to indicate the slightest disrespect by such a reference, to those
whose opinions upon this subject differ essentially from my own. I
cast the vote because I considered it would be taking the subject
virtually away from the consideration of congress at its present
session. I do, however, hold that there is no necessity for the
creation of a special committee to attend to this subject. The
Committee on the Judiciary has within the last few years, upon many
occasions, attempted to deal with it. Since you, sir, and I have
been members of that committee&mdash;</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: Mr. President<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_206" id="Page_206">[Pg 206]</a></span>&mdash;</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: Will the senator from Delaware yield
to the senator from Massachusetts?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bayard</span>: I will, if he thinks it necessary to interrupt me.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I desire to ask the senator, if he is willing, having
been lately a member of the committee to which he refers, whether
it is not the rule of that committee to allow no hearings to
individual petitioners, a rule which is departed from only in very
rare and peculiar cases?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bayard</span>: I will reply to the honorable senator that the occasion
which arose to my mind and caused me to remember the action of that
committee was the audience given by it to a very large delegation
of woman suffragists, <i>to wit</i>, the representatives of a convention
held in this city, who to the number, I think, of twenty-five, came
into the committee-room of the Committee on the Judiciary, and were
heard, as I remember, for more than one day, or certainly had more
than one hearing, before that committee, of which you, sir, and I
were members.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: If the senator will pardon me, however, he has not
answered my question. I asked the senator not whether on one
particular occasion they gave a hearing on this subject, but
whether it is not the rule of that committee, occasioned by the
necessity of its business, from which it departs only in very rare
cases, not to give hearings?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bayard</span>: I cannot answer whether a rule so defined as that
suggested by the honorable senator from Massachusetts exists in
that committee. It is my impression, however, that cases are
frequently, by order of that committee, argued before it. We have
had very elaborate and able arguments upon subjects connected with
the Pacific railroads, I remember; and we have had arguments upon
various subjects. It is constantly our pleasure to hear members of
the Senate upon a variety of questions before that committee. It
may be only a proof that women's rights are not unrecognized nor
their influence unfelt when I state the fact that if there be such
a rule as is suggested by the honorable senator from Massachusetts
of excluding persons from the audience of that committee, on the
occasion of the application of the ladies a hearing was granted,
and they came in force,&mdash;not only force in numbers, but force in
the character and intelligence of those who appeared before the
committee. They were listened to with great respect, but their
views were not concurred in by the committee as it was then
composed. We were all entertained by the bright wit, the clever
and, in my judgment, in many respects, the just sarcasm of our
honorable friend from Missouri [Mr. Vest], but my habit is not to
consider public measures in a jocular light; it is not to consider
a question of this kind in a jocular light. Whatever may be the
merits or demerits of this proposition, whatever may be the reasons
for or against it, no man can doubt that it will strike at the very
roots of the present organization of society, and that its
consequences will be most profound and far-reaching should the
advocates of the measure proposed prevail.</p>

<p>Therefore it is that I think this subject should not be considered
separately; it should not have a special committee&mdash;either of
advocates or opponents arranged for its consideration; but it
should go where proposed amendments to the fundamental law of the
land have always been sent for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_207" id="Page_207">[Pg 207]</a></span> consideration,&mdash;to that committee
to which judicial questions, questions of a constitutional nature,
have always in the history of this government been committed. There
is no need, there is no justice, there is no wisdom in attempting
to separate the fate of this question, which affects society so
profoundly and generally, from the other questions that affect
society. It cannot be made a specialty: it ought not to be. You
cannot tear this question from the great contest of human passions,
affections, and interests which surround it, and treat it as a
thing by itself. It has many sides from which it may be viewed,
some that are not proper or fitting for this forum, and a
discussion now in public. There are the claims of religion itself
to be considered in connection with this case. Civil rights, social
rights, political rights, religious rights, all are bound up in the
consideration of a measure like this. In its consideration you
cannot safely attempt to segregate this question and leave it
untouched and uninfluenced by all those other questions by which it
is surrounded and in the consideration of which it is bound to be
connected and concerned. Therefore, without going further,
prematurely, into a discussion of the merits of the proposition
itself or its desirability, I say that it should take the usual
course which the practice and laws of this body have given to grave
public questions. Let it go to the Committee on the Judiciary, and
let them, under their sense of duty, deal with it according to its
gravity and importance, and if it be here returned let it be passed
upon by the grave deliberations of the Senate itself. I hope the
special committee proposed will not be raised, and I trust the
Senate will concur with me in thinking that the subject should be
sent to the Committee on the Judiciary.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span> rose.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The morning hour has expired.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span>: I want to say just one word.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: It requires unanimous consent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span>: I do not wish to make a speech; I merely desire to say a
word in response to what the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] has
said in relation to the reference to the Judiciary Committee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Harris</span>: I ask unanimous consent that the senator from Illinois
may proceed.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: There being no objection unanimous
consent will be presumed to have been given for the senator from
Illinois to make his explanation.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Logan</span>: This question having been once before the Judiciary
Committee, and it being a request by many ladies, who are citizens
of the United States just as we are, that they should have a
special committee of the Senate before which they can be heard, I
deem it proper and right, without any committal whatever in
reference to my own views, that they should have that committee. It
is nothing but fair, just, and right that they should have a
committee organized as nearly as can be in the Senate in favor of
the views they desire to present. It is treating them only as other
citizens would desire to be treated before a body of this
character. I am, therefore, opposed to the reference of the
proposition to the Judiciary Committee, and I hope the Senate will
give these ladies a special committee<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_208" id="Page_208">[Pg 208]</a></span> where they can be heard, and
that that committee may be so organized as that it will be as
favorable to their views as possible, so that they may have a fair
hearing. That is all I desire to say.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morrill</span>: I hope this subject will be concluded this morning,
otherwise it is to come up constantly and monopolize all the time
of the morning hour. I do not think it will require many minutes
more to dispose of it now.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The Chair will entertain a motion on
that subject.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morrill</span>: I move to set aside other business until this
resolution shall be disposed of. If it should continue any length
of time of course I would withdraw the suggestion.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The senator from Vermont&mdash;</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Voorhees</span>: Mr. President, I feel constrained to call for the
regular order.</p>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">December</span> 19, 1881.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: Are there further "concurrent or other
resolutions"?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I call up the resolution in regard to woman suffrage,
reported by me from the Committee on Rules.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> of Florida: I ask for information how long the morning
hour is to extend?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The regular business of the morning
hour is closed. The morning hour, however, will not expire until
twenty minutes past one. The senator from Massachusetts asks to
have taken up the resolution reported by him from the Committee on
Rules.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I hope we may have a vote on the resolution this morning.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The question is on the amendment
proposed by the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard], that the
subject be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: It is not intended by the resolution to commit the
Senate, or any senator in the slightest degree to any opinion upon
the question of woman suffrage, but it is merely the question of a
convenient mode of hearing. I hope we shall be allowed to have a
vote on the resolution.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: Is the Senate ready for the question
on the motion of the senator from Delaware?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bayard</span> and Mr. <span class="smcap">Farley</span> called for the yeas and nays, and they
were ordered.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Beck</span>: Mr. President, I have received a number of communications
from very respectable ladies in my own State upon this important
question; but I am unable to comply with their request and support
the female suffrage which they advocate. I shall vote for the
reference to the Committee on the Judiciary in order that there may
be a thorough investigation of the question. I wholly disagree with
the suggestion of the senator from Illinois [Mr. Logan], that a
committee ought to be appointed as favorable to the views of these
ladies as possible. I desire a committee that will have no views,
for or against them, except what is best for the public good. Such
a committee I understand the Committee on the Judiciary to be.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_209" id="Page_209">[Pg 209]</a></span></p>

<p>I desire to say only in a word that the difficulty I have and the
question I desire the Committee on the Judiciary to report upon is,
the effect of this question upon suffrage. By the fifteenth
amendment to the Constitution of the United States there can be no
discrimination made in regard to voting on account of race, color
or previous condition. Intelligence is properly regarded as one of
the fundamental principles of fair suffrage. We have been compelled
in the last ten years to allow all the colored men of the South to
become voters. There is a mass of ignorance there to be absorbed
that will take years and years of care in order to bring that class
up to the standard of intelligent voters. The several States are
addressing themselves to that task as earnestly as possible. Now it
is proposed that all the women of the country shall vote; that all
the colored women of the South, who are as much more ignorant than
the colored men as it is possible to imagine, shall vote. Not one
perhaps in a hundred of them can read or write. The colored men
have had the advantages of communication with other men in a
variety of forms. Many of them have considerable intelligence; but
the colored women have not had equal chances. Take them from their
wash-tubs and their household work and they are absolutely ignorant
of the new duties of voting citizens. The intelligent ladies of the
North and the West and the South cannot vote without extending that
privilege to that class of ignorant colored people. I doubt whether
any man will say that it is safe for the republic now, when we are
going through the problem we are obliged to solve, to fling in this
additional mass of ignorance upon the suffrage of the country. Why,
sir, a rich corporation or a body of men of wealth could buy them
up for fifty cents apiece, and they would vote without knowing what
they were doing for the side that paid most. Yet we are asked to
confer suffrage upon them, and to have a committee appointed as
favorable to that view as possible, so as to get a favorable report
upon it!</p>

<p>I want the Committee on the Judiciary to tell the congress and the
country whether they think it is good policy now to confer suffrage
on all the colored women of the South, ignorant as they are known
to be, and thus add to the ignorance that we are now struggling
with, and whether the republic can be sustained upon such a basis
as that. For that reason, and because I want that information from
an unbiased committee, because I know that suffrage has been
degraded sufficiently already, and because it would be degraded
infinitely more if a report favorable to this extension of suffrage
should be adopted and passed through congress, I am opposed to this
movement. No matter if there are a number of respectable ladies who
are competent to vote and desire it to be done, because of the very
fact that they cannot be allowed this privilege without giving all
the mass of ignorant colored women in the country the right to
vote, thus bringing in a mass of ignorance that would crush and
degrade the suffrage of this country almost beyond conception, I
shall vote to refer the subject to the Judiciary Committee, and I
shall await their report with a good deal of anxiety.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morgan</span>: Mr. President<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_210" id="Page_210">[Pg 210]</a></span>&mdash;</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The morning hour has expired, and the
unfinished business is before the Senate.</p>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">December 20, 1881.</span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I now call up the resolution for appointing a special
committee on woman suffrage.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The morning hour having expired, the
senator from Massachusetts calls up the resolution which was under
consideration yesterday.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Ingalls</span>: What is the regular order?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: There is no regular unfinished
business. The senator from Florida [Mr. Call] gave notice yesterday
that he would ask the indulgence of the Senate to-day to consider
the subject of homestead rights.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I hope this matter may be disposed of. It is very
unpleasant to me to stand before the Senate in this way, taking up
its time with this matter in a five minutes' debate every day in
succession for an unlimited period of time. It is a matter which
every senator understands. It has nothing to do with the merits of
the woman suffrage question at all. It is a mere desire on the part
of these people to have a particular form of hearing, which seems
to me the most convenient for the Senate, and I hope the Senate
will be willing to vote on the resolution and let it pass.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morgan</span>: I have no objection to proceeding to the consideration
of the resolution, but I desire to address the Senate upon it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I think I must ask now as a favor of the senator from
Alabama that he let the resolution be disposed of promptly.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The senator from Alabama states that
he has no objection to the present consideration of the resolution,
but he asks leave to make some remarks upon it. The Chair hearing
no objection to the consideration of the resolution, it is before
the Senate.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Farley</span>: I object to the consideration of the resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I move to take it up.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The senator from Massachusetts calls
it up as a matter of right. If a majority of the Senate agree to
take up the resolution it is before the Senate, and the Chair will
put the question. The question is on agreeing to the motion of the
senator from Massachusetts to proceed to the consideration of the
resolution. [The motion was agreed to; and the Senate resumed the
consideration of the resolution reported from the Committee on
Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th instant, which was read.]</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The pending question is on the motion
of the senator from Delaware [Mr. Bayard] to refer the subject to
the Committee on the Judiciary, on which the yeas and nays have
been ordered.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Morgan</span>: Mr. President, I stand in a different relation to this
question from that of the senator from Kentucky [Mr. Beck], who
said yesterday that he had received a number of communications from
very respectable ladies in his own State upon this very important
subject, and yet felt constrained by a sense of duty to deny the
action which they solicited at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_211" id="Page_211">[Pg 211]</a></span> the hands of congress. I am not
informed that any woman from Alabama has ever sent a petition to
the Senate, or to either house, upon this matter. Indeed, it is my
impression that no petitions or letters have ever been addressed by
any lady in the State of Alabama to either house of congress upon
this question. It may be that that peculiar type of civilization
which drives women from their homes to the ballot-box to seek
redress and protection against their husbands has never yet reached
the State of Alabama, and I shall not be disagreeably disappointed
if it should never come upon our people, for they have lived in
harmony and in prosperity now for many years. Besides the relief
which the State has seen proper to give to married women in respect
of their separate estates, we have not thought it wise or politic
in any sense to go further and undertake to make a line of
demarkation between the husband and wife as politicians. On the
contrary, according to our estimate of a proper civilization, we
look to the family relation as being the true foundation of our
republican institutions. Strike out the family relation, disband
the family, destroy the proper authority of the person at the head
of the family, either the wife or the husband, and you take from
popular government all legitimate foundation.</p>

<p>The measure which is now brought before the Senate of the United
States is but the initial measure of a series which has been urged
upon the attention of States and territories, and upon the
attention of the Congress of the United States in various forms to
draw a line of political demarkation through a man's household,
through his fireside, and to open to the intrusion of politics and
politicians that sacred circle of the family where no man should be
permitted to intrude without the consent of both the heads of the
family. What picture could be more disagreeable or more disgusting
than to have a pot-house politician introduce himself into a
gentleman's family, with his wife seated at one side of the
fireplace and himself at the other, and this man coming between to
urge arguments why the wife should oppose the policy that the
husband advocates, or that the husband should oppose the policy
that the wife advocates?</p>

<p>If this measure means anything it is a proposition that the Senate
of the United States shall first vote to carry into effect this
unjust and improper intrusion into the home circle. Suppose this
resolution to raise a select committee should be passed: that
committee will have its hands full and its ears full of petitions
and applications and speeches from strong-minded women, and of
course it must make some report to the Senate; and we shall have
this subject introduced in here as one that requires a peculiar
application of the powers of the Senate for its digestion and for
the completion of the bills and measures founded upon it. At the
next session of congress this select committee will become a
standing committee of the Senate, and then we shall have that which
appears to be the most potential and at the same time the most
dangerous element in politics to-day, agitation, agitation,
agitation. It seems that the legislators of the United States
Government are not to be allowed to pass in quiet judgment upon
measures of this character, but like many other things which are
addressing themselves to the attention of the people on this side
of the water and the other, they must all be moved against the
Senate and against the House<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_212" id="Page_212">[Pg 212]</a></span> by agitation. You raise your
committee and allow the agitators to come before them, yea, more
than that, you invite them to come; and what is the result? The
Congress of the United States will for the next ten or perhaps
twenty years be continually assailed for special and peculiar
legislation in favor of the women of the land.</p>

<p>I do not understand that a woman in this country has any more right
to a select committee than a man has. It would be just as rational
and as proper in every legislative and parliamentary sense to have
a select committee for the consideration of the rights of men as to
have a committee for the consideration of the rights of women. I
object, sir, to this disseverance between the sexes, and I object
to the Senate of the United States giving its sanction in advance
or in any way to this character of legislation. It is a false
principle, and it will work evil, and only evil, in this country.</p>

<p>What jurisdiction do you expect to exercise in the Senate of the
United States for the benefit of the women in respect of suffrage
or in respect of separate estates? Where are the boundaries of your
jurisdiction? You find them in the territories and in the District
of Columbia. If you expect to proceed into the States you must have
the Constitution of the United States amended so as to put our
wives and our daughters upon the footing of those who are provided
for in the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. Your jurisdiction
is limited to the territories and to the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>Inasmuch as this measure, I understand, has been made a party
measure by the decree of a caucus, I propose to make some little
inquiry into the past legislation of the Congress of the United
States under Republican rule in respect of the extension of the
right of suffrage to certain classes of people in this country. I
will take up first the territories.</p>

<p>Let us look for a moment at the result of woman suffrage in some of
the territories. The territorial legislature of Utah has gone
forward and conferred the right of suffrage upon women. The
population in the last decade has reached from 64,000, I believe,
to about 150,000. The territorial legislature of Utah conferred
upon the females of that territory the right of suffrage, and how
have they exercised that right? Sir, I am ashamed to say it, but it
is known to the world that the power of Mormonism and polygamy in
Utah territory is sustained by female suffrage. You cannot get rid
of those laws. Ninety per cent. of the legislative power of Utah
territory is Mormon and polygamous. If female suffrage is to be
incorporated into the laws of our country with a view to the
amelioration of our morals or our political sentiments, we stand
aghast at the spectacle of what has been wrought by its exercise in
the territory of Utah. There stands a power supporting the crime of
polygamy through what they call a divine inspiration, or teaching
from God, and all the power of the judges of the United States and
of the Congress of the United States has been unavailing to break
it down. Who have upheld it? Those who in the family circle
represent one husband to fifteen women. A continual accumulation of
the power of the church and of polygamy is going on, and when the
Gentiles, as they are called, enter that territory with the view of
breaking it up they are confronted by the women, who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_213" id="Page_213">[Pg 213]</a></span> are allowed
to vote, and from whom we should naturally expect a better and a
higher morality in reference to subjects of the kind. But this only
shows the power of man over woman. It only shows how through her
tender affections, her delicate sensibilities, and her confiding
spirit she can be made the very slave and bond-servant of man, and
can scarcely ever be made an independent participant in the
stronger exercise of the powers which God seems to have intrusted
to him. Never was there a picture more disgusting or more
condemnatory of the extension of the franchise to women as
contradistinguished from men than is presented in the territory of
Utah to-day.</p>

<p>Where is the necessity of raising the number of voters in the
United States from 10,000,000 to 20,000,000? That would be the
direct effect of conferring suffrage upon the women, for they are
at least one-half, if not a little more than one-half, of the
entire population of the country above the age of twenty-one. We
have now masses of voters so enormous in numbers as that it seems
to be almost beyond the power of the law to execute the purposes of
the elective franchise with justice, with propriety, and without
crime. How much would these difficulties and these intrinsic
troubles be increased if we should raise the number of voters from
10,000,000 to 20,000,000 in the United States? That would be the
direct and immediate effect of conferring the franchise upon the
women. What would be the next effect of such an extension of the
suffrage? It was described by my friend from Missouri [Mr. Vest]
and by other senators who have spoken upon this subject. The effect
would be to drive the ladies of the land, as they are termed, the
well-bred and well-educated women, the women of nice sensibilities,
within their home circle, there to remain, while the ruder of that
sex would thrust themselves out on the hustings and at the
ballot-box, and fight their way to the polls through negroes and
others who are not the best of company even at the polls, to say
nothing of the disgrace of association with them. You would
paralyze one-third at least of the women of this land by the very
vulgarity of the overture made to them that they should go
struggling to the polls in order to vote in common with the herd of
men. They would not undertake it. The most intelligent and
trustworthy part of the suffrage thus placed upon the land would
never be available, while that which was not worthy of respect
either for its character or for its information would take the
matter in hand and move along in the circle of politicians to cast
their suffrages at the ballot-box.</p>

<p>As the States to be formed out of the territories are admitted into
the Union, they will come stamped with the characteristics which
the legislatures of the territories have imprinted upon them; and
if after due consideration in those territories the men who have
the regulation of public affairs should come to the conclusion that
it was best to have woman suffrage, then we can allow them, under
existing laws, to go on and perfect their systems and apply for
admission into the Union with them as they may choose to adopt them
and to shape them. The law upon that subject as it exists is
liberal enough, for it gives to the legislatures the right to
regulate the qualifications of suffrage. It leaves it to each
local<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_214" id="Page_214">[Pg 214]</a></span> community, wherever it may be throughout the territories of
the United States, to determine for itself what it may prefer to
have.</p>

<p>Is it the object in the raising of this committee only that it
shall have so many speeches made, so much talk about it, or is it
to be the object of the committee to have legislation brought here?
If you bring legislation here, what will you bring? An amendment to
the constitution like the fourteenth amendment, or else some
provision obligatory upon the territories by which female suffrage
shall be allowed there, whether the people want it or whether they
do not? For my part, before this session of congress ends I intend
to introduce a bill to repeal woman suffrage in the territory of
Utah, knowing and believing that that will be the most effectual
remedy for the extirpation of polygamy in that unfortunate
territory. If you choose to repeal the laws of any territory
conferring the right of suffrage upon women you have the power in
congress to do it; but there are no measures introduced here and
none advocated in that direction. The whole drift of this movement
is in the other direction. This committee is sought to be raised
either for the accommodation of some senator who wants a
chairmanship and a clerk, or it is sought to be raised for the
purpose of encouraging a raid on the laws and traditions of this
country, which I think would end in our total demoralization, I
therefore oppose this measure in the beginning, and I expect to
oppose it as far as it may go.</p>

<p>Now let us notice for a moment the case of the District of
Columbia. There are some senators here who have given themselves a
great deal of trouble in the advocacy of the right of suffrage of
the people of the United States, and especially of the colored
people. They put themselves to great trouble, and doubtless at some
expense of feeling, to worry and beset and harry gentlemen who come
from certain States of this Union, in reference to the votes of the
negroes: and yet these very gentlemen have been either in this
House or in the other when the Republican party has had a
two-thirds majority of both branches and has deliberately taken
from the people of the District of Columbia the right to elect any
officer from a constable to a mayor, all because when the
experiment was tried here it was found that the negroes were a
little too strong. There was too much African suffrage in the
ballot-box, and they must get rid of it, and to get rid of it on
terms of equality they have disfranchised every man in the District
of Columbia.</p>

<p>I shall have more faith in the sincerity of the declarations of
gentlemen of their desire to have the women vote when I see that
they have made some step toward the restoration of the right of
suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia. While they let
this blot remain upon our law, while they allow this damning
conviction to stand, they may stare us in the face and accuse us
continually of a want of candor and sincerity on this subject, but
they will address their arguments to me in vain, even as coming
from men who have an infatuation upon the subject. I do not believe
a word of it, Mr. President.</p>

<p>I cannot be convinced against these facts that this new movement in
favor of female suffrage means anything more than to add another
patch<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_215" id="Page_215">[Pg 215]</a></span> to the worn-out garment of Republicanism, which they patched
with Mahoneism in Virginia, with repudiation elsewhere, and which
they now seek to patch further by putting on the delicate little
silk covering of woman suffrage. I do not believe that this
movement has its root and branch in any sincere desire to give to
the women of this land the right of suffrage. I think it is a mere
party movement with a view of attempting to draw into the reach of
the Republican party some little support from the sympathy and
interest they suppose the ladies will take in their cause if they
should advocate it here. No bill, perhaps, is expected to be
reported. The committee will sit and listen and profess to be
charmed and enlightened and instructed by what may be said, and
then the subject will be passed by without any actual effort to
secure the passage of a bill.</p>

<p>Introduce your bills and let them go to the Judiciary Committee,
where the rights of men are to be considered as well as the rights
of women. If this subject is of that pressing national importance
which senators seem to think it is, it is not to be supposed that
the Committee on the Judiciary will fail to give it profound and
early attention. When you bring a select committee forward under
the circumstances under which this is to be raised, you must not
expect us to give credit generally to the idea that the real
purpose is to advance the cause of woman suffrage, but rather that
the real purpose is to advance the cause of political domination in
this country. I can see no reason for the raising of this select
committee, unless it be to furnish some senator, as I have
remarked, with a clerk and messenger. If that were the avowed
reason or could even be intimated, I think I should be disposed to
yield that courtesy to the senator, whoever he might be; but I
cannot do it under the false pretext that the real object is to
bring forward measures here for the introduction of woman suffrage
into the District of Columbia, where we have no suffrage, or into
the territories, where they have all the suffrage that the
territorial legislatures see proper to give them. I therefore shall
oppose the resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Bayard</span>: I move the that Senate proceed to the consideration of
executive business. [The motion was agreed to.]</p>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">January</span> 9, 1882.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I now ask for the consideration of the resolution
relating to a select committee on woman suffrage.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: There being ten minutes left of the
morning hour, the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] asks for
the consideration of the resolution relating to woman suffrage. The
pending question is on the motion of the senator from Delaware [Mr.
Bayard] to refer the subject-matter to the Committee on the
Judiciary, on which the yeas and nays have been ordered.</p>

<p>The principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Butler</span> (when Mr. Pugh's name was called): I was requested by
the senator from Alabama [Mr. Pugh] to announce his pair with the
senator from New York [Mr. Miller].</p>

<p>The roll-call was concluded.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_216" id="Page_216">[Pg 216]</a></span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Teller</span>: On this question I am paired with the senator from
Alabama [Mr. Morgan]. If the senator from Alabama were present, I
should vote "nay."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McPherson</span> (after having voted in the affirmative): I rise to
ask the privilege of withdrawing my vote. I am paired with my
colleague [Mr. Sewell] on all political questions, and this seems
to have taken a political shape.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The senator from New Jersey withdraws
his vote.</p>

<p>The result was announced&mdash;yeas 27, nays 31. So the motion was not
agreed to.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The question recurs on the adoption of
the resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>: Let it be read for information. The secretary read the
resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Edmunds</span>: "Shall" ought to be stricken out and "may" inserted,
because the Senate ought always to have the power to refer any
particular measure as it pleases.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I have no objection to that modification.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The senator from Massachusetts accepts
the suggestion of the senator from Vermont, and the word "may" will
be substituted for "shall."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hill</span> of Georgia: I wish to say that I have opposed all
resolutions, whether originating on the other side of the chamber
or on this side, appointing special committees. They are all wrong.
They are not founded, in my judgment, on a correct principle. There
is no necessity to raise a select committee for this business. The
standing committees of the Senate are ample to do everything that
it is proposed the select committee asked for shall do. The only
result of appointing more special committees is to have just that
many more clerks, just that much more expense, just that many more
committee-rooms. This is not the first time I have opposed the
raising of a select committee.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The morning hour has expired, and it
requires unanimous consent for the senator from Georgia to proceed
with his remarks.</p>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">January</span> 21, 1882.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration of
the resolution.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: If there is no objection, unanimous
consent will be assumed.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Farley</span> and others: I object.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hoar</span>: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration of
the resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span>: Let it be proceeded with informally, subject to the
call for other business.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The question is on the motion of the
senator from Massachusetts. [Putting the question.] The Chair is
uncertain from the sound and will ask for a division.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_217" id="Page_217">[Pg 217]</a></span></p>

<p>The motion was agreed to; there being on a division&mdash;ayes 32, noes
20.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The resolution is before the Senate
and the senator from Georgia [Mr. Hill] has the floor.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hill</span> of Georgia: Mr. President, I do not intend to say one word
on the subject of woman suffrage. I shall not get into that
discussion which was alluded to by the senator from Massachusetts.
The senator will remember, if he refreshes his recollection, that
when my late colleague, now no longer a senator, made a motion for
the appointment of a select committee in relation to the
inter-oceanic canal, I opposed it distinctly, though it came from
my colleague, upon the ground that the appointment of select
committees ought to stop, that it was wrong; and I oppose this
resolution for the same reason. I voted against a resolution to
raise a select committee offered by a senator on this side of the
chamber at the present session, and I have voted against all
resolutions of that character.</p>

<p>No senator, in my judgment, will rise in his place in the Senate
and say that it is necessary to appoint a special committee to
consider the matters referred to in the resolution. It is true I am
a member of the committee, and perhaps ought not to refer to it,
but we have a standing committee, of which the distinguished
senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar] is chairman, the Committee on
Privileges and Elections, that, I take occasion to say, is a very
proper committee for this matter to go to; and that committee has
almost nothing on earth to do. There is but one single
subject-matter now before it, and I believe there will be scarcely
another question before that committee at this session. There is
not a contested election; there is not a dispute about anybody's
seat; and yet it is a Committee on Privileges and Elections. What
is the reason for going on continually and appointing these select
committees, when there are standing committees here, properly
organized to consider the very question specified by the
resolution, with nothing to do?</p>

<p>Now, I am going to say one other thing, I do not pretend that the
purpose I am now about to state is the purpose of the senator from
Massachusetts. I have no reflections to make as to what this
resolution is intended for, but we do know that there is an idea
abroad that select committees are generally appointed for the
purpose of giving somebody a chairmanship, that somebody may have a
clerk. That is not the case here, I dare say. I do not mean to
intimate that it is the case here, but it ought to be put a stop
to; it is all wrong. I think, though, that there ought to be a
resolution passed by this body giving every senator who has not a
committee a clerk. Everybody knows that every chairman of a
committee has a clerk in the clerk of that committee. The other
senators, at least in my opinion, ought each to have a clerk. I
would vote for such a resolution. I believe it would be right, and
I believe the country would approve it. Every senator knows that he
has more business to attend to here than he can possibly perform.
Why, sir, if I were to attend to all the business in the
departments and otherwise that my constituents ask me to perform, I
could not discharge half my duties in this chamber; and every
senator, I dare say, has the same experience. It is to the public<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_218" id="Page_218">[Pg 218]</a></span>
interest, therefore, in my judgment, that every senator should have
a clerk. I am unable to employ a clerk from my own funds; many
other senators are more fortunately situated; but still I must do
that or move the appointment of a special committee for the purpose
in an indirect way of getting a clerk. It is not right.</p>

<p>It has been said that if senators each have a clerk, for instance,
a clerk at $100 a month salary during the session, which would be a
very small matter, the members of the other House would each want a
clerk. It does not follow. There is a vast difference. A member of
the other House represents a narrow district, a single district; a
senator represents a whole State. Take the State of New York. There
are thirty-three representatives in the House from the State of New
York; there are but two senators here from that State. Those two
senators in all likelihood have as much business to perform here
for their constituents as the thirty-three members of the House.
There is, therefore, an eminent reason why a senator should have a
clerk and why a member of the House should not.</p>

<p>I cannot vote for the appointment of select committees unless you
raise a select committee for every senator in the body so as to
give him a clerk. You have appointed select committees for this
business and for that. It gives a few men an advantage when the
business of the country does not require it, whereas if you
appointed a clerk for each senator, with a nominal salary of $100
per month during the session, it would enable every senator to do
his work more efficiently both here and for his constituents; it
would put all the senators on a just equality; it would be in
furtherance of the public interest; and it would avoid what I
consider (with all due deference and not meaning to be offensive)
the unseemly habit of constantly moving the appointment of select
committees in this body. This is all I have to say. I vote against
the resolution simply because I am opposed to the appointment of a
select committee for this or any other purpose that I can now think
of.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: The question is on the adoption of the
resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Vest</span> called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, and
the principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Jones</span> of Florida (when his name was called): I propose to vote
for this resolution, but at the same time I do not regard my vote
as in any way committing myself on the subject of female suffrage.
If they think an investigation of this subject should be had in
this way, I for one am willing to have it. I vote "yea."</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Teller</span>, (when his name was called): On this question I am
paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan]; otherwise I
should vote "yea."</p>

<p>The roll-call having been concluded, the result was announced&mdash;yeas
35, nays 23; so the resolution was agreed to.<a name="FNanchor_82_82" id="FNanchor_82_82"></a><a href="#Footnote_82_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_219" id="Page_219">[Pg 219]</a></span></p>

<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">In the House of Representatives</span>, December 20, 1881.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">White</span> of Kentucky: I ask consent to offer for consideration at
this time the resolution which I send to the clerk's desk.</p>

<p>The clerk read as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a select committee of seven members of the House
of Representatives be appointed by the Speaker, to whom shall be
referred all petitions, bills and resolves providing for the
extension of suffrage to women, or for the removal of legal
disabilities. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Mills</span> of Texas: I object.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Kelley</span> of Pennsylvania: A similar resolution has already been
referred to the Committee on Rules.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span> (Mr. Keifer of Ohio): Objection being made to its
consideration at this time, the resolution will be referred to the
Committee on Rules.</p>

<p>The resolution was referred accordingly.</p>

<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">In the House of Representatives</span>, February 25, 1882.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Reed</span> of Maine: I rise to make a privileged report. The
Committee on Rules, to whom were referred sundry resolutions
relating to the subject, have instructed me to report the
resolution which I send to the desk.</p>

<p>The clerk read as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a select committee of nine members be appointed,
to whom shall be referred all petitions, bills and resolves
asking for the extension of suffrage to women or the removal of
their legal disabilities. </p></blockquote>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The question is on the adoption of the report of the
Committee on Rules.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Holman</span> of Indiana: I ask that the latter portion of the
resolution be again read. It was not heard in this part of the
house.</p>

<p>The resolution was again read.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Townshend</span> of Illinois: I rise to make a parliamentary inquiry.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The gentleman will state it.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Townshend</span>: My inquiry is whether that resolution should not go
to the House calendar.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: It is a privileged report under the rules of the House
from the Committee on Rules. The question is on the adoption of the
resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McMillin</span> of Tennessee: I make the point of order that it must
lie over for one day.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: It is the report of a committee privileged under the
rules.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McMillin</span>: The committee are privileged to report, but under the
rule the report has to lie over a day.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_220" id="Page_220">[Pg 220]</a></span></p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The gentleman from Tennessee will oblige the Chair by
directing his attention to any rule which requires such a report to
lie over one day. It changes no standing rule or order of the
House.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McMillin</span>: It does, by making a change in the number and nature
of the committees. All measures of a particular class, the
resolution states, must be referred to the proposed committee,
whereas heretofore they have been referred to a different
committee. Therefore the resolution changes the rules of the House.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The Chair is of opinion the resolution does not
rescind or change any standing rule of the House. The question is
on the adoption of the resolution.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: Mr. Speaker, I desire to call the attention of the
Chair to the fact that this does distinctly change one of the
standing rules of the House. One of the standing rules is&mdash;</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The Chair has passed on that question, and no appeal
has been taken from his decision.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: I desire to call the attention of the Chair to Rule
10, which specifically provides for the appointment of the full
number of committees this House is to have, and this is not one of
them.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: Not one of the standing committees, but a select
committee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: That rule provides there shall be a certain number of
committees, the names of which are therein given.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Reed</span>: I sincerely hope this will not be made a matter of
technical discussion or debate. It is a matter upon which members
of this House must have opinions which they can express by voting,
in a very short time, without taking up the attention of the House
beyond what is really necessary for a bare discussion of the merits
of the question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McMillin</span>: Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Reed</span>: Certainly.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McMillin</span>: Would you not, as a parliamentarian, concede that
this does change the existing rules of the House?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Reed</span>: By no manner of means, especially when the accomplished
Speaker has decided the other way, and no gentleman has taken an
appeal from his decision. [Laughter.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">McMillin</span>: Then you have no opinion beyond his decision?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The Chair will state to the gentleman from Illinois
[Mr. Springer] that this resolution does not change any of the
standing committees of the House which are provided for in Rule 10.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: It provides for a new committee.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: It provides for a select committee. The subject was
referred to the Committee on Rules by order of the House, and this
is a report on the resolution so referred.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: The rule provides that no standing rule or order of
the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The Chair would decide that this does not propose any
change or rescinding of any standing rule of the House.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_221" id="Page_221">[Pg 221]</a></span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: Does the Chair hold that the making of a new rule is
not a change of the existing rules?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The Chair does not decide anything of the kind.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: What does the Chair decide?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The Chair does not undertake to decide any such
question, for it is not now presented.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: Is this not a new rule?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: It is not.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: It is not?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: It is a provision for a select committee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: Can you have a committee without a rule of the House
providing for it?</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The question is on the adoption of the resolution
reported from the Committee on Rules.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Atkins</span>: On that question I call for the yeas and nays.</p>

<p>The yeas and nays were ordered.</p>

<p>The question was taken and there were&mdash;yeas 115, nays 84, not
voting 93; so the resolution was carried.<a name="FNanchor_83_83" id="FNanchor_83_83"></a><a href="#Footnote_83_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Reed</span> moved to reconsider the vote by which the resolution was
adopted; and also moved that the motion to reconsider be laid on
the table. The latter motion was agreed to.</p>

<p>On Monday, March 13, 1882, the Chair announced the appointment of
the following gentlemen as the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage
authorized by the House: Mr. Camp of New York, Mr. White of
Kentucky, Mr. Sherwin of Illinois, Mr. Stone of Massachusetts, Mr.
Hepburn of Iowa, Mr. Springer of Illinois, Mr. Vance of North
Carolina, Mr. Muldrow of Mississippi and Mr. Stockslager of
Indiana. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Annual Washington Convention was held in Lincoln Hall as usual,
January 18, 19, 20, 1882. The afternoon before the convention, at
an executive session held at the Riggs House,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_222" id="Page_222">[Pg 222]</a></span> forty delegates were
present from fourteen different States.<a name="FNanchor_84_84" id="FNanchor_84_84"></a><a href="#Footnote_84_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a> Among these were five
from Massachusetts, and for the first time that State was
represented on the platform of the National Association. Mrs.
Stanton gave the opening address, and made some amusing criticisms
on a recent debate on Senator Hoar's proposition for a special
committee on the rights and disabilities of women. Such a committee
had been under debate for several years and it was during this
convention that the bill passed the Senate.</p>

<p>Invitations to attend the convention were sent to all the members
of congress, and many were present during the various sessions.
Miss Ellen H. Sheldon, secretary, read the minutes of the last
convention, and, instead of the usual dry skeleton of facts, she
gave a glowing description of that eventful occasion. Clara B.
Colby gave an interesting narration of the progress of woman
suffrage in Nebraska, and of the efforts being made to carry the
proposition pending before the people, to strike the word "male"
from the constitution in the coming November election.</p>

<p>Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley of Providence, R. I., spoke upon "Our
Demand in the Light of Evolution." He said:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is about a century since our forefathers declared that
"governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed," and about a half century since woman began to see that
she ought to be included in this declaration. At present the
expressions of the Declaration of Independence are a "glittering
generality," for only one-half of the people "consent." Modern
science has demonstrated the truth of evolution&mdash;like causes
produce like results&mdash;and this is seen in the progress of
government and of woman. From the time when physical force ruled,
up to the present, when <i>ostensibly</i> in the United States every
person is his own ruler, there have been many steps. The
importance of the masses has steadily taken the place of the
importance of individuals. At first the idea was "You shall obey
because I say so"; then, "You shall obey because I am your
superior, and will protect you"; now it is "Everyone shall be his
own protector." But we do not live up to this idea while only
one-half instead of the whole of "everyone" is his own protector.
The phases of woman's advancement are fitly described by the four
words&mdash;slave, subject, inferior, dependent; and no step in this
advance has been<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_223" id="Page_223">[Pg 223]</a></span> accomplished without a hard struggle. The logic
of evolution in government points to universal suffrage. The same
logic points to unqualified individual freedom for woman. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Blake in reporting from her State said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Governor Cornell was the first New York Governor to mention woman
in an inaugural address, and the bill allowing women to vote in
school elections was passed the same winter. There was a great
deal of opposition in different parts of the State to the voting
of women. In some country districts where the polls are in the
school-houses, certain men went early and locked the doors,
filled the room with smoke and even put tobacco on the stoves to
make it as disagreeable for the women as possible. More
respectable men had to ventilate and clean the rooms to make them
decent for either man or woman. From this lowest class of
opponents up to those who say: "My dear, you'd better not make
yourself conspicuous!" the spirit is the same. Believing that
under our constitution women are already entitled to the ballot,
we do not ask for a constitutional amendment, but for a bill
extending the suffrage at once.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Colby</span> in contrast to this stated that in Nebraska the
greatest courtesy had always been shown to women who voted at
school elections. There is only one organized effort against
woman suffrage, and that is made by the "Sons of Liberty!" "O,
Consistency, thou art a jewel!" </p></blockquote>

<p>The following resolution introduced into the Senate, January 11, by
Mr. Morgan of Alabama, was finally referred to the Committee on
Woman Suffrage. This was the first subject brought before them for
action.</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the committee on "The extension of suffrage
to women, or the removal of their disabilities," be directed
to examine into the state of the law regulating the right of
suffrage in the territory of Utah, and report a bill to set
aside and annul any law or laws enacted by the legislature
of said territory conferring upon women the right of
suffrage. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Couzins made an admirable speech on the following resolution:</p>

<blockquote>
<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That Senator Morgan's bill to deprive the
<i>women</i> of Utah of the right of suffrage because of the
social institutions and religious faith originated and
maintained by the <i>men</i> of the territory, is a travesty on
common justice. While the wife has not absolute possession
of even one husband, and the husband has many wives, surely
the men and not the women, if either, should be deprived of
the suffrage. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Couzins</span> said: The task of dealing fairly and justly with this
territorial complication should never be committed to the
blundering legislation of man alone. His success as a legislator
and executive for woman in the past does not inspire a confidence
that in this most serious problem he will be any the less an
unbiased judge and law-giver. This government of men permitted the
establishment of a religious colony, so called, whose basis of
faith was the complete humiliation of women; recognized the system
by appointing its chief, Brigham Young, governor of the territory,
under whose fostering care polygamy grew to its present
proportions.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_224" id="Page_224">[Pg 224]</a></span></p>

<p>That woman has not thrown off the yoke of religious despotism can
be readily appreciated when we recognize the fact that man, from
time immemorial, has played upon her religious faith to exalt his
own attributes and degrade hers; that through this teaching her
abiding belief in his superior capacity to interpret scriptural
truths for her has been the means of sacrificing her power of mind,
her tender affections, her delicate sensibilities, on the altar of
his base selfishness throughout the ages. Orthodoxy recognizes no
"inspiration" for woman to-day. She is not "called" save to serve
man. Under its teaching her thought has been padlocked in the name
of Divinity, and her lips sealed in sacrilegious pretense of
authority from heaven; and nothing so clearly bespeaks the
degenerating influence of the ages of this masculine teaching as
the absolute faith manifested by the women of Utah in this <i>ipse
dixit</i> of man's religious doctrine. Their emancipation must
necessarily be slow.</p>

<p>The paternal government allowed polygamy to be planted, take root,
and grow in a wilderness where the attraction of nobler minds and
freer thoughts was not known. The victims came from the political
despotisms of the old world to be shackled in a land of freedom
with a still darker despotism, and under the ægis of the American
flag they have borne children as a religious duty they owed to God
and man; and surely it can not be expected, even with that grand
emancipator, from king and priestcraft rule, the ballot, that at
once they will vote themselves outcast and their children
illegitimate.</p>

<p>It took the white men of this nation one hundred years to put away
that relic of barbarism, slavery; the removal of the twin relic
will come through liberty for woman, higher education for children,
and the incoming tide of Gentile immigration. The fitting act of
justice is not disfranchisement of woman, as Senator Morgan
proposes, and the reënactment of that old Adamic cry: "The woman
whom thou gavest," but the disfranchisement of man, who is the only
polygamist, and the stepping down and out of the sex as a
legislator under whose fostering care this evil has grown. Retire
to your sylvan groves and academic shades, gentlemen, as Mrs.
Stanton suggests, and let the Deborahs, the Huldahs, and the
Vashtis come to the front, and let us see what we can do toward the
remedy of your wretched legislation. But suffrage for women in Utah
has accomplished great good. I spent one week there in close
observation. Outside of their religious convictions, the women are
emphatic in condemnation of wrong. Their votes banished the liquor
saloon. I saw no drunkenness anywhere; the poison of tobacco smoke
is not allowed to vitiate the air of heaven, either on the streets
or in public assemblies. Their court-room was a model of neatness
and good order. Plants were in the windows and handsome carpets
graced the floor. During my stay, the daughter of a Mormon, the
then advocate-general of the territory, was admitted to the bar by
Chief-Justice McKean of the United States Court, who, in fitting
and beautiful language, welcomed her to the profession as a woman
whose knowledge of the law fitted her to be the peer of any man in
his court. She told me that she detested polygamy, but felt that
she could render greater service to the emancipation of her sex
inside of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_225" id="Page_225">[Pg 225]</a></span> Utah than out. At midnight I wandered, with one of my
own sex, about the streets to test the assertion that it was as
safe for women then as at mid-day. No bacchanalian shout rent the
air; no man was seen reeling in maudlin imbecility to his home. No
guardians put in an appearance, save the stars above our heads; no
sound awoke the stillness but the purling of the mountain brooks
which washed the streets in cleanliness and beauty. What other city
on this continent can present such a showing? With murder for man
and rapine for woman where man alone is maker and guardian of the
laws, it behooves him to pause ere he launches invectives at the
one result of woman's votes. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Gougar, on our Washington platform for the first time,
delighted the audience with her readiness and wit. She has a good
voice, fine presence, and speaks fluently, without notes.</p>

<blockquote><p>She spoke of the reformatory prison for women in her State, and
said that the statistics showed that eighty-two per cent. of the
women confined there were sent out reformed. Speaking of the
gallantry of men, she cited a case of a man who came to an
Indiana lawyer and desired him to make a will. The following
conversation ensued: "I want you to make this will so that my
wife will have $400 a year; that's enough for any woman." "Is she
the only wife you ever had?" "Yes." "How long have you been
married?" "Forty-two years." "How many children have you had?"
"Eleven." "Did you have all your property before marriage?" "No;
didn't have a cent; I've earned it all." "Has your wife helped
you in any way to earn it?" "Why, yes, I suppose she has; but
then I want to fix my will so she can only have $400 a year; it's
enough." "Well, sir, you will have to move out of the State of
Indiana then, for the law provides for the wife better than that,
and you will have to get another lawyer." It is needless to say
that this lawyer is a staunch champion of woman suffrage, and it
is pleasant to know that there are more such men being educated
by this agitation. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Maxwell gave a fine recitation of "The Dying Soldier," at one
of the evening sessions. It was evident by the sparkling eyes of
the Indiana delegation that the ladies had in reserve some pleasant
surprise for the convention, which at last revealed itself in the
person of Judge Orth, a live member of congress from Indiana, who
stood up like a man and avowed his belief in woman suffrage. His
words were few but to the point, and his hearers all knew exactly
where he stood on the question.</p>

<p>The next evening the Nebraska delegation, determining not to be
outdone, captured one of their United States senators and
triumphantly brought him on the platform. It was a point gained to
have a congressman publicly give in his adhesion to the question,
but how much greater the achievement to appear in the convention
with a United States senator. It was a proud<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_226" id="Page_226">[Pg 226]</a></span> moment for Mrs. Colby
when Senator Saunders, a large man of fine proportions, stepped to
the front. But alas! her triumph over the Indiana ladies was short
indeed, for while the senator surpassed the representative in size
and official honors, he fell far below him in the logic of his
statements and the earnestness of his principles. In fact the
audience and the platform were in doubt at the close of his remarks
as to his true position on the question. Mrs. May Wright Sewall,
who followed him, sparkled with the satisfaction she expressed in
paying most glowing tributes to the men of Indiana and their State
institutions. She said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The principal objection to woman suffrage has always been that it
will take women from their homes and destroy all home life. She
showed that there is not an interest of home which is not
represented in the State, and that the subordination of the State
to the family has kept pace with the subordination of physical to
spiritual force. Woman has an interest in everything which
affects the State, and only lacks the legitimate instrument of
these interests&mdash;the ballot&mdash;with which to enforce them. Life
regulates legislation. Domestic life is woman's sphere, but a
sphere of much larger dimensions than has ever yet been accorded
it, these dimensions reaching out and controlling the functions
of the State. The ballot is not a political or a military, but a
domestic necessity. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Harriette R. Shattuck spoke on the golden rule, asking men to
put themselves in the place of disfranchised women, and then
legislate for them as they would be legislated for. Mrs. Robinson
gave a résumé of the legal, political and educational position of
women in Massachusetts. Mrs. Hooker showed that political equality
would dignify woman in home life, give added weight to her opinions
on all questions, and command new respect for her from all classes
of men. Mrs. Colby gave an interesting address on "The Social
Evolution of Woman":</p>

<blockquote><p>She traced the history of woman from the time when she was bought
and sold, up to the present. She said that the first believer in
woman's rights was the one who first proposed that women should
be allowed to eat with their husbands. This once granted,
everything else has followed of necessity, and the ballot will be
the crowning right. Once women were not allowed to sing soprano
because it was the "governing part." From these and many like
indignities woman has gradually evolved until she now stands on
an equality with man in many social rights. </p></blockquote>

<p>Martha McClellan Brown read an able essay on "The Power of the
Veto." She is a woman of fine presence, pleasing manners and a well
trained voice that can fill any hall. Her address was one of the
best in the convention and all felt that in her we had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_227" id="Page_227">[Pg 227]</a></span> a valuable
acquisition to our Association. Mrs. Gage gave an able address on
"The Moral Force of Woman Suffrage."</p>

<p>During the first day of the convention a request, signed by the
officers of the association, was sent to the Special Committee on
Woman Suffrage in the Senate, asking for a hearing on the sixteenth
amendment to the constitution. The hearing was granted on Friday
morning, January 20, 1882. A distinguished speaker in England
having advised the friends of suffrage there to employ young and
attractive women to advocate the measure, as the speediest means of
success, Miss Anthony took the hint in making the selection for the
first hearing before the committee of those who had never been
heard before,<a name="FNanchor_85_85" id="FNanchor_85_85"></a><a href="#Footnote_85_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> of whom some were young, and all attractive as
speakers. Miss Anthony said that she would introduce some new
speakers to the committee, in order to disprove the allegation that
"it was always the same old set." The committee listened to them
with undivided attention throughout, and at the conclusion of the
hearing the following resolution, offered by Senator George of
Mississippi, was adopted unanimously:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the committee are under obligations to the
representatives of the women of the United States for their
attendance this morning, and for the able and instructive
addresses which have been made, and that the committee
assure them that they will give to the subject of woman
suffrage the careful and impartial consideration which its
grave importance demands. </p></blockquote>

<p>In describing the occasion for the <i>Boston Transcript</i>, Mrs.
Shattuck said:</p>

<blockquote><p>As we stood in the committee-room and presented our plea for
freedom, we felt that at last we had obtained a fair hearing,
whatever its result might be. And the most encouraging sign of
the impression made by our words was the change in the faces of
some of the members of the committee as the speaking went on. At
first there was a look of indifference and scorn&mdash;merely
toleration; this gradually changed to interest mingled with
surprise; finally, as Miss Anthony closed with one of her most
eloquent appeals, all the faces showed a decided and almost eager
interest in what we had to say. Senator George, who certainly
looked more unpropitious than any other one, assured the ladies
that he would give to the subject of woman suffrage that careful
and impartial consideration which its grave importance demands.
This, from one who heralded his entrance by inquiring of Miss
Anthony, in stentorian tones, if she "wanted to go to war," was,
to say the least, a concession. The speakers were closely
questioned by some members of the committee, who afterwards told
us "that they had never heard a speech on the subject before<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_228" id="Page_228">[Pg 228]</a></span> and
were surprised to find so much in the demand, and to see such
ability as was manifested by the women before them." </p></blockquote>

<p>The committee having expressed a wish to hear others on the
subject, appointed the next morning at 10 o'clock.<a name="FNanchor_86_86" id="FNanchor_86_86"></a><a href="#Footnote_86_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> Mrs.
Stanton, being introduced by the chairman, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Gentlemen, when the news of the appointment of this committee was
flashed over the wires, you cannot imagine the satisfaction that
thrilled the hearts of your countrywomen. After fourteen years of
constant petitioning, we are grateful for even this slight
recognition at last. I never before felt such an interest in any
congressional committee, and I have no doubt that all who are
interested in this reform, share in my feelings. Fortunately your
names make a great couplet in rhyme,</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">Lapham, Anthony and Blair,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Jackson, George, Ferry and Fair.<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>which will enable us to remember them always. This I discovered
in writing your names in this volume, which allow me to present
you. </p></blockquote>

<p>The gentlemen rising in turn received with a gracious bow "The
History of Woman Suffrage" which, Mrs. Stanton told them, would
furnish all the arguments they needed to defend their clients
against the ignorance and prejudice of the world. Mr. George of
Mississippi asked why this agitation was confined to Northern
women; he had never heard the ladies of the South express the wish
to vote. Mrs. Stanton referred him to those to whom the volume
before him was dedicated. "There," said she, "you will find the
names of two ladies from one of the most distinguished families in
South Carolina, who came North over forty years ago, and set this
ball for woman's freedom in motion. But for those noble women,
Sarah and Angelina Grimkè, we might not stand here to-day pleading
for justice and equality." As the speakers had requested the
committee to ask questions, they were frequently interrupted. All
urged the importance of a national protection, preferring
congressional action, to submitting the proposition to the popular
vote of the several States. On this point Mr. Jackson of Tennessee
asked many pertinent questions. Mrs. Shattuck, writing of this
occasion to the <i>Boston Transcript</i>, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>One of the speakers eloquently testified to the interest of many
Southern women in this subject, and urged the Southern members of
the committee not to declare that the women of the South do not
want the ballot until they have investigated the matter. After
the hearing three Southern<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_229" id="Page_229">[Pg 229]</a></span> ladies, wives of congressmen, thanked
her for what she had said. The member from Mississippi showed a
great deal of interest and really became quite waked up before
the session ended. But, when we look at it in one light, there is
something exceedingly humiliating in the thought that women
representing the best intellect and the highest morality of our
country, should come here in their grand old age and ask men for
that which is theirs by right. Is it not time that this
aristocracy of sex should be overthrown? Several of the senators
were so moved by the speeches that they personally expressed
their thanks, and one who has long been friendly, said the
speeches were far above the average committee-hearings on any
subject. We might well have replied that the reason is because
all the speakers feel what they say and know that the question is
one of vital importance.</p>

<p>In securing these hearings before this special committee of the
Senate the friends feel they have reached a milestone in the
progress of their reform. To secure the attention for four hours
of seven representative men of the United States, must have more
effect than would a hundred times that amount of time and labor
expended upon their constituents. If one of these senators, for
instance, should become convinced of the justice of woman's claim
to the ballot, his constituency would begin to look upon that
question with respect, whereas it would take years to bring that
same constituency up to the position where they could elect such
a representative. To convince the representatives is to sound the
keynote, and it is for this reason that these hearings before the
Senate committee are of such paramount importance to the suffrage
cause.</p>

<p>At the close of the hearing Mrs. Robinson presented each member
of the committee with her little volume, "Massachusetts in the
Woman Suffrage Movement." </p></blockquote>

<p>January 23 the House Committee on Rules<a name="FNanchor_87_87" id="FNanchor_87_87"></a><a href="#Footnote_87_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> gave a hearing to Mrs.
Jane Graham Jones of Chicago, Mrs. May Wright Sewall and Miss
Anthony. During this congress the question of admitting the
territory of Dakota as a State was discussed in the Senate. Our
committee stood ready to oppose it unless the word "male" were
stricken from the proposed constitution.</p>

<p>Immediately after this most of the speakers went<a name="FNanchor_88_88" id="FNanchor_88_88"></a><a href="#Footnote_88_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> to
Philadelphia where Rachel Foster had made arrangements for a
two-days convention. Rev. Charles G. Ames gave the address of
welcome.</p>

<blockquote><p>He told of his conversion to woman suffrage from the time when he
believed women and men were ordained to be unequal, just as in
nature the mountain is different from the valley&mdash;he looking down
at her, she gazing up at him&mdash;until the time when he began to see
that women are not of necessity the valleys, nor men of necessity
the mountains; and so on, until<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_230" id="Page_230">[Pg 230]</a></span> now he believes women entitled
to stand on an equal plane with men, socially and politically. </p></blockquote>

<p>The President, Mrs. Stanton, responded. Hannah Whitehall Smith of
Germantown, prominent in the temperance movement, spoke of the
hardship of farmers' wives, and asked:</p>

<blockquote><p>If that condition was not one of slavery which obliged a woman to
rise early and cook the family breakfast while her husband lay in
bed; to work all day long, and then in the evening, while he
smoked his pipe or enjoyed himself at the corner grocery, to mend
and patch his old clothes. But she thought the position of woman
was changing for the better. Even among the Indians a better
feeling is beginning to prevail. It is Indian etiquette for the
man to kill the deer or bear, and leave it on the spot where it
is struck down for the woman to carry home. She must drag it over
the ground or carry it on her back as best she may, while he
quietly awaits her coming in the family wigwam. A certain Indian,
after observing that white folks did differently by their women,
once resolved to follow their example. But such was the force of
public opinion that, when it was discovered that he brought home
his own game, both he and his wife were murdered. This shows what
fearful results prejudice may bring about; and the only
difference between the prejudice which ruled his tribe in regard
to woman and that which rules white American men to-day, is a
difference in degree, dependent upon the difference in
enlightenment. The principle is the same. The result would be the
same were each equally ignorant. </p></blockquote>

<p>The familiar faces of Edward M. Davis, Mary Grew, Adeline Thompson,
Sarah Pugh, Anna McDowell and two of Lucretia Mott's noble
daughters, gladdened many a heart during the various sessions of
the convention. Beautiful tributes were paid to Mrs. Mott by
several of the speakers. The Philadelphia convention was
supplemented by a most delightful social gathering, without mention
of which a report of the occasion would be incomplete:</p>

<blockquote><p>Like many historical events, this was entirely unpremeditated, no
one who participated in its pleasures had any forewarning, aside
from an informal invitation to lunch with Mrs. Hannah Whitehall
Smith and her generous husband, both earnest friends of
temperance and important allies of the woman suffrage movement.
Mrs. Smith met the guests at the station in Philadelphia, tickets
in hand, marshaling them to their respective seats in the cars as
if born to command, and on arriving at Germantown, transferred
them to carriages in waiting, with the promptness of a railroad
official. Without noise or confusion one and all crossed the
threshold of her well-ordered mansion, and with other invited
guests were soon seated in the spacious parlor, talking in groups
here and there. "Ah!" said Mrs. Smith on entering, "this will
never do, think of all the good things that will be lost in these
side talks. My plan is to have a general conversation, a kind of
love-feast, each telling her experience. It would be pleasant to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_231" id="Page_231">[Pg 231]</a></span>
know how each has reached the same platform, through the tangled
labyrinths of human life." Soon all was silence and one after
another related the special incidents in childhood, girlhood and
mature years that had turned her thoughts to the consideration of
woman's position. The stories were as varied as they were
pathetic and amusing, and were listened to amidst smiles and
tears with the deepest interest. And when all<a name="FNanchor_89_89" id="FNanchor_89_89"></a><a href="#Footnote_89_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a> had finished
the tender revelations of the hopes and fears, the struggles and
triumphs through which each soul had passed, these sacred
memories seemed to bind us anew together in a friendship that we
hope may never end. A sumptuous lunch followed, and amid much
gaiety and laughter the guests dispersed, giving the hospitable
host and hostess a warm farewell&mdash;a day to be remembered by all
of us. </p></blockquote>

<p>Our Senate committee, through its chairman, Hon. Elbridge G.
Lapham, very soon reported in favor of the submission of a
sixteenth amendment. We had had a favorable minority report in the
House in 1871 and in the Senate in 1879&mdash;but this was the first
favorable majority report we had ever had in either house:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">In the Senate, Monday</span>, June 5, 1882.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lapham</span>: I am instructed by the Select Committee on Woman
Suffrage, to whom was referred the joint resolution (S. R. No.
60) proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, to report it with a favorable recommendation, without
amendment, for the consideration of the Senate. This is a
majority report, and the minority desire the opportunity to
present their report also, and have printed the reasons which
they give for dissenting. As this is a question of more than
ordinary importance, I should like to have 1,000 extra copies of
the report printed for the use of the committee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">George</span>: I present the views of the minority of the committee,
consisting of the senator from Tennessee [Mr. Jackson], the
senator from Nevada [Mr. Fair], and myself.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">President</span> <i>pro tempore</i>: It is moved that 1,000 extra copies
of the report be printed for the use of the Senate.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Anthony</span>: The motion should go by the statute to the Committee
on Printing.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Lapham</span>: I will present it in the form of a resolution for
reference to the Committee on Printing.</p>

<p>The resolution was referred to the Committee on Printing, as
follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That 1,000 additional copies of the report and views
of the minority on Senate Joint Resolution No. 60 be printed for
the use of the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>In the Senate of the United States, June 5, 1882, Mr. Lapham, from
the Committee on Woman Suffrage, submitted the following report:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_232" id="Page_232">[Pg 232]</a></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>The Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, to whom was referred
Senate Resolution No. 60, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to secure the right of suffrage
to all citizens without regard to sex, having considered the
same, respectfully report: </i></p>

<p>The gravity and importance of the proposed amendment must be
obvious to all who have given the subject the consideration it
demands.</p>

<p>A very brief history of the origin of this movement in the United
States and of the progress made in the cause of female suffrage
will not be out of place at this time. A World's Anti-slavery
Convention was held in London on June 12, 1840, to which
delegates from all the organized societies were invited. Several
of the American societies sent women as delegates. Their
credentials were presented, and an able and exhaustive discussion
was had by many of the leading men of America and Great Britain
upon the question of their being admitted to seats in the
convention. They were allowed no part in the discussion. They
were denied seats as delegates, and, by reason of that denial, it
was determined to hold conventions after their return to the
United States, for the purpose of asserting and advocating their
rights as citizens, and especially the right of suffrage. Prior
to this, and as early as the year 1836, a proposal had been made
in the legislature of the State of New York to confer upon
married women their separate rights of property. The subject was
under consideration and agitation during the eventful period
which preceded the constitutional convention of New York in the
year 1846, and the radical changes made in the fundamental law in
that year. In 1848 the first act "For the More Effectual
Protection of the Property of Married Women" was passed by the
legislature of New York and became a law. It passed by a vote of
93 to 9 in the Assembly and 23 to 1 in the Senate. It was
subsequently amended so as to authorize women to engage in
business on their own account and to receive their own earnings.
This legislation was the outgrowth of a bill prepared several
years before under the direction of the Hon. John Savage,
chief-justice of the Supreme Court, and of the Hon. John C.
Spencer, one of the ablest lawyers in the State, one of the
revisers of the statutes of New York, and afterward a cabinet
officer. Laws granting separate rights of property and the right
to transact business, similar to those adopted in New York, have
been enacted in many, if not in most of the States, and may now
be regarded as the settled policy of American legislation on the
subject.</p>

<p>After the enactment of the first law in New York, as before
stated, and in the month of July, 1848, the first convention
demanding suffrage for women was held at Seneca Falls in said
State. The same persons who had been excluded from the World's
Convention in London were prominent and instrumental in calling
the meeting and in framing the declaration of sentiments adopted
by it, which, after reciting the unjust limitations and wrongs to
which women are subjected, closed in these words:</p>

<blockquote><p>Now, in view of this entire disfranchisement of one-half of the
people of this country and their social and religious
degradation; in view of the unjust laws above mentioned, and
because women do feel themselves aggrieved, oppressed and
fraudulently deprived of their most sacred rights, we insist that
they have immediate admission to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_233" id="Page_233">[Pg 233]</a></span> all the rights and privileges
which belong to them as citizens of the United States. In
entering upon the great work before us we anticipate no small
amount of misconception, misrepresentation and ridicule; but we
shall use every instrumentality within our power to effect our
object. We shall employ agents, circulate tracts, petition the
State and national legislatures, and endeavor to enlist the
pulpit and the press in our behalf. We hope this convention will
be followed by a series of conventions embracing every part of
the country. </p></blockquote>

<p>The meeting also adopted a series of resolutions, one of which was
in the following words:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the duty of the women of this country to
secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective
franchise. </p></blockquote>

<p>This declaration was signed by seventy of the women of Western New
York, among whom was one or more of those who addressed your
committee on the subject of the pending amendment, and there were
present, participating in and approving of the movement, a large
number of prominent men, among whom were Elisha Foote, a lawyer of
distinction, and since that time Commissioner of Patents, and the
Hon. Jacob Chamberlain, who afterwards represented his district in
the other House. From the movement thus inaugurated, conventions
have been held from that time to the present in the principal
villages, cities and capitals of the various States, as well as the
capital of the nation.</p>

<p>The First National Convention upon the subject was held at
Worcester, Mass., in October, 1850, and had the support and
encouragement of many leading men of the republic, among whom we
name the following: Gerrit Smith, Joshua R. Giddings, Ralph Waldo
Emerson, John G. Whittier, A. Bronson Alcott, Samuel J. May,
Theodore Parker, William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Elizur
Wright, William J. Elder, Stephen S. Foster, Horace Greeley, Oliver
Johnson, Henry Ward Beecher, Horace Mann. The Fourth National
Convention was held at the city of Cleveland, Ohio, October, 1853.
The Rev. Asa Mahan, president of Oberlin College, and Hon. Joshua
R. Giddings were there. Horace Greeley and William Henry Channing
addressed letters to the convention. The letter of Mr. Channing
stated the proposition to be that&mdash;</p>

<blockquote><p>The right of suffrage be granted to the people, universally,
without distinction of sex; and that the age for attaining legal
and political majority be made the same for women as for men. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1857, Hon. Salmon P. Chase, chief-justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States, then governor of Ohio, recommended to the
legislature a constitutional amendment on the subject, and a select
committee of the Senate made an elaborate report, concluding with a
resolution in the following words:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Judiciary Committee be instructed to report
to the Senate a bill to submit to the qualified electors, at the
next general election for senators and representatives, an
amendment to the constitution, whereby the elective franchise
shall be extended to the citizens of Ohio <i>without distinction of
sex</i>. </p></blockquote>

<p>During the same year a similar report was made in the legislature
of Wisconsin. From the report on the subject we quote the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p>We believe that political equality, by leading the thoughts and
purposes of men and women into the same channel, will more
completely carry out the designs of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_234" id="Page_234">[Pg 234]</a></span> nature. Woman will be
possessed of a positive power, and hollow compliments will be
exchanged for well-grounded respect when we see her nobly
discharging her part in the great intellectual and moral
struggles of the age that wait their solution by a direct appeal
to the ballot-box. Woman's power is at present poetical and
unsubstantial; let it be practical and real. There is no reality
in any power that cannot be coined in votes. </p></blockquote>

<p>The effect of these discussions and efforts has been the gradual
advancement of public sentiment towards conceding the right of
suffrage without distinction of sex. In the territories of Wyoming
and Utah, full suffrage has already been given. In regard to the
exercise of the right in the territory of Wyoming, the present
governor of that territory, Hon. John W. Hoyt, in an address
delivered in Philadelphia, April 3, 1882, in answer to a question
as to the operation of the law, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>First of all, the experience of Wyoming has shown that the only
actual trial of woman suffrage hitherto made&mdash;a trial made in a
new country where the conditions were not exceptionably
favorable&mdash;has produced none but the most desirable results. And
surely none will deny that in such a matter a single ounce of
experience is worth a ton of conjecture. But since it may be
claimed that the sole experiment of Wyoming does not afford a
sufficient guaranty of general expediency, let us see whether
reason will not furnish a like answer. The great majority of
women in this country already possess sufficient intelligence to
enable them to vote judiciously on nearly all questions of a
local nature. I think this will be conceded. Secondly, with their
superior quickness of perception, it is fair to assume that when
stimulated by a demand for a knowledge of political
principles&mdash;such a demand as a sense of the responsibility of the
voter would create&mdash;they would not be slow in rising to at least
the rather low level at present occupied by the average masculine
voter. So that, viewing the subject from an intellectual
stand-point merely, such fears as at first spring up, drop away,
one by one, and disappear. But it must not be forgotten that a
very large proportion of questions to be settled by the ballot,
both those of principle and such as refer to candidates, have in
them a <i>moral</i> element which is vital. And here we are safer with
the ballot in the hands of woman; for her keener insight and
truer moral sense will more certainly guide her aright&mdash;and not
her alone, but also, by reflex action, all whose minds are open
to the influence of her example. The weight of this answer can
hardly be overestimated. In my judgment, this moral consideration
far more than offsets all the objections that can be based on any
assumed lack of an intellectual appreciation of the few questions
almost wholly commercial and economical. Last of all, a majority
of questions to be voted on touch the interests of woman as they
do those of man. It is upon her finer sensibilities, her purer
instincts, and her maternal nature that the results of immorality
and vice in every form fall with more crushing weight. </p></blockquote>

<p>A criticism has been made upon the exercise of this right by the
women of Utah that the plural wives in that territory are under the
control of their polygamous husbands. Be that as it may, it is an
undoubted fact that there is probably no city of equal size on this
continent where there is less disturbance of the peace, or where
the citizen is more secure in his person or property, either by day
or night, than in the city of Salt Lake. A qualified right of
suffrage has also been given to women in Oregon, Colorado,
Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts,
Michigan, Kentucky, and New York. Of the operation of the law in
the last-named State, Governor Cornell in a message to the
legislature on May 12, said: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_235" id="Page_235">[Pg 235]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>The recent law, 1882, making women eligible as school trustees,
has produced admirable results, not only in securing the election
of many of them as trustees of schools, but especially in
elevating the qualifications of men proposed as candidates for
school-boards, and also in stimulating greater interest in the
management of schools generally. The effect of these new
experiences is to widen the influence and usefulness of women. </p></blockquote>

<p>So well satisfied are the representatives in the legislature of
that State with these results that the assembly, by a large
majority, recently passed to a third reading an act giving the full
right of suffrage to women, the passage of which has been arrested
in the Senate by an opinion of the attorney-general that a
constitutional amendment is necessary to accomplish the object. In
England women are allowed to vote at all municipal elections, and
hold the office of guardian of the poor. In four States, Nebraska,
Indiana, Oregon, and Iowa, propositions have passed their
legislatures and are now pending, conferring the right of suffrage
upon women.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding all these efforts, it is the opinion of the best
informed men and women, who have devoted more than a third of a
century to the consideration and discussion of the subject, that an
amendment to the federal constitution, analogous to the fifteenth
amendment of that instrument, is the most safe, direct, and
expeditious mode of settling the question. It is the question of
the enfranchisement of half the race now denied the right, and
that, too, the most favored half in the estimation of those who
deny the right. Petitions, from time to time, signed by many
thousands, have been presented to congress, and there are now upon
our files seventy-five petitions representing eighteen different
States. Two years ago treble the number of petitions, representing
over twenty-five States, were presented.</p>

<p>If congress should adopt the pending resolution, the question would
go before the intelligent bodies who are chosen to represent the
people in the legislatures of the various States, and would receive
a more enlightened and careful consideration than if submitted to
the masses of the male population, with all their prejudices, in
the form of an amendment to the constitutions of the several
States. Besides, such an amendment, if adopted, would secure that
uniformity in the exercise of the right which could not be expected
by action from the several States. We think the time has arrived
for the submission of such an amendment to the legislatures of the
States. We know the prejudices which the movement for suffrage to
all without regard to sex, had to encounter from the very outset,
prejudices which still exist in the minds of many. The period for
employing the weapons of ridicule and enmity has not yet passed.
Now, as in the beginning, we hear appeals to prejudice and the
baser passions of men. The anathema, "woe betide the hand that
plucks the wizard beard of hoary error," is yet employed to deter
men from acting upon their convictions as to what ought to be done
with reference to this great question. To those who are inclined to
cast ridicule upon the movement, we quote the answer made while one
of the early conventions was in session in the State of New York:</p>

<blockquote><p>A collection of women arguing for political rights and for the
privileges usually conceded only to the other sex is one of the
easiest things in the world to make fun<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_236" id="Page_236">[Pg 236]</a></span> of. There is no end to
the smart speeches and the witty remarks that may be made on the
subject. But when we seriously attempt to show that a woman who
pays taxes ought not to have a voice in the manner in which the
taxes are expended, that a woman whose property and liberty and
person are controlled by the laws should have no voice in framing
those laws, it is not so easy. If women are fit to rule in a
monarchy, it is difficult to say why they are not qualified to
vote in a republic; nor can there be greater indelicacy in a
woman going to the ballot-box than there is in a woman opening a
legislature or issuing orders to an army. </p></blockquote>

<p>To all who are more serious in their opposition to the movement, we
would remind them of the words of a few distinguished men:&mdash;</p>

<blockquote><p>I go for all sharing the privileges of the government who assist
in bearing its burdens, by no means excluding women.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Abraham
Lincoln</span>.</p>

<p>I believe that the vices in our large cities will never be
conquered until the ballot is put into the hands of
women.&mdash;[Bishop <span class="smcap">Simpson</span>.</p>

<p>I do not think our politics will be what it ought to be till
women are legislators and voters.&mdash;[Rev. <span class="smcap">James Freeman Clarke</span>.</p>

<p>Women have quite as much interest in good government as men, and
I have never heard or read of any satisfactory reason for
excluding them from the ballot-box; I have no more doubt of their
ameliorating influence upon politics than I have of the influence
they exert everywhere else.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">George William Curtis</span>.</p>

<p>In view of the terrible corruption of our politics, people ask,
can we maintain universal suffrage? I say no, not without women.
The only bear-gardens in our community are the town-meeting and
the caucus. Why is this? Because these are the only places at
which women are not present.&mdash;[Bishop <span class="smcap">Gilbert Haven</span>.</p>

<p>I repeat my conviction of the right of woman suffrage. Because
suffrage is a right and not a grace, it should be extended to
women who bear their share of the public cost, and who have the
same interest that I have in the selection of officials and the
making of laws which affect their lives, their property, and
their happiness.&mdash;[Governor <span class="smcap">Long</span> of Massachusetts.</p>

<p>However much the giving of political power to woman may disagree
with our notions of propriety, we conclude that, being required
by that first prerequisite to greater happiness, the law of equal
freedom, such a concession is unquestionably right and
good.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Herbert Spencer</span>.</p>

<p>In the administration of a State neither a woman as a woman, nor
a man as a man has any special functions, but the gifts are
equally diffused in both sexes. The same opportunity for
self-development which makes man a good guardian will make woman
a good guardian, for their original nature is the same.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Plato</span>. </p></blockquote>

<p>It has become a custom, almost universal, to invite and to welcome
the presence of women at political assemblages, to listen to
discussions upon the topics involved in the canvass. Their presence
has done much toward the elevation, refinement, and freedom from
insincerity and hypocrisy, of such discussions. Why would not the
same results be wrought out by their presence at the ballot-box?
Wherever the right has been exercised by law, both in England and
this country, such has been its effect in the conduct of elections.</p>

<p>The framers of our system of government embodied in the Declaration
of Independence the statement that to secure the rights which are
therein declared to be inalienable and in respect to which all men
are created equal, "governments are instituted among men deriving
their just powers from the consent of the governed." The system of
representative government they inaugurated can only be maintained
and perpetuated by allowing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_237" id="Page_237">[Pg 237]</a></span> all citizens to give that consent
through the medium of the ballot-box&mdash;the only mode in which the
"consent of the governed" can be obtained. To deny to one-half of
the citizens of the republic all participation in framing the laws
by which they are to be governed, simply on account of their sex,
is political despotism to those who are excluded, and "taxation
without representation" to such of them as have property liable to
taxation. Their investiture with separate estates leads, logically
and necessarily, to their right to the ballot as the only means
afforded them for the protection of their property, as it is the
only means of their full protection in the enjoyment of the
immeasurably greater right to life and liberty. To be governed
without such consent is clear denial of a right declared to be
inalienable.</p>

<p>It is said that the majority of women do not desire and would not
exercise the right, if acknowledged. The assertion rests in
conjecture. In ordinary elections multitudes of men do not exercise
the right. It is only in extraordinary cases, and when their
interests and patriotism are appealed to, that male voters are with
unanimity found at the polls. It would doubtless be the same with
women. In the exceptional instances in which the exercise of the
right has been permitted, they have engaged with zeal in every
important canvass. Even if the statement were founded in fact, it
furnishes no argument in favor of excluding women from the exercise
of the franchise. <i>It is the denial of the right of which they
complain.</i> There are multitudes of men whose vote can be purchased
at an election for the smallest and most trifling consideration.
Yet all such would spurn with scorn and unutterable contempt a
proposition to purchase their <i>right to vote</i>, and no consideration
would be deemed an equivalent for such a surrender. Women are more
sensitive upon this question than men, and so long as this right,
deemed by them to be sacred, is denied, so long the agitation which
has marked the progress of this contest thus far will be continued.</p>

<p>Entertaining these views, your committee report back the proposed
resolution without amendment for the consideration of the Senate,
and recommend its passage.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">
E. G. Lapham,<br />
T. M. Ferry,<br />
H. W. Blair.</p>

<p>The constitution is wisely conservative in the provision for its
own amendment. It is eminently proper that whenever a large number
of the people have indicated a desire for an amendment, the
judgment of the amending power should be consulted. In view of the
extensive agitation of the question of woman suffrage, and the
numerous and respectable petitions that have been presented to
congress in its support, I unite with the committee in recommending
that the proposed amendment be submitted to the States.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">H. B. Anthony.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>June 5, 1882, Mr. George, from the Committee on Woman Suffrage,
submitted the following views of the minority:</p>

<blockquote><p>The undersigned are unable to concur in the report of the
majority recommending the adoption of the joint resolution
proposing an amendment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_238" id="Page_238">[Pg 238]</a></span> to the Constitution of the United States,
for reasons which they will now proceed to state.</p>

<p>We do not base our dissent upon any ground having relation to the
expediency or inexpediency of vesting in women the right to vote.
Hence we shall not discuss the very grave and important social
and political questions which have arisen from the agitation to
admit to equal political rights the women of our country, and to
impose on them the burden of discharging, equally with men,
political and public duties. Whether so radical a change in our
political and social system would advance the happiness and
welfare of the American people, considered as a whole, without
distinction of sex, is a question on which there is a marked
disagreement among the most enlightened and thoughtful of both
sexes. Its solution involves considerations so intimately
pertaining to all the relations of social and private life&mdash;the
family circle&mdash;the status of women as wives, mothers, daughters,
and companions, to the functions in private and public life which
they ought to perform, and their ability and willingness to
perform them&mdash;the harmony and stability of marriage, and the
division of the labors and cares of that union&mdash;that we are
convinced that the proper and safe discussion and weighing of
them would be best secured by deliberations in the separate
communities which have so deep an interest in the rightful
solution of this grave question. Great organic changes in
government, especially when they involve, as this proposed change
does, a revolution in the modes of life, long-standing habits,
and the most sacred domestic relations of the people, should
result only upon the demand of the people, who are to be affected
by them. Such changes should originate with, and be molded and
guided in their operation and extent by, the people themselves.
They should neither precede their demand for them, nor be delayed
in opposition to their clearly expressed wishes. Their happiness,
their welfare, their advancement, are the sole objects of the
institution of government; of these they are not only the best,
but they are the exclusive judges. They have commissioned us to
exercise for their good the great powers which they have
intrusted to us by their letter of attorney, the constitution;
not to assume to ourselves a superior wisdom, or usurp a
guardianship over them, dictating reforms not demanded by them,
and attempting to grasp power not granted.</p>

<p>The organization of our political institutions is such that the
great mass of the powers of government, the proper exercise of
which so deeply concerns the welfare of the people, is left to
the States. In that depository the will of the people is most
certainly ascertained, and the exercise of power is more directly
under their guidance. Our free institutions have had their great
development and owe their stability more to causes connected with
the direct exercise of the power of the people in local
self-government than to all other causes combined. Recent events,
though tending strongly to centralization, have not destroyed in
the public mind the inestimable value of local self-government.
Among the powers which have hitherto been esteemed as most
essential to the public welfare is the power of the States to
regulate their domestic institutions in their own way; and among
those institutions none has been preserved by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_239" id="Page_239">[Pg 239]</a></span> States with
greater jealousy than their absolute control over marriage and
the relation between the sexes.</p>

<p>Another power of the States, deemed by the people when they
assented to the Constitution of the United States most essential
to the public welfare, was the right of each State to determine
the qualifications of electors. Wherever the federal constitution
speaks of elections for a federal office, it adopts the
qualifications for electors prescribed by the State in which the
election is to be held.</p>

<p>Nor has this fundamental rule been departed from in the fifteenth
amendment. That impairs it only to the extent that race, color,
or previous condition of servitude shall not be made a ground of
exclusion from the right of suffrage. In all else that pertains
to the qualifications of electors the absolute will of the State
prevails. This amendment was inserted from considerations which
pertain to no other part of the question of suffrage. The negro
race had been recently emancipated; it was supposed that the
antagonism between them and their old masters and the prejudice
of race would be such as to obstruct the equal enjoyment of the
rights of freedom conferred by the national forces, and would
prevent the white race of the South from admitting the negro
race, however deserving it might be, to equal political
privileges. And, moreover, it was deemed by the North a point of
honor that, having conferred freedom on the negro, he should be
provided with the right of suffrage.</p>

<p>None of these considerations applies in the present case. It is
not pretended that any such antagonism or prejudice exists
between the sexes. It is not pretended that women have been
redeemed from an intolerable slavery by the power of the
government. It is not pretended that the sex in whose hands is
the political power of the States is unwilling, from any cause,
to do full justice to the other; for it is conceded that if the
proposed amendment should be adopted, its incorporation into the
constitution must result from the voluntary action of that sex in
which is vested this political power. No good reason has been
given why the congress of the United States should force or even
hasten the States into such action, and no such reason can be
given without a reversal of the theories on which our free
institutions are based.</p>

<p>The history given by the majority, of the legislation of the
several States in relation to the rights of persons and property
of married women showing as it does a steady advance in the
abolition of their common-law disabilities, conclusively
demonstrates that this question may be safely left for solution
where it now is and has always hitherto belonged. The public mind
is now being agitated in many of the States as to the rights of
women, not only as to suffrage, but as to their engaging in the
various employments from which they have hitherto been excluded.
This exclusion from certain employments has not been the result
of municipal but of social laws&mdash;the strongest of all human
regulations. As these social laws have been modified, so the
sphere of woman's activities and usefulness has been enlarged.
These social laws are in the main the groundwork of the exclusion
of women from the right of suffrage. In the establishment of
these laws, as in their modification, women themselves<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_240" id="Page_240">[Pg 240]</a></span> have even
a greater influence than men. Their disability to vote is,
therefore, self-imposed; when they shall will otherwise, it is
not too much to say that the disability will no longer exist. If
in the future it shall be found that these laws deny a right to
women the enjoyment of which they desire, and for the exercise of
which they are qualified, it cannot be doubted that they will
give way. If, on the contrary, neither of these shall be
discovered, it will happen that the exclusion of suffrage will
not be considered as a denial of a right, but as an exemption
granted to women from cares and burdens which a tender and
affectionate regard for womanhood refuses to cast on them.</p>

<p>We are convinced, therefore, that the best mode of disposing of
the question is to leave its solution to that power most amenable
to the influences and usages of society in which women have so
large and so potential a share, confident that at no distant day
a right result will be reached in each State which will be
satisfactory to both sexes and perfectly consistent with the
welfare and happiness of the people. Certainly this must be so if
the people themselves, the source and foundation of all power,
are capable of self-government.</p>

<p>At two of its meetings the committee listened with great pleasure
to several eminent ladies who appeared before it as advocates of
the proposed amendment. At none of the meetings of the committee,
including that at which the members voted on the proposed
amendment, was there any discussion of this important subject;
none was asked for or desired by any member of the committee, and
the vote was taken. The reports of the majority and of the
minority of the committee are therefore to be construed only as
the individual opinions of the members who respectively concur in
them. They are in no sense to be treated as the judgment of a
deliberative body charged with the examination of this important
subject.</p>

<p>The foregoing leads us to but one recommendation: that the
committee should be discharged from the further consideration of
the subject, that the resolution raising it be rescinded, and
that the proposed amendment be rejected.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">
J. Z. George,<br />
Howell E. Jackson,<br />
James G. Fair.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In a letter from Miss Caroline Biggs to the president of the
National Association the following congratulations came from the
friends of suffrage in England:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Central Committee of the National Society for</span> }<br />
<span class="smcap">Woman Suffrage</span>, 64 Berners Street, <span class="smcap">London</span>, W. }<br />
</p>

<p>At a meeting of the Executive Committee, on May 18, 1882, the
following resolution was proposed by Mrs. Lucas, seconded by Miss
Jane Cobden, and passed unanimously:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Executive Committee of the National Society
for Woman Suffrage have heard with hearty satisfaction that a
select committee of the United States Senate in Washington has
passed by a majority of votes the recommendation to adopt a
constitutional amendment in favor of women's suffrage. They feel
that the cause of woman is one in all countries, and they offer
their most cordial congratulations to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_241" id="Page_241">[Pg 241]</a></span> the women of America on
the important step which has just been gained, and their warmest
good-wishes for a speedy success in obtaining a measure which
will guarantee justice and equal rights to half the population of
a sister country. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>Nebraska now became the center of interest, as a constitutional
amendment to secure the right of suffrage to woman was submitted to
be voted upon in the November election. As the submission of such a
proposition makes an important crisis in the history of a State, as
well as in the suffrage movement, the notes of preparation were as
varied as multitudinous throughout the nation, rousing all to
renewed earnestness in the work. Both the American and National
associations decided to hold their annual conventions in Omaha, the
chief city of the State, and to support as many speakers<a name="FNanchor_90_90" id="FNanchor_90_90"></a><a href="#Footnote_90_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a> as
possible through the campaign, that meetings might be held and
tracts distributed in every county of the State, an Herculean
undertaking, as Nebraska comprises 230,000 inhabitants scattered
over an area of 76,000 square miles, divided into sixty-six
counties; and yet this is what the friends of the measure proposed
to do. The American Association<a name="FNanchor_91_91" id="FNanchor_91_91"></a><a href="#Footnote_91_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> held its convention September
12, 13, 14. The National<a name="FNanchor_92_92" id="FNanchor_92_92"></a><a href="#Footnote_92_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a> continued three days, September 27,
28, 29.</p>

<p>The Opera House, in which the National Association held its
meeting, was completely filled during all the sessions. The address
of welcome was given by Hon. A. J. Poppleton, one of the most
distinguished lawyers in that State. He said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I deem it no light compliment that, in the face of an explicit
declaration that I am not in favor of woman suffrage, I have been
asked to make, on behalf of the people of Omaha and the State, an
address of welcome to the many distinguished men and women whom
this occasion has brought together. Doubtless the consideration
shown me is a recognition of the fact that I have been a
life-long advocate of the advancement of women through the
agencies of equality in education, equality in employment,
equality in wages, equality in property-rights and personal
liberty, in short, a fair, open, equal field in the struggle for
life. That I cannot go beyond this and embrace equal suffrage, is
due rather to long adherence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_242" id="Page_242">[Pg 242]</a></span> to the political philosophy of
Edmund Burke than any lack of conviction of the absolute equality
of men and women in natural rights.</p>

<p>In the winter of 1852-3, when a student at Poughkeepsie, N. Y.,
while the spot on which we now stand was Indian country as yet
untouched by the formative power of national legislation, I
listened to Miss Susan B. Anthony, Miss Antoinette Brown and
others in the advocacy of the rights of women. It seems a strange
fortune that brings now, nearly thirty years after, one of those
speakers, crowned with a national reputation, into a State carved
out of that Indian country and containing 60,000 people, in
advocacy of equal suffrage for her sex. This single fact
proclaims in thunder tones the bravery, the fidelity, the
devotion of these pioneers of reform, and challenges for them the
sympathy, respect, esteem and admiration of every good man and
woman in America.</p>

<p>The thirty years commencing about 1850 have been prolific of
momentous changes. It is the era of the sewing machine, of the
domestication of steam and electricity, the overthrow of the
great rebellion, the destruction of slavery, the consolidation of
the German empire, the fall of the second Napoleon, the birth of
the French republic, the incorporation of India into the British
empire, and the revolution of commerce by the Pacific railways
and the Suez canal. Great changes have likewise taken place in
the structure of our own State and national legislation, the most
conspicuous and pronounced result being the centralization of
power in the federal government. It has been preëminently a
period of amelioration, a long stride in the direction of
tolerance of opinion, belief, speech and creed. Hospitals,
asylums, schools, colleges and the manifold agencies of an
advanced Christian civilization for alleviating the average lot
of humanity, have grown and multiplied beyond the experience of
former times, and men like Matthew Vassar, George Peabody and
John Hopkins have hastened to consecrate the abundant fruits of
honorable lives to the exaltation and advancement of the race.</p>

<p>But in no direction have greater changes occurred in this country
than in the condition of woman in respect to employment, wages,
personal and property rights. In all heathen countries at this
hour the mass of women are slaves or worse, wholly deprived of
civil rights. In most Christian countries their legal status is
one of absolute subordination in person and property to men. In
this republic alone have we attained an altitude where some small
measure of justice is meted out to women by the laws. In 1850 a
fair measure of her rights was the grim edict of the common law
holding her in guardianship prior to marriage, and upon marriage
making her and all her possessions practically the property of
her husband, while a cruel, unreasonable and vicious public
opinion excluded her from all except menial and ill-paid service.
One by one and year by year these barriers have given way, until
in many States her property and personal rights enjoy the
complete shelter of the law. Now more than half the occupations
and employments of this age of industrial activity and progress
are thronged with the faithful, efficient and contented labor of
women.</p>

<p>The law has broken forever the thraldom of an odious and hopeless
marriage by reasonable laws for divorce for just cause, given her
the custody<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_243" id="Page_243">[Pg 243]</a></span> of her children, vested her with the absolute power
of disposition and control over her property, inherited or
acquired, freed it from the claims of her husband's creditors,
and clothed her with ample legal remedies even against her
husband. Perhaps Nebraska alone of all the States, by its court
of last resort, has upheld the power of the wife to make
contracts with her husband and enforce them against him in her
own name by the appropriate legal remedies. This surely is
progress. Beyond this there lies but one field to win or fortress
to reduce. Then surely the worn soldier in the long campaign
crowned with the garlands of victory may rest from the battle.</p>

<p>Not many years ago, coming from Wisconsin, I think, a girl
presented herself in the Illinois courts for admission to the
bar, and after a rigid and unsparing examination she was admitted
with public compliment. She took an office in the great city of
Chicago and in the short remnant of an uncertain life so wrought
in her profession as to attain an average professional income,
and win the undivided respect and esteem of her professional
associates. And when from a far country, whither she had gone in
hope to escape a fell disease, her lifeless corpse was brought
back for sepulture, many of the foremost lawyers of Chicago
gathered about her bier and bore emphatic testimony to her
virtues as a woman and her attainments as a lawyer. To me no
greater work has been done by any American woman. When Alta
Hulett unobtrusively, silently but indomitably pressed her way to
the front of the legal profession, and established herself there,
she vindicated the right of her sex to contend for the highest
prizes of life, and left her countrywomen a legacy which will
ultimately blazon her name imperishably in the history of the
advancement of women; and every American woman who, like her,
goes to the front of any honorable occupation, employment or
profession, and stays there, becomes her coädjutor in work and a
sharer in her reward.</p>

<p>Laden with the trophies of thirty years of conflict, of progress,
of measurable success, the vice-president of the National Woman
Suffrage Association and her associates present themselves to
Nebraska and ask a hearing upon the final issue, "Shall this work
be crowned by granting to women in this State the highest
privilege of the citizen&mdash;suffrage?" On behalf of the people of a
State whose legislature has granted everything else to
women&mdash;whose devotion to free speech, untrammeled discussion and
an independent press has been conspicuous in its constitutional
and legislative history&mdash;I welcome them to this city and State,
and bespeak for them a patient, candid, respectful, appreciative
hearing. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Anthony replied briefly to Mr. Poppleton's eloquent address
and returned the thanks of the convention for the courtesy with
which its members had been received by the citizens of Omaha.<a name="FNanchor_93_93" id="FNanchor_93_93"></a><a href="#Footnote_93_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a>
She then read a letter from the president of the convention:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_244" id="Page_244">[Pg 244]</a></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Toulouse</span>, France, September 1, 1882.</p>

<p><i>To the National Woman Suffrage Association in Convention
assembled:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Friends</span>: People never appreciate the magnitude and
importance on any step in progress, at the time it is taken, nor
the full moral worth of the characters who inspire it, hence it
will be in line with the whole history of reform from the
beginning if woman's enfranchisement in Nebraska should in many
minds seem puerile and premature, and its advocates fanatical and
unreasonable. Nevertheless the proposition speaks for itself. A
constitutional amendment to crown one-half of the people of a
great State with all their civil and political rights, is the
most vital question the citizens of Nebraska have ever been
called on to consider; and the fact cannot be gainsaid that some
of the purest and ablest women America can boast, are now in the
State advocating the measure.</p>

<p>For the last two months I have been assisting my son in the
compilation of a work soon to be published in America, under the
title, "The Woman Question in Europe," to which distinguished
women in different nations have each contributed a sketch of the
progress made in their condition. One interesting and significant
fact as shown in this work, is, that in the very years we began
to agitate the question of equal rights, there was a simultaneous
movement by women for various privileges, industrial, social,
educational, civil and political, throughout the civilized world.
And this without the slightest concert of action, or knowledge of
each other's existence, showing that the time had come in the
natural evolution of the species, in the order of human
development, for woman to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_245" id="Page_245">[Pg 245]</a></span> assert her rights, and to demand the
recognition of the feminine element in all the vital interests of
life.</p>

<p>To battle against a palpable fact in philosophy and the
accumulated facts in achievement that can be seen on all sides in
woman's work for the last forty years, from slavery to equality,
is as vain as to fight against the law of gravitation. We shall
as surely reach the goal we purposed when we started, as that the
rich prairies of Nebraska will ere long feed and educate millions
of brave men and women, gathered from every nation on the globe.
Every consideration for the improvement of your home life, for
the morality of your towns and cities, for the elevation of your
schools and colleges, and the loftiest motives of patriotism
should move you, men of Nebraska, to vote for this amendment.
Galton in his great work on Heredity says:</p>

<blockquote><p>We are in crying want of a greater fund of ability in all
stations of life, for neither the classes of statesmen,
philosophers, artisans nor laborers, are up to the modern
complexity of their several professions. An extended civilization
like ours comprises more interests than the ordinary statesmen or
philosophers of our race are capable of dealing with, and it
exacts more intelligent work than our ordinary artisans and
laborers, are capable of performing. Our race is overweighted,
and appears likely to be dragged into degeneracy by demands that
exceed its powers. If its average ability were raised a grade or
two, a new class of statesmen would conduct our complex affairs
at home and abroad, as easily as our best business men now do
their own private trades and professions. The needs of
centralization, communication, and culture, call for more brains
and mental stamina, than the average of our race possesses. </p></blockquote>

<p>Does it need a prophet to tell us where to begin this work? Does
not the physical and intellectual condition of the women of a
nation decide the capacity and power of its men? If we would give
our sons the help and inspiration of woman's thought and interest
in the complex questions of our present civilization, we must first
give her the power that political responsibility secures. With the
ballot in her own right hand, she would feel a new sense of
dignity, and command among men a respect they have never felt
before.</p>

<p>Nebraska has now the opportunity of making this grand experiment of
securing justice, liberty, equality, for the first time in the
world's history, to woman, through her education and
enfranchisement, of lifting man to that higher plane of thought
where he may be able wisely to meet all the emergencies of the
period in which he is called on to act. Let every man in Nebraska
now so do his duty, that, when the sun goes down on the eighth of
November, the glad news may be sent round the world that at last
one State in the American republic has fully accorded the sacred
right of self-government to all her citizens, black and white, men
and women. With sincere hope for this victory,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth Cady Stanton</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Cordially yours,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Many interesting letters were received from friends at home and
abroad, of which we give a few. The following is from our Minister
Plenipotentiary at the German Court:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Berlin</span>, September 9, 1882.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Anthony</span>: <i>Esteemed Friend</i>: At this great distance I can
only sympathize with the earnest effort to be made this fall to
secure political<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_246" id="Page_246">[Pg 246]</a></span> recognition for women in Nebraska. I am glad
that the prospect is so good and that Nebraska, which gave a
name, with Kansas, to the first successful resistance to the
encroachments of slavery, is the arena where the battle is to be
fought under such promise of a just result. By recognizing the
right of its women to an equal share in all the duties and
responsibilities of life, Nebraska will honor itself while
securing for all time wholesome laws and administration.</p>

<p>I believe society would more benefit itself than grant a favor to
women by extending the suffrage to them. All the interests of
women are promoted by a government that shall guard the family
circle, restrain excess, promote education, shield the young from
temptation. While the true interests of men lie in the same
direction, women more generally appreciate these facts and
illustrate in their lives a desire for their attainment. Could we
bring to the ballot-box the great fund of virtue, intelligence
and good intention stored up in the minds and hearts of our wives
and sisters, how great the reinforcement would be for all that is
noble, patriotic and pure in public life! Who should fear the
result who desires the public welfare? From the stand-point of
better principles applied to the direction of public affairs and
the best individuals in office, the argument seems impregnable.</p>

<p>It is getting late to resist this measure on the ground that the
character of women themselves would be lowered by contact with
politics. That objection is identical with the motive which
causes the Turk to shut up his women in a harem and closely veil
them in public. He fears their delicacy will be tarnished if they
speak to any man but their proprietor. So prejudice feared woman
would be unsexed if she had equal education with man. The
professions were closed to women for the same consideration.
Women have vindicated their ability to endure the education and
engage in the dreaded pursuits, yet society is not dissolved, and
these fearful imaginings have proved idle dreams. As every
advance made by woman since the days when it was a mooted
law-point how large could be the stick with which her husband
could punish her, down to the day when congress opened to her the
bar of the United States Supreme Court, has been accompanied by
constantly refuted assertions that she and society were about to
be ruined. I think we can safely trust to her good sense, virtue
and delicacy to preserve for us the loved and venerated object we
have always known, even if society shall yield the still further
measure of complete enfranchisement, and thus add to her social
dignity, duties and responsibilities.</p>

<p>No class has ever been degraded by the ballot. All have rather
been elevated by it. We cannot rationally anticipate less
desirable personal consequences to those whose tendencies are
naturally good, than to those on whom the ballot has been
conferred belonging to a lower plane of being. But these
considerations go only to show the policy of granting suffrage to
women. From the stand-point of justice the argument is more
pressing. If woman asks for the ballot shall man deny it? By what
right? Certainly not by the right of a majority; for women are at
least as numerous. Certainly not by any right derived from
nature; for our common mother has set no brand on woman. If one
woman shall ask<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_247" id="Page_247">[Pg 247]</a></span> for a voice in the regulation of society of
which she is at least one-half, who shall say her nay? If any
woman shall ask it, who shall deny it because another woman does
not ask it? There are many men who do not value their
citizenship; shall other men therefore be deprived of the ballot?
Suppose many women would not avail themselves of such a function,
are those with higher, or other views, to be therefore kept in
tutelage?</p>

<p>I trust you may succeed in this work in Nebraska. It is of
supreme importance to the cause. The example of Nebraska would
soon be followed by other States. The current of such a reform
knows no retiring ebb. The suffrage once acquired will never be
relinquished; first, because it will recommend itself, as it has
in Wyoming, by its results; second, because the women will
jealously guard their rights, and defend them with their ballots.
Wishing I could do more than send you good wishes for the
cause,<a name="FNanchor_94_94" id="FNanchor_94_94"></a><a href="#Footnote_94_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> I am, respectfully yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">A. A. Sargent.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The following letter is from a daughter of Elizabeth Cady Stanton
(a graduate of Vassar College, and classmate of Miss Elizabeth
Poppleton), who two years before, on the eve of her departure for
Europe, gave her eloquent address on Edmund Burke in that city:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Toulouse</span>, France, September 3, 1882.</p>

<p><i>To the Voters of my Generation in Nebraska:</i></p>

<p>It is not my desire to present to you any argument, but only to
give you an episode in my own life. I desire to lay before you a
fact, not a fiction; a reality, not a supposition; an experience
not a theory.</p>

<p>I was born in a free republic and in my veins runs very
rebellious blood. An ancestor of my father was one of those
intrepid men who left the shores of old England and sailed forth
to establish on a distant continent the grandest republic that
has ever yet been known. That, you see, is not good blood to
submit to injustice. And on my mother's side we find a sturdy old
Puritan from whom our stock is traced, fleeing from England
because of the faith that was in him, and joining his rebellious
life to one of that honest Holland nation which had defied so
nobly the oppressions of the Catholic church and Spanish
inquisition. As if this were not sufficiently independent blood
to pass on to other generations, my own father became an
abolitionist, and step by step fought his belief to victory, and
my mother early gave her efforts to the elevation of woman. It is
all this, together with my living in the freëst land on the globe
and in a century rife with discussions of all principles of
government, that has made me in every fiber a believer in
republican institutions.</p>

<p>Having been reared in a large family of boys where we enjoyed
equal freedom, and having received the same collegiate education
as my brothers, it is not until lately that I have felt the crime
of my womanhood. I have dwelt thus upon the antecedents and
influences of my life in order to ask you one question: Do you
not think I can appreciate the real meaning, the true sacredness
of a republic? Do you not believe I feel<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_248" id="Page_248">[Pg 248]</a></span> the duties it demands
of its citizens? But I want you to hold your reply in abeyance,
till I give you one bit more of history.</p>

<p>A ship at sea crossing on the Atlantic between Europe and
America. Of two persons on this vessel I wish to speak to you. Of
one I have already told you much; I need but add that my two
years spent in Europe,<a name="FNanchor_95_95" id="FNanchor_95_95"></a><a href="#Footnote_95_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a> previous to my return to America for a
few months last winter, had not made me less American, less a
lover of republicanism. And now this ship, baffling the February
storm, was sweeping nearer the land where the people reign. My
heart beat high as I thought it was in my native country where
women were free, more honored than in any nation in the world. As
I stood on the deck, the strong sea-wind blowing wildly about me,
and the ocean bearing on its heart-wave mountains, visions of the
grandeur of the nation lying off beyond the western horizon, rose
before me. And it was a proud heart that cried&mdash;"My Country!"</p>

<p>And the other person I want to speak of? It is a man, a German,
coming to the United States to escape military service in
Prussia. He came in the steerage; was poor and ignorant. He could
speak no English, not one word of your language and mine. His
fellows were all Irish, so I offered to be an interpreter for
him. I visited the steerage quarters, and returned with a heavy
heart. Such brutal faces as I saw! Ignorance, cruelty,
subserviency, were everywhere depicted. Herds of human beings
that I feared, they looked so dull and brutal. The full meaning
of a terrible truth rushed upon me. Soon these men would be my
sovereigns&mdash;I their subject!</p>

<p>I had just spent a year in that German's native land, and I
remembered that I had seen their women doing the work of men in
the fields, husbands returning from their day's labor
empty-handed, and their wives toiling on behind bent under heavy
burdens, and as I thought on this, our ship bore him and me
towards the land that glories in having given birth to Lucretia
Mott. In the country where he had been reared, I had seen women
harnessed with beasts of burden, dragging laden wagons, and yet
our vessel carried him and me at each moment towards a safe
harbor, in a land that pays homage to the memory of Margaret
Fuller. Our ship sailed on, taking him from a land where he had
been taught to worship royalty, whatever its worth or crime;
where he had paid cringing submission to an arbitrary rule of
police; where he had been surrounded by the degrading effects of
the mightiest military system on the globe. The ship plowed on
and on through the waves, bringing him to a republic, not one
principle of which he comprehended.</p>

<p>And now we sail up New York bay. The day is bright, and a
softening haze hangs over all. Surely this is some vision-land.
Yes, it is indeed a vision-land, for it has never known the
presence of a royal line; against its oppressors it fought in no
mean rebellious spirit, but rose in revolution with its motto,
"Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed," written on its brow to be known of all men. And I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_249" id="Page_249">[Pg 249]</a></span>
think as we slowly sail up the bay on our vessel, Does that
deadened soul respond to what lies before him? Does there in his
heart rise the prayer, Oh, God! make me true to the duties about
to be laid upon me; make me worthy of being free? Yes, then, for
the first time I felt the full depth of the indignity offered to
my womanhood. I felt my enthusiasm for America wavering&mdash;love of
country dead. <i>My</i> country!&mdash;I have no country.</p>

<p>Young men of Nebraska, I ask you to free your minds from
prejudice, to be just towards the demands of another human soul,
to be frank, to be wholly truthful, and answer my demand: Why
should I not be a citizen of this republic? In replying, read
between the lines of my tedious story and bear in mind the words
of Voltaire: "Who would dare change a law that time has
consecrated? Is there anything more respectable than an ancient
abuse! Reason is more ancient, replied Zadig."</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Harriot Stanton</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Respectfully,</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-clear">
<span class="smcap">Manchester National Society for Woman Suffrage</span>, }<br />
<span class="smcap">Manchester</span>, England, September 5, 1882. }</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Miss Anthony</span>: Will you accept a word of cheer and God-speed
from your sisters in England in your crusade for the emancipation
of woman in Nebraska? You carry with you the hopes and
sympathetic wishes of all on this side of the water. If you win,
as I trust you may, your victory will have a distinct influence
on the future of our parliamentary campaign, which we hope to
begin in early spring in England. In the name of English women I
would appeal to the men of Nebraska to assent to the great act of
justice to women which is proposed to them by their elected
representatives, and by so doing to aid in the enfranchisement of
women all over the world.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Lydia E. Becker</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours faithfully,</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-clear"><span class="smcap">London</span>, September 1, 1882.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Miss Anthony</span>: Having heard that the next convention of the
National Woman Suffrage Association will meet at Omaha this
month, I cannot refrain from sending a few lines to assure our
friends who are working so steadfastly in America for the same
sacred cause as our own, of our loving sympathy and good-wishes
for success in the coming struggle. The eyes and hearts of
hundreds of women are, like my own, turned to Nebraska, where so
momentous an issue is to be decided two months hence. The news of
their vote, if rightly given, will "echo round the world" like
the first shot fired at Concord. It will be the expression of
their determination to establish their freedom by giving freedom
to others, and their example will be followed by Indiana and
Oregon, and soon by the other States of the Union and by England.
Everything points with us to a speedy triumph of the principle of
equal justice for woman. Next November, about the time when
Nebraska will be voting for equal suffrage, the women in Scotland
will be voting for the first time in their municipal elections.
The session of 1882 will be memorable in future for having passed
the act which gives a married woman the right to hold her own
property, make contracts, sue and be sued, in the same manner as
if she were a single woman. It is nearly thirty years since we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_250" id="Page_250">[Pg 250]</a></span>
first began our efforts in this matter, and each succeeding step
has been won very slowly and with great difficulty through the
efforts of those who are working to obtain the suffrage. Mr.
Gladstone still expresses the hope that next session will place
the franchise on a "fair" basis, meaning thereby the same right
of voting for counties as for boroughs. We maintain that the
franchise can never be said to be on a fair basis while women are
debarred from the right of voting. Our progress and your progress
will keep even pace together, for if women are free in America no
long time can elapse before they are free here. We can but offer
you our sympathy and we beg this favor of you, that as soon as
you have the returns of the vote ascertained, you will telegraph
the news to us, that our English societies may keep the day of
rejoicing heart in heart with the American National Association.</p>

<p>With cordial sympathy in all your efforts, I am, faithfully
yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Carolyn Ashurst Biggs.</p>


<p class="ltr-break"><i>To the National Woman Suffrage Association, in Convention
assembled, at Omaha, Nebraska, September 26, 27, 28:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Friends</span>: The most pressing work before the National Woman
Suffrage Convention, is bringing all its forces to bear upon
congress for the submission of a sixteenth amendment to the
national constitution, which shall prohibit States from
disfranchising citizens of the United States, on the ground of
sex, or for any cause not equally applicable to all citizens.
While we of the National are glad to see an amendment to a State
constitution proposed, securing suffrage to woman, as is the case
in Nebraska this fall, we must not be led by it to forget or
neglect our legitimate work, an amendment to the national
constitution, which will secure suffrage at one and the same
moment to the women of each State. While all action of any kind
and everywhere is good because it is educational, the only real,
legitimate work of the National Woman Suffrage Association, is
upon congress. Never have our prospects been brighter than
to-day. A select committee on woman suffrage having been
appointed in both houses during the last session of congress, and
a resolution introduced in the Senate, proposing an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, to secure the right of
suffrage to all citizens irrespective of sex, having been
referred to this select committee and receiving a favorable
majority report thereon, we have every reason to expect the
submission of such an amendment at the next session of congress.</p>

<p>The work then, most necessary, is with each representative and
senator; and the legislatures of the several States should be
induced to pass resolutions requesting the senators and
representatives from each State to give voice and vote in favor
of the submission of such an amendment. This work is vitally
important for the coming winter, and none the less so, even
should Nebraska vote aye November 7, upon the woman suffrage
amendment to its own constitution. In view of the probability of
the submission of a sixteenth amendment at the coming session of
congress, I offer the following resolution, which I consider one
of the most important of the series I have been asked to prepare
for adoption by the convention: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_251" id="Page_251">[Pg 251]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That it is the duty of every woman to work with the
legislature of her own State, to secure from it the passage of a
joint resolution requesting its senators and representatives in
congress to use voice and vote in favor of the submission of an
amendment to the national constitution which shall prohibit
States from disfranchising citizens on the ground of sex. </p></blockquote>

<p>I hope the above resolution will be unanimously adopted, and that
each woman will strive to carry its provisions into effect as a
religious duty. With my best wishes for a grand and successful
convention, and the hope that Nebraska will set itself right before
the world by the adoption of the woman suffrage amendment this
fall, I am,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>.<a name="FNanchor_96_96" id="FNanchor_96_96"></a><a href="#Footnote_96_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very truly yours,</p>
</blockquote>


<p><i>The Republican</i> in describing the closing scenes of the
convention, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Fully 2,500 people assembled last evening to listen to the
closing proceedings of the convention. The stage, which was
beautifully furnished and upholstered, was completely occupied by
the ladies of the Association; and as they all were in full
dress, in preparation for the reception at the Paxton Hotel, the
sight was a brilliant one. As respects the audience, not only the
seats, but the lobbies were crowded, and hundreds upon hundreds
were turned away. Manager Boyd remarked as we passed in, "You
will see to-night the most magnificent gathering that has ever
been in the Opera House," and such truly it was&mdash;the intellect,
fashion and refinement of the city. Addresses were given by M'me
Neyman, whose earnest and eloquent words were breathlessly heard;
Mrs. Minor of St. Louis, whose utterances were serious and
weighty; and Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins, who touched the springs of
sentiment, sympathy, pathos and humor by turns. After answering
two or three objections that had not been fully touched upon,
Miss Couzins fairly carried away the house, when she said in
conclusion, "Miss Anthony and myself, and another who has
addressed you are the only spinsters in the movement. We, indeed,
expect to marry, but we don't want our husbands to marry slaves
[great merriment]; we are waiting for our enfranchisement. And
now, if you want Miss Anthony and myself to move into your
State&mdash;" this hit, with all it implied, set the audience into a
convulsion of cheers and laughter which was quite prolonged; and
after the merriment had subsided, Miss Couzins completed her
sentence by saying, "We are under sailing orders to receive
proposals!" whereupon the applause broke out afresh. "However,"
she added, seeing Miss Anthony shake her head, "it takes a very
superior woman to be an old maid, and on this principle I think
Miss Anthony will stick to her colors." Miss Couzins quoted
Hawthorne as speaking through "Zenobia":</p>

<blockquote><p>"It is my belief, yea, my prophecy, that when my sex shall have
attained its freedom there will be ten eloquent women where there
is now one eloquent man," and instanced this convention as an
illustration of what might be expected. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_252" id="Page_252">[Pg 252]</a></span></p>

<p>Miss Couzins was followed by Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Neyman and Miss
Hindman. The resolutions,<a name="FNanchor_97_97" id="FNanchor_97_97"></a><a href="#Footnote_97_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a> which were presented by Mrs. Sewall,
among their personal commendations expressed the appreciation of
the Association for the services rendered by Mrs. Clara Bewick
Colby, in making preparations for the convention. Mrs. Colby in
making her acknowledgments said:</p>

<blockquote><p>There was another to whom the Association owed much for the work
done which has made possible the brilliant success of the
convention&mdash;one to whom, while across the water their thoughts
and hearts had often turned; and she was sure that all present
would gladly join in extending a welcome to the late president,
and now chairman of the executive committee of the State
association, Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Brooks came forward amid applause, and said:</p>

<blockquote><p>That at this late hour while a speech might be silvern, silence
was golden; and she would say no more than, on behalf of all the
members and officers of the State association, and the friends of
the cause in Omaha, to tender their most grateful thanks to the
National Association for "the feast of reason and the flow of
soul" with which they have been favored during the last three
days. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the close of the convention the spacious parlors of the Paxton
House were crowded. Over a thousand ladies and gentlemen passed
through, shaking hands with the delegates and congratulating them
on the great success of the convention.</p>

<p>Another enthusiastic meeting was held at Lincoln, the capital of
the State, and radiating from this point in all directions these
missionaries of the new gospel of woman's equality traversed the
entire State, scattering tracts and holding meetings in churches,
school-houses and the open air, and thus the agitation was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_253" id="Page_253">[Pg 253]</a></span> kept up
until the day of election. As it was the season for agricultural
fairs, the people were more easily drawn together, and the ladies
readily availed themselves, as they had opportunity, of these great
gatherings. Two notable debates were held in Omaha in answer to the
many challenges sent by the opposition. Miss Couzins, the first to
enter the arena, was obliged to help her antagonist in his
scriptural quotations, while Miss Anthony was compelled to supply
hers with well-known statistics. It was evident that neither of the
gentlemen had sharpened his weapons for the encounter.</p>

<p>To look over the list of counties visited and the immense distances
traveled in public and private conveyances, enables one in a
measure to appreciate the physical fatigue these ladies endured. In
reading of their earnest speeches, debates, conversations at every
fireside and dinner-table, in every car and carriage as they
journeyed by the way or waited at the station, their untiring
perseverance must command the unqualified admiration of those who
know what a political campaign involves. During those six weeks of
intense excitement they were alike hopeful and anxious as to the
result. At last the day dawned when the momentous question of the
enfranchisement of 75,000 women was to be decided. Every train
brought some of the speakers to their headquarters in Omaha, with
cheering news from the different localities they had canvassed. And
now one last effort must be made, they must see what can be done at
the polls. Some of the ladies went in carriages to each of the
polling booths and made earnest appeals to those who were to vote
for or against the woman's amendment. Others stood dispensing
refreshments and the tickets they wished to see voted, all day
long. And while the men sipped their coffee and ate their viands
with evident relish, the women appealed to their sense of justice,
to their love of liberty and republican institutions. Vain would be
the attempt to describe the patient waiting, the fond hopes, the
bright visions of coming freedom, that had nerved these brave women
to these untiring labors, or to shadow in colors dark enough the
fears, the anxieties, the disappointments, all centered in that
November election. A fitting subject for an historical picture was
that group of intensely earnest women gathered there, as the last
rays of the setting sun warned them that whether for weal or for
woe the decisive hour had come; no word of theirs could turn defeat
to victory.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_254" id="Page_254">[Pg 254]</a></span></p>

<p>The hours of anxious waiting were not long, the verdict soon came
flashing on every wire, from the north, the south, the west: "No!"
"No!" "No!" The mothers, wives and daughters of Nebraska must still
wear the yoke of slavery; they who endured with man the hardships
of the early days and bravely met the dangers of a pioneer life,
they who have reared two generations of boys and taught them the
elements of all they know, who have stood foremost in all good
works of charity and reform, who appreciate the genius of free
institutions, native-born American citizens, are still to be
governed by the ignorant, vicious classes from the old world. What
a verdict was this for one of the youngest States in the American
republic in the nineteenth century!</p>

<p>But these heroic women did not sit down in sackcloth and ashes to
weep over the cruel verdict. Anticipating victory, they had engaged
the Opera House to hold their jubilee if the women of Nebraska were
enfranchised; or, if the returns brought them no cause for
rejoicing, they would at least exalt the educational work that had
been done in the State, and dedicate themselves anew to this
struggle for liberty. They had survived three defeats, in Kansas,
Michigan, Colorado, and tasted the bitterness of repeated
disappointments, and another could not crush them. When the hour
arrived, an immense audience welcomed them in the Opera House, and
from this new baptism of sorrow they spoke more eloquently than
ever before. In their calm, determined manner they seemed to say
with Milton's hero:</p>

<blockquote><p>"All is not lost: the unconquerable will is ours." </p></blockquote>

<p>A report of the Fifteenth Annual Washington Convention, Jan. 23,
24, 25, 1883, was written by Miss Jessie Waite of Chicago, and
published in the <i>Washington Chronicle</i>, from which we give the
following extracts:</p>

<blockquote><p>The proceedings of the Association were inaugurated at Lincoln
Hall Monday evening by a novel lecture, entitled "Zekle's Wife,"
by Mrs. Amy Talbot Dunn of Indianapolis. The personality of Mrs.
Dunn is so entirely lost in that of Zekle's wife that it is hard
to realize that the old lady of so many and so varied experiences
is a happy young wife. As a character sketch Mrs. Dunn's "Zekle's
Wife" stands on an equality with Denman Thompson's "Joshua
Whitcomb" and with Joe Jefferson's "Rip Van Winkle." To sustain a
conception so foreign to the natural characteristics of the actor
without once allowing the interest of the audience to flag,
requires originality of thought, independence of idea, and genius
for action. Mrs. Dunn, herself the author of her sketch,
possesses to a remarkable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_255" id="Page_255">[Pg 255]</a></span> degree the power to impress upon her
audience the feeling that the old lady from "Kaintuck" is before
them, not only to say things for their amusement, but also to
impress upon them those great truths which have presented
themselves to her mind during the fifty years of her married
life. "Zekle's Wife" is a keen, shrewd, warm-hearted, lovable old
woman, without education or culture, yet with an innate sense of
refinement and a touching undercurrent of desire "not to be too
hard on Zekle." As she tells her story, which she informs us is a
true one from real life, she engages the attention and wins the
sympathy of all her hearers, and frequent bursts of applause
evidence the satisfaction of the audience.</p>

<p>The convention proper opened on Tuesday morning with the
appointment of various committees,<a name="FNanchor_98_98" id="FNanchor_98_98"></a><a href="#Footnote_98_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> and reports<a name="FNanchor_99_99" id="FNanchor_99_99"></a><a href="#Footnote_99_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> from the
different States filled up most of the time during the day. May
Wright Sewall said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Women must learn that power gives power; that intelligence alone
can appreciate or be influenced by intelligence; that justice
alone is moved by appeals based on justice. More than anything in
the course of suffrage labor does the Nebraska campaign justify
the primary method of this National Association. We have a right
to expect that each legislature will be composed of the picked
men of the State. We have a right to believe that as the
intelligence, wisdom and justice of the picked men of the nation
are superior to the same qualities in the mass of men, so is the
fitness of national and State legislators to consider the demands
for the ballot. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Mills of Washington sang, as a solo, "Barbara Fritchie," in
excellent style. Mrs. Caroline Hallowell Miller (wife of Francis
Miller, esq., late assistant attorney for the District of Columbia)
spoke with the greatest ease and most remarkable command of
language. She is in every sense a strong woman. She said that, born
and reared as she was in a Virginia town noted for its intense
conservatism, where she had seen a woman stripped to the waist and
brutally beaten by order of the law (her skin happened to be of a
dark color) whose only crime was that of alleged impertinence, and
that impertinence provoked by improper conduct on the part of a
young man; that, reared in such a cradle as this, still, through
the blessing of a good home, she had learned to deeply appreciate
the noble efforts of women who dared to tread new paths, to break
their own way through the dense forest of prejudice and ignorance.
Man cannot represent woman. If woman breaks any law of man, of
nature, or of God, she alone must suffer the penalty. "This fact
seems to me," said Mrs. Miller, "to settle the whole question."</p>

<p>Miss Anthony read the following letter from Hon. Benjamin F.
Butler, who, she said, had the honor of being an advocate of this
cause, in addition to being governor of Massachusetts:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Washington</span>, D. C., Jan. 23, 1883.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony</span>: I received your kind note asking me to
attend the National Convention of the friends of woman suffrage
at Washington, for which courtesy I am obliged. My engagements,
which have taken me out of the commonwealth, cover all, and more
than all, of my time, and I find I am to hurry back, leaving<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_256" id="Page_256">[Pg 256]</a></span>
some of them undisposed of. It will therefore be impossible for
me to attend the convention.</p>

<p>As I have already declared my conviction that the fourteenth
amendment fully covers the right of all persons to vote, and as I
assume that the women of the country are persons, and very
important persons to its happiness and prosperity, I never have
been able to see any reason why women do not come within its
provisions. I think such will be the decision of the court,
perhaps quite as early as you may be able to get through congress
and the legislatures of the several States another amendment. But
both lines of action may well be followed, as they do not
conflict with each other. This course was taken in the case of
the fifteenth amendment, which was supposed to be necessary to
cover the case of the negro, although many of the friends of the
colored man looked coldly upon that amendment, because it seemed
to be an admission that the fourteenth amendment was not
sufficient. Therefore I can without inconsistency, I think, bid
you "God speed" in your agitation for the sixteenth amendment. It
will have the effect to enlighten the public mind as to the scope
of the fourteenth amendment. I am very truly, your friend and
servant,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Benj. F. Butler.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Blake presented a series of resolutions, which were laid on
the table for consideration:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, In larger numbers than ever before the women of the
United States are demanding the repeal of arbitrary restrictions
which now debar them from the use of the ballot; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The recent defeat in Nebraska of a constitutional
amendment, giving the women of the State the right to vote,
proves that failure is the natural result of an appeal to the
masses on a question which is best understood and approved by the
more intelligent citizens; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we call upon this congress to pass, without
delay, the sixteenth amendment to the federal constitution now
pending in the Senate.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That all competitive examinations for places in the
civil service of the United States should be open on equal terms
to citizens of both sexes, and that any so-called civil service
reform that does not correct the existing unjust discrimination
against women employés, and grade all salaries on merit and not
sex, is a dishonest pretense at reform.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The Constitution of the United States declares that no
State shall be admitted to the Union unless it have a republican
form of government; and whereas, no true republic can exist
unless all the inhabitants are given equal civil and political
rights; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we earnestly protest against the admission of
Dakota as a State, unless the right of suffrage is secured on
equal terms to all her citizens.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the women of these United States have not
deserved the infliction of this punishment of disfranchisement,
and do most earnestly demand that they be relieved from the
cruelties it imposes upon them.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, During the war hundreds of women throughout our land
entered the service of the nation as hospital nurses; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, Many of these women were disabled by wounds and by
disease, while many were reduced to permanent invalidism by the
hardships they endured; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That these women should be placed on the pension list
and rewarded for their services. </p></blockquote>

<p>After the reading of the resolutions an animated discussion
followed, Miss Anthony showing in scathing terms the injustice of
the employment of women to do equal work with men at half the
salaries, in the departments at Washington and elsewhere. An
additional resolution was adopted declaring that paying Dr. Susan
A. Edson for her services as attendant physician to President
Garfield, $1,000 less than was paid for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_257" id="Page_257">[Pg 257]</a></span> an equivalent service
rendered by Dr. Boynton, a more recent graduate of the same college
from which she received her diploma, is an unjust discrimination on
account of sex.</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Sewall</span> said men in the departments were given extra leave of
absence each year to go home to vote, and suggested that women be
given (until the time comes for them to vote) extra leave to
meditate upon the ballot.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Anthony</span> said she had addressed a letter to each secretary
asking that such women as desired be given permission to attend
the meetings of this convention without loss of time to them. She
had received but one answer, which was from Secretary Folger, who
wrote: "<i>The condition of the public business prevents us from
acceding to your request</i>."</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Harriette R. Shattuck</span> of Boston said: Tired as some of the
audience must be of hearing the same old argument in favor of the
ballot for women repeated from year to year, they could not
possibly be more tired than the friends of the cause were of
hearing the same old objections repeated from year to year. While
the forty-year-old objections are raised the forty-year-old
rejoinders must be given. We must continue to agitate until we
force people to listen. It is like the ringing of a bell. At
first no one notices it; in a little while, a few will listen;
finally, the perpetual ding-dong, ding-dong, will force itself to
be heard by every one. The oldest of all the old arguments is
that of right and justice, and the tune which my little bell
shall ring is merely this: "<i>It is right!</i>" This cry of woman for
liberty and equality increases every day, and it is a cry that
must some day be heard and responded to. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Virginia L. Minor of St. Louis was then introduced as the
woman who stands to this cause in the same relation that Dred Scott
had stood to the Republican party. Miss Couzins said that in
introducing Mrs. Minor she wanted to say one word about the work
Mrs. Minor had done for the soldiers, during the sanitary fair and
all through the war. She had canned fruit, refusing the money
offered in payment, returning it all to be used for the sick and
wounded soldiers [applause]. Mrs. Minor spoke in a calm, deliberate
manner, with perfect conviction in the truth of her statements and
with a winning sweetness of expression that indicated the highest
sensibilities of a refined nature. She showed that women voted in
the early days of the country, and that undoubtedly it was the
intention of the framers of the constitution that they should do
so. This right had been taken away when the constitution was
amended and the word "male" inserted. What is now desired is simply
restoration of that which had been taken away. She believed that
this restoration was made, unwittingly, by the addition of the
fourteenth amendment, which, without doubt, makes women citizens.
It is men who have abused the republican institution of suffrage;
it is women who desire to restore it to its proper exercise. Miss
Anthony read a letter from Mrs. Wallace, the wife of one of the
former governors of Indiana:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Indianapolis</span>, Ind., January 21, 1883.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Miss Anthony</span>: When in the call I read that for fourteen
consecutive years the National Woman Suffrage Association had
held a convention in Washington, I was oppressed by two thoughts:
First, how hard it is to overcome prejudice and ignorance when
they have been fortified by the usages and customs of ages; and
secondly, the sublime faith, courage and perseverance of the
advocates of woman's enfranchisement, and their confidence in the
ultimate triumph of justice. After all, by what are governments
organized and maintained? By brute force alone? Despotisms may
be, but republics never. What are the qualifications for the
ballot? The power to fight? Are they not rather intelligence,
virtue, truth and patriotism? I scarce<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_258" id="Page_258">[Pg 258]</a></span> think the most obstinate
and egotistical of our opponents will assert that men possess a
monopoly of these virtues, or even a moiety of them. As to their
fighting capacities, of which we hear so much, I think they would
have cut a sorry figure in the wars which they have been
compelled to wage in order to establish and maintain this
government, if they had not had the sympathy and coöperation of
woman. I entirely agree with you that, while agitation in the
States is necessary as a means of education, a sixteenth
amendment to the national constitution is the quickest, surest
and least laborious way to secure the success of this great work
for human liberty. Any legislature of Indiana in the last six
years would have ratified such an amendment. With highest regards
for yourself and the best wishes for the success of the
convention, I remain,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Zerelda G. Wallace</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours, etc.,</p>
</blockquote>


<p>After several other speakers,<a name="FNanchor_100_100" id="FNanchor_100_100"></a><a href="#Footnote_100_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a> Madame Clara Neyman of New York
city, delivered what was, without question, one of the best
addresses of the convention. She spoke with a slightly German
accent, which only served to enhance the interest and hold the
attention of the audience. Her eloquence and argument could not
fail to convince all of her earnest purpose. After showing the
philosophy of reform movements, and every step of progress, she
said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Woman's enfranchisement will be wrought out by peaceful means. We
shall use no fire-arms, no torpedoes, no heavy guns to gain our
freedom. No precious human lives will be sacrificed; no tears
will be shed to establish our right. We shall capture the
fortresses of prejudice and injustice by the force of our
arguments; we shall send shell after shell into these strongholds
until their defective reasoning gives way to victorious truth.
"Inability to bear arms," says Herbert Spencer, "was the reason
given in feudal times for excluding woman from succession," and
to-day her position is lowest where the military spirit prevails.
A sad illustration of this is my own country. Being a born
German, and in feeling, kindred, and patriotism attached to the
country of my birth and childhood, it is hard for me to make such
a confession. But the truth must be told, even if it hurts. It
has been observed by those who travel in Europe, that Germany,
which has the finest and best universities, which stands highest
in scholarship, nevertheless tolerates, nay, enforces the
subjection of woman. The freedom of a country stands in direct
relation to the position of its women. America, which has
proclaimed the freedom of man, has developed <i>pari passu</i> a finer
womanhood, and has done more for us than any other nation in
existence. A new type of manhood has been reared on American
soil&mdash;a type which Tennyson describes in his Princess:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">Man shall be more of woman, she of man;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">He gain in sweetness and in moral height,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Nor lose the thews that wrestle with the world;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">She, mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Till at the last they set them each to each,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Like perfect music unto noble words.<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Then comes the statelier Eden back to man;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Then springs the crowning race of human kind.<br /></span>
</div></div>

</blockquote>

<p>At the evening session the time was divided between Lillie Devereux
Blake and Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins. Mrs. Blake spoke on the question,
"Is it a Crime to be a Woman?"</p>

<blockquote><p>She showed in a clear, logical manner that wherever a woman was
apprehended for crime the discrimination against her was not
because of the crime she had committed, but because the crime was
committed by a woman. Every woman in this country is treated by
the law as if she were to blame for being a woman. In New York an
honorable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_259" id="Page_259">[Pg 259]</a></span> married woman has no right to her children. A man may
beat his wife all he pleases; but if he beats another man the law
immediately interferes, showing that the woman is not protected
simply because she is so indiscreet as to <i>be a woman</i>. If it is
not a crime to be a woman, why are women subjected to unequal
payment with men for the same service? Why are they forced at
times to don men's clothes in order to obtain employment that
will keep them from starvation?</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Couzins</span> said that the American-born woman was "a woman
without a country"; but before she had closed she had proved that
this country belonged exclusively to the women. It was a woman,
Queen Isabella, that enabled a man to discover this country, and
in the old flag the initials were "I" and "F," representing
Isabella and Ferdinand, showing that it was acknowledged that the
woman's initial was the more important in this matter and to be
first considered. It was a woman, Mary Chilton, that first landed
on Plymouth rock. It was a woman, Betsy Ross, that designed our
beautiful flag, the original eagle on our silver dollar, and the
seal of the United States without which no money is legal. All
the way down in our national history woman has been hand in hand
with man, has assisted, supported and encouraged him, and now
there are women ready to help reform the life of the body
politic, and side by side with man work to purify, refine and
ennoble the world. Miss Couzins seemed Inspired by her own
thoughts and carried the audience along with her in her flights
of eloquence. </p></blockquote>

<p>Being asked to make a few closing remarks, Mrs. May Wright Sewall
said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Difficult, indeed, is the task of closing a three days'
convention; vain is the hope to do it with fitting words which
shall not be mere repetitions of what has been said on this
platform. The truth which bases this claim lies in a nut-shell,
and the shell seems hard to be cracked. It is unfair, when
comparing the ability of men and women, to compare the average
woman to the exceptional man, but this is what man always does.
If, perchance, he admits not only the equality but the
superiority of woman, he tells her she must not vote because she
is so nearly an angel, so much better than he is, and this, in
the face of the fact that every angel represented or revealed has
been shown in the form of a <i>handsome young man</i>. If any class
then must abstain from meddling in politics on account of
relation to the angels, it is the men! But she informed the
gentlemen she had no fears for them on that ground, for their
relationship was not <i>near</i> enough to cause any serious
inconvenience. Speaking of the objections to women undertaking
grave or deep studies, that woman lacks the logical faculty, that
she has only intuition, nerve-force, etc., Mrs. Sewall said: It
is true of every woman who has done the worthiest work in
science, literature, or reform, from Diotima, the teacher of
Socrates, to Margaret Fuller, the pupil of Channing and the peer
of Emerson, that ignoring the methods of nerves and instincts,
she has placed herself squarely on the basis of observation,
investigation and reason. Men will admit that these women had
strength and logic, but say they are exceptional women. So are
Gladstone, Bismarck, Gambetta, Lincoln and Garfield exceptional
men. She mentioned Miss Anthony's proposed trip to Europe, and
said that she had not had a holiday for thirty years.</p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_260" id="Page_260">[Pg 260]</a></span></p><p>Miss <span class="smcap">Anthony</span> said she wished to call attention to the report of
the Special Committee of the Senate, which distinctly stated that
the question had had "general agitation," and that the petitions
at different times presented were both "<i>numerous</i> and
respectable." This was sufficient answer, coming from such high
authority, that of Senator Anthony, to all the insinuations and
unjust remarks about the petitions presented to congress, and
with regard to the assertion that women themselves did not want
the ballot. She expressed her obligations to the press, and
mentioned that the <i>Sunday Chronicle</i> had announced its intention
of giving much valuable space to the proceedings, and that when
she had learned this, she had ordered 1,000 copies, which she
would send to the address of any friend in the audience free of
charge. </p></blockquote>

<p>The "Star Spangled Banner" was then sung, Miss Couzins and Mrs.
Shattuck singing the solos, Mr. Wilson of the Foundry M. E. Church,
leading the audience in the chorus, the whole producing a fine
effect. Miss Anthony said the audience could see how much better it
was to have a man to help, even in singing. This brought down the
house.</p>

<p>In closing this report, a word may be said of the persons most
conspicuous in it. This year several remarkable additions have been
made to our number, and it is of these especially that we would
speak. Mrs. Minor of St. Louis, in her manner has all the
gentleness and sweetness of the high-born Southern lady; her
personal appearance is very pleasant, her hair a light chestnut,
untouched with gray; her face has lost the color of youth, but her
eyes have still their fire, toned down by the sorrow they have
seen. Madame Neyman is also new to the Washington platform. She is
a piquant little German lady, with vivacious manner, most agreeable
accent, and looked in her closely-fitting black-velvet dress as if
she might have just stepped out of a painting. In direct contrast
is Mrs. Miller of Maryland&mdash;a large, dark-haired matron, past
middle age, but newly born in her enthusiasm for the cause. She is
a worker as well as a talker, and is a decided acquisition to the
ranks. The other novice in the work is Mrs. Amy Dunn, who has taken
such a novel way to render assistance. Mrs. Dunn is tall and
slender, with dark hair and eyes. She is a shrewd observer, does
not talk much socially, but when she says anything it is to the
point. Her character sketch, "Zekle's Wife," will be a
stepping-stone to many a woman on her way to the suffrage platform.</p>

<p>Two women who have done and are doing a great work in this city,
and who are not among the public speakers, are Mrs. Spofford, the
treasurer, wife of the proprietor of the Riggs House, and Miss
Ellen H. Sheldon, secretary of the Association. To these ladies is
due much of the success of the convention. Mrs. Sheldon is of
diminutive stature, with gray hair, and Mrs. Spofford is of large
and queenly figure, with white hair. Her magnificent presence is
always remarked at the meetings.</p>

<p>The following were among the letters read at this convention:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
10 <span class="smcap">Duchess Street, Portland Place, London</span>, Eng., Jan. 12.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Miss Anthony</span>: To you and our friends in convention
assembled, I send greeting from the old world. It needs but
little imagination to bring Lincoln Hall, the usual fine
audiences, and the well-known faces on the platform, before my
mind, so familiar have fifteen years of these conventions in
Washington made such scenes to me. How many times, as I have sat
in your midst and listened to the grand speeches of my noble
coädjutors, I have wondered how much longer we should be called
upon to rehearse the oft-repeated arguments in favor of equal
rights to all. Surely the grand declarations of statesmen at
every period in our history should make the principle of equality
so self-evident as to end at once all class legislation.</p>

<p>It is now over half a century since Frances Wright with eloquent
words first asserted the political rights of women in our
republic; and from that day to this, inspired apostles in an
unbroken line of succession have proclaimed the new gospel of the
motherhood of God and of humanity. We have plead our case in
conventions of the people, in halls of legislation, before
committees of congress, and in the Supreme Court of the United
States, and our arguments still remain unanswered. History shows
no record of a fact like this, where so large a class of
virtuous, educated, native-born citizens have been subjugated by
the national government to foreign domination.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_261" id="Page_261">[Pg 261]</a></span> While our
American statesmen scorn the thought that even the most gifted
son of a monarch, an emperor or a czar should ever occupy the
proud position of a president of these United States, and by
constitutional provision deny to all foreigners this high
privilege, they yet allow the very riff-raff of the old world to
make laws for the proudest women of the republic, to make the
moral code for the daughters of our people, to sit in judgment on
all our domestic relations.</p>

<p>England has taken two grand steps within the last year in
extending the municipal suffrage to the woman of Scotland and in
passing the Married Woman's Property bill. They are holding
meetings all over the country now in favor of parliamentary
suffrage. Statistics show that women generally <i>exercise</i> the
rights already accorded. They have recently passed through a very
heated election for members of the school-board in various
localities. Miss Lydia Becker was elected in Manchester, and Miss
Eva Müller in one of the districts of London, and several other
women in different cities.</p>

<p>A little incident will show you how naturally the political
equality of woman is coming about in Queen Victoria's dominions.
I was invited to dine at Barn Elms, a beautiful estate on the
banks of the Thames, a spot full of classic associations, the
residence of Mr. Charles McLaren, a member of parliament.
Opposite me at dinner sat a bright young girl tastefully attired;
on my right the gentleman to whom she was engaged; at the head of
the table a sparkling matron of twenty-five, one of the most
popular speakers here on the woman suffrage platform. The
dinner-table talk was such as might be heard in any cultivated
circle&mdash;art, literature, amusements, passing events, etc.,
etc.&mdash;and when the repast was finished, ladies and gentlemen, in
full dinner dress, went off to attend an important school-board
meeting, our host to preside and the young lady opposite me to
make the speech of the evening, and all done in as matter-of-fact
a way as if the party were going to the opera. Members of
parliament and lord-mayors preside and speak at all their public
meetings and help in every way to carry on the movement, giving
money most liberally; and yet how seldom any of our senators or
congressmen will even speak at our meetings, to say nothing of
sending us a check of fifty or a hundred dollars. I trust that we
shall accomplish enough this year to place the women of
republican America at least on an even platform with monarchical
England. With sincere wishes for the success of the convention,
cordially yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Elizabeth Cady Stanton.</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break"><span class="smcap">London</span>, January 10, 1883.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Miss Anthony</span>: I was very glad indeed to receive notice of
your mid-winter conference in time to send you a few words about
the progress of our work in England. I believe our disappointment
at the result of the vote in Nebraska must have been greater than
yours, as, being on the spot, you saw the difficulties to be
surmounted. I had so hoped that the men of a free new State would
prove themselves juster and wiser than the men of our older
civilizations, whose prejudice and precedents are such formidable
barriers. But we cannot, judging from a distance, look upon the
work of the campaign as thrown away. Twenty-five thousand votes
in favor of woman suffrage in the face of such enormous odds is
really a victory, and the legislatures of these States are deeply
pledged to ratify the constitutional amendment, if passed by
congress. We look forward hopefully to the discussion in
congress. The majority report of the Senate cannot fail to secure
attention, and I hope your present convention will bring together
national forces that will greatly influence the debate.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Caroline A. Biggs.</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break">51 <span class="smcap">Rue de Varenne, Paris</span>, January 15, 1883.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony</span>: Perhaps a brief account of what has been
done with the two packages of "The History of Woman Suffrage"
which you sent me for distribution in Europe may prove
interesting to the convention. In the first place, sets in sheep
have been deposited already, or will have been before spring, in
all the great continental libraries from Russia to France, and
from Denmark to Turkey. In the second place, copies in cloth have
been presented to reformers, publicists, editors, etc,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_262" id="Page_262">[Pg 262]</a></span> in every
country of the old world. This generous distribution of a costly
work has already begun to produce an effect. Besides a large
number of private letters from all parts of Europe acknowledging
the receipt of the volumes and bestowing on their contents the
highest praise, the History has been reviewed in numerous reform,
educational and socialistic periodicals and newspapers in almost
every modern European tongue. Nor is this all. Every week a new
pamphlet or book is sent me, or comes under my notice, in which
this History is cited, sometimes at great length, and is
pronounced to be the authority on the American women's movement.
I have carefully kept all these letters, newspaper notices, etc.,
and at the proper time I hope to prepare a little pamphlet for
your publisher on European opinion concerning your great work.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Theodore Stanton</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very truly yours,</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break">
51 <span class="smcap">Rue de Varenne, Paris</span>, January 15, 1883.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Miss Anthony</span>: My husband has just read me a letter he has
written you concerning the enthusiastic reception your big
History has had among liberal people on this side of the
Atlantic, but he did not inform you that he should send the
American public next spring a similar though much smaller work,
entitled "The Woman Question in Europe." The Putnams of New York
are now busy on the volume. You in the new world have little idea
how the leaders of the women's movement here watch everything you
do in the United States. The great fact which my husband's volume
will teach you in America is the important and direct influence
your movement is having on the younger, less developed, but
growing revolution in favor of our sex, now in progress in every
country of the old world. While assisting in the preparation of
the manuscript for this book this fact has been thrust upon my
notice at every instant, and never before did I fully realize the
grand rôle the United States is acting in this nineteenth
century, for, rest assured, the moment European women are
emancipated monarchy gives way to the republic everywhere.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">Margueritte Berry Stanton</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Most sincerely yours,</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break">
134 <span class="smcap">Pennsylvania Avenue</span>, S. E., January 25, 1883.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Susan Anthony</span>: I believe that this is the only week of the
whole winter when I could not come to you nor attend your
convention, much as I wish to do so. It has been an exceptional
week to me in the way of work and engagements, full of both as I
always am. I could not call on you last Monday, as I was in my
own crowded parlors from 1 till 10 o'clock at night. I tell you
this that you may know that I did not of my own accord stay away
from you. I have not had a moment to write you a coherent letter,
such as I would be willing you should read. But I <i>have</i> saved
the best reports of the convention, and it shall have a good
notice in the <i>Independent</i> of week after next. It shall have
only praise. Of course I could write a brighter, more
characteristic notice could I myself have attended. Should you
stay over next Sunday I can see you yet; but if not, remember I
think of you always with the warmest interest, and meet you
always with unchanged affection.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Mary Clemmer</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Ever your friend,</p>

<p>May God bless and keep you, I ever pray.<a name="FNanchor_101_101" id="FNanchor_101_101"></a><a href="#Footnote_101_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> </p></blockquote>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">House of Representatives, Thursday</span>, March 1, 1883.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">White</span>, by unanimous consent, from the Special Committee on
Woman Suffrage, reported back the joint resolution (H. Res., 255)
proposing an amendment to the constitution, which was referred to
the House calendar, and, with the accompanying report, ordered to
be printed.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_263" id="Page_263">[Pg 263]</a></span></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Springer</span>: As a member of that committee I have not seen the
report, and do not know whether it meets with my concurrence.<a name="FNanchor_102_102" id="FNanchor_102_102"></a><a href="#Footnote_102_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a></p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">White</span>: I ask by unanimous consent that the minority may have
leave to submit their views, to be printed with the majority
report.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span>: The Chair hears no objection.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. White</span>, from the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, submitted
the following:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>The Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, to whom was referred
House Resolution No. 255, proposing an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States to secure the right of suffrage
to citizens of the United States without regard to sex, having
considered the same, respectfully report:</i></p>

<p>In attempting to comprehend the vast results that could and would
be attained by the adoption of the proposed article to the
constitution, a few considerations are presented that are claimed
by the friends of woman suffrage to be worthy of the most serious
attention, among which are the following:</p>

<p>I. There are vast interests in property vested in women, which
property is affected by taxation and legislation, without the
owners having voice or representation in regard to it. The
adoption of the proposed amendment would remove a manifest
injustice.</p>

<p>II. Consider the unjust discriminations made against women in
industrial and educational pursuits, and against those who are
compelled to earn a livelihood by work of hand or brain. By
conferring upon such the right of suffrage, their condition, it
is claimed, would be greatly improved by the enlargement of their
influence.</p>

<p>III. The questions of social and family relations are of equal
importance to and affect as many women as men. Giving to women a
voice in the enactment of laws pertaining to divorce and the
custody of children and division of property would be merely
recognizing an undeniable right.</p>

<p>IV. Municipal regulations in regard to houses of prostitution, of
gambling, of retail liquor traffic, and of all other abominations
of modern society, might be shaped very differently and more
perfectly were women allowed the ballot.</p>

<p>V. If women had a voice in legislation, the momentous question of
peace and war, which may act with such fearful intensity upon
women, might be settled with less bloodshed.</p>

<p>VI. Finally, there is no condition, status in life, of rich or
poor; no question, moral or political; no interest, present or
future; no ties, foreign or domestic; no issues, local or
national; no phase of human life, in which the mother is not
equally interested with the father, the daughter with the son,
the sister with the brother. Therefore the one should have equal
voice with the other in molding the destiny of this nation.</p>

<p>Believing these considerations to be so important as to challenge
the attention of all patriotic citizens, and that the people have
a right to be heard in the only authoritative manner recognized
by the constitution, we report the accompanying resolution with a
favorable recommendation in order that the people, through the
legislatures of their respective States, may express their views:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Joint Resolution</span> <i>proposing an amendment to the Constitution of
the United States</i>:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i> by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in congress assembled, (two-thirds of
each House concurring therein), That the following article be
proposed to the legislatures of the several States as an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which, when
ratified by three-fourths of the said legislatures, shall be
valid as part of said constitution, namely:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_264" id="Page_264">[Pg 264]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 1. 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.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 2. The congress shall have power, by appropriate
legislation, to enforce the provisions of this article. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>Thus closed the forty-seventh congress, and although with so little
promise of any substantial good for women, yet this slight
recognition in legislation was encouraging to those who had so long
appealed in vain for the attention of their representatives. A
committee to even consider the wrongs of woman was more than had
ever been secured before, and one to propose some measures of
justice, sustained by the votes of a few statesmen awake to the
degradation of disfranchisement, gave some faint hope of more
generous action in the near future. The tone of the debates<a name="FNanchor_103_103" id="FNanchor_103_103"></a><a href="#Footnote_103_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a> in
these later years even, on the nature and rights of women, is
wholly unworthy the present type of developed womanhood and the age
in which we live.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_81_81" id="Footnote_81_81"></a><a href="#FNanchor_81_81"><span class="label">[81]</span></a> During the autumn Miss Anthony, Mrs. Jones, Miss Snow
and Miss Couzins, spending some weeks in Washington, asked for an
audience with President Chester A. Arthur, and urged him to
recommend in his first message to congress the appointment of a
standing committee and the submission of a sixteenth amendment.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_82_82" id="Footnote_82_82"></a><a href="#FNanchor_82_82"><span class="label">[82]</span></a> <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Aldrich, Allison, Anthony, Blair, Cameron of
Pa., Cameron of Wis., Conger, Davis of Ill., Dawes, Edmunds, Ferry,
Frye, Harrison, Hawley, Hill of Col., Hoar, Jones of Fla., Jones of
Nev., Kellogg, Lapham, Logan, McDill, McMillan, Miller of Cal.,
Mitchell, Morrill, Platt, Plumb, Ransom, Rollins, Saunders, Sawyer,
Sewell, Sherman, Windom&mdash;35.
</p><p>
<i>Nays</i>&mdash;Bayard, Beck, Brown, Butler, Camden, Cockrell, Coke, Davis
of W. Va., Fair, Farley, Garland, Hampton, Hill of Ga., Jackson,
Jonas, McPherson, Maxey, Saulsbury, Slater, Vance, Vest, Walker,
Williams&mdash;23.
</p><p>
<i>Absent</i>&mdash;Call, George, Gorman, Groome, Grover, Hale, Harris,
Ingalls, Johnston, Lamar, Mahone, Miller of N. Y., Morgan,
Pendleton, Pugh, Teller, Van Wyck, Voorhees&mdash;18.
</p><p>
The members of the committee were Senators Lapham of New York,
Anthony of Rhode Island, Blair of New Hampshire, Jackson of
Tennessee, George of Mississippi, Ferry of Michigan and Fair of
Nevada.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_83_83" id="Footnote_83_83"></a><a href="#FNanchor_83_83"><span class="label">[83]</span></a> <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Aldrich, Anderson, Bayne, Beach, Belford,
Bingham, Black, Bliss, Brewer, Briggs, Browne, Brumm, Buck,
Burrows, Julius C., Butterworth, Calkins, Camp, Campbell, Candler,
Cannon, Carpenter, Caswell, Converse, Crapo, Davis, George R.,
Dawes, Deering, De Motte, Dezendorf, Dingley, Dwight, Farwell,
Sewall S., Finley, Flower, Geddes, Grout, Hardenburgh, Harris,
Henry, S., Haseltine, Haskell, Hawk, Hazelton, Heilman, Henderson,
Hepburn, Hill, Hiscock, Horr, Houk, Hubbell, Humphrey, Hutchinson,
Jacobs, Jadwin, Jones, Phineas, Kasson, Kelley, Ladd, Lord, Marsh,
Mason, McClure, McCoid, McCook, McKinley, Miles, Miller, Moulton,
Murch, Nolan, Norcross, O'Neill, Orth, Page, Parker, Paul, Payson,
Poole, Pierce, Pettibone, Pound, Prescott, Ranney, Ray, Reed, Rice.
Theron M., Richardson, D. P., Ritchie, Robeson, Robinson, Geo. D.,
Robinson, James S., Ryan, Scranton, Shallenberger, Sherwin,
Skinner, Smith, A. Herr, Smith, Dietrich C., Spaulding, Spooner,
Steele, Stephens, Stone, Strait, Taylor, Updegraff, J. T.,
Updegraff, Thomas, Valentine, Van Aernam, Walker, Watson, West,
White, Williams, Chas. G., Willits&mdash;115.
</p><p>
<i>Nays</i>&mdash;Aiken, Atkins, Berry, Blackburn, Bland, Blount, Bragg,
Buchanan, Buckner, Cabell, Caldwell, Cassiday, Chapman, Clark,
Clements, Cobb, Colerick, Cox, William R., Covington, Cravens,
Culberson, Curtin, Deuster, Dibrell, Dowd, Evins, Forney, Frost,
Fulkerson, Garrison, Guenther, Gunter, Hammond, N. J., Hatch,
Herbert, Hewitt, G. W. Hoge, Holman, House, Jones, George W.,
Jones, James K., Joyce, Kenna, Klotz, Knott, Latham, Leedom,
Manning, Martin, Matson, McMillin, Mills, Money, Morrison,
Mutchler, Oates, Phister, Reagan, Rosecrans, Ross, Schackleford,
Shelley, Simonton, Singleton, Jas. W., Singleton, Otho R., Sparks,
Speer, Springer, Stockslager, Thompson, P. B., Thompson, Wm. G.,
Tillman, Tucker, Turner, Henry G., Turner, Oscar, Upson, Vance,
Warner, Whittihore, Williams, Thomas, Willis, Wilson, Wise, George
D., Young&mdash;84.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_84_84" id="Footnote_84_84"></a><a href="#FNanchor_84_84"><span class="label">[84]</span></a> <i>Connecticut</i>, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Frances Ellen
Burr. <i>Colorado</i>, Mrs. Elizabeth G. Campbell, <i>District of
Columbia</i>, Ellen H. Sheldon, Jane H. Spofford, Dr. Caroline B.
Winslow, Ellen M. O'Conner, Eliza Titus Ward, Belva A. Lockwood,
Mrs. H. L. Shephard, Martha Johnson. <i>Indiana</i>, Helen M. Gongar,
May Wright Sewall, Laura Kregelo, Alexiana S. Maxwell. <i>Maine</i>,
Sophronia C. Snow. <i>Massachusetts</i>, Mrs. Harriet H. Robinson,
Harriette R. Shattuck, Laura E. Brooks, Mary R. Brown, Emma F.
Clary. <i>Nebraska</i>, Clara B. Colby. <i>New Jersey</i>, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs.
Chandler. <i>New York</i>, Mrs. Caroline Gilkey Rogers, Mrs. Blake, Mrs.
Gage, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Helen M. Loder. <i>Pennsylvania</i>, Mrs.
McClellan Brown, Rachel G. Foster, Emma C. Rhodes. <i>Rhode Island</i>,
Rev. Frederick A Hinckley, Mrs. Burgess. <i>Wisconsin</i>, Miss Eliza
Wilson and Mrs. Painter.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_85_85" id="Footnote_85_85"></a><a href="#FNanchor_85_85"><span class="label">[85]</span></a> Short speeches were made by Mrs. Robinson and Mrs.
Shattuck of Massachusetts, Mrs. Sewall and Mrs. Gougar of Indiana,
Mrs. Saxon of Louisiana, Mrs. Colby of Nebraska.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_86_86" id="Footnote_86_86"></a><a href="#FNanchor_86_86"><span class="label">[86]</span></a> When Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage and Mrs. Blake of New
York, Mrs. Hooker of Connecticut and Mrs. Saxon of Louisiana, and
Mrs. Sewall, by special request of the chairman, again addressed
the committee.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_87_87" id="Footnote_87_87"></a><a href="#FNanchor_87_87"><span class="label">[87]</span></a> Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Robeson, and Mr. Reed were
present.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_88_88" id="Footnote_88_88"></a><a href="#FNanchor_88_88"><span class="label">[88]</span></a> Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Sewall, Mrs. McClellan
Brown, Mrs. Colby, Miss Couzins, Miss Anthony, Edward M. Davis,
Robert Purvis, Mrs. Shattuck, Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley, Mrs.
Robinson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_89_89" id="Footnote_89_89"></a><a href="#FNanchor_89_89"><span class="label">[89]</span></a> Those present were Mesdames Spofford, Stanton,
Robinson, Shattuck, Sewall and Saxon; Misses Thompson, Anthony,
Couzins and Foster. Many pleasant ladies from the Society of
Friends were there also and contributed to the dignity and interest
of the occasion.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_90_90" id="Footnote_90_90"></a><a href="#FNanchor_90_90"><span class="label">[90]</span></a> The speakers in the American convention were Lucy
Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Margaret W. Campbell, Mary E. Haggart,
Judge Kingman and Governor Hoyt of Wyoming, Hannah Tracy Cutler,
Mary B. Clay, Dr. Mary F. Thomas, Rebecca N. Hazzard, Ada M.
Bittenbender, Mrs. O. C. Dinsmore, Matilda Hindman, Rev. W. E.
Copeland, Erasmus M. Correll.
</p><p>
The speakers at the National convention were Virginia L. Minor,
Ph&oelig;be Couzins, Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Bloomer, Mrs. McKinney, Mrs.
Shattuck, Mrs. Neyman, Mrs. Colby, Mrs. Sewall, Mrs. Mason, Mrs.
Brooks, Mrs. Blake, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Dinsmore, Miss Hindman, Mrs.
Gougar, Mr. Correll and Mrs. Harbert. Many of those from both
associations took part in the canvass. Miss Rachel G. Foster went
out in the spring and made all the arrangements for the work of the
National. She studied the geography of the State, and the
railroads, and mapped out all the meetings for its twelve
speakers.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_91_91" id="Footnote_91_91"></a><a href="#FNanchor_91_91"><span class="label">[91]</span></a> For full reports of the American convention see the
<i>Woman's Journal</i>, edited by Lucy Stone and published in Boston.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_92_92" id="Footnote_92_92"></a><a href="#FNanchor_92_92"><span class="label">[92]</span></a> For reports of the National see <i>Our Herald</i>, edited
by Helen M. Gougar and published in Lafayette, Ind. The daily
papers of Omaha had full reports, the most fair by the
<i>Republican</i>, edited by Mr. Brooks.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_93_93" id="Footnote_93_93"></a><a href="#FNanchor_93_93"><span class="label">[93]</span></a> Their many courtesies are well summed up by Miss
Foster in a letter to <i>Our Herald</i>:&mdash;<span class="smcap">Dear Herald</span>: As your readers
will know from the report of the executive meetings, it was decided
to have a headquarters for National Woman Suffrage Association
speakers at Omaha. When your editor left, the arrangements had not
been completed for office-room and furnishings. It is finally
decided that I, as secretary of the National Woman's Suffrage
Association, remain in charge of this Omaha office, with Mrs. C. B.
Colby as my associate, while Mrs. Bittenbender has charge of the
headquarters at Lincoln, and manages the American and State
speakers, these two officers of the campaign committee being in
constant consultation.
</p><p>
I cannot too strongly express the gratitude which our committee,
and especially our National Woman's Suffrage Association, owes to
the kind firm of Kitchen Brothers, proprietors of the Paxton Hotel.
During our late convention their attention has been unremitting,
and they now crown it by giving us, rent free, a large,
well-lighted office to be occupied until election as the Omaha
headquarters of our campaign committee. I was somewhat puzzled
about the suitable furnishings for the room, but Mr. Kitchen told
me he would attend to that himself, and through his kindness it
will be made very comfortable for us to occupy for the next five
weeks.
</p><p>
Messrs. Dewey and Stone of this city, large dealers in furniture,
have given the use of a handsome and convenient desk which will
enable us to bring order out of chaos. So you can imagine us,
surrounded by all convenient appliances, hard at work in our new
quarters a good part of every day for this last month before
election. We can certainly not complain that we are not made
welcome to the best the city affords by these kind citizens of
Omaha. Why, we even had a special engine and car given us by the
accommodating manager of the Burlington &amp; Missouri railroad to run
one of our speakers from Omaha to Lincoln to enable her to attend a
meeting which would otherwise have lacked a speaker. Mr.
Montmorency, on behalf of the Burlington &amp; Missouri railroad,
extended this courtesy (and in our need at that hour it was highly
appreciated) to us because of the work in which we are engaged. As
all know ere this, both this road and the Union Pacific have given
to our speakers and delegates generous reductions over all their
lines in this State.
</p><p>
Mayor Boyd, owner of the Opera House, has also done his share to
aid us toward success, in his great reduction of ordinary rates to
us while we occupy his handsome building with our suffrage mass
meetings. We have the Opera House now secured for October 4, 13,
19, 26, November 2 and 6, on which dates large meetings will be
addressed by some of our principal speakers. The first date is to
be filled by Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins, on "The Woman Without a
Country."
</p><p>
The full report of our proceedings at the Omaha and Lincoln
conventions, with the newspaper comments upon the size and
character of the audiences there assembled, as well as the
courtesies which I have just mentioned, will convince our readers
that we are seemingly welcome guests here in Nebraska, and I may
say especially in Omaha. I will keep the <i>Herald</i> posted from week
to week upon campaign committee work.
</p>
<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Rachel G. Foster</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours for success,</p>
<p>
Headquarters of Suffrage Campaign Committee, Paxton House, Omaha,
October 2, 1882.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_94_94" id="Footnote_94_94"></a><a href="#FNanchor_94_94"><span class="label">[94]</span></a> A private letter was received from Mrs. Ellen Clark
Sargent, enclosing a check for $50.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_95_95" id="Footnote_95_95"></a><a href="#FNanchor_95_95"><span class="label">[95]</span></a> Miss Stanton, having studied astronomy with Professor
Maria Mitchell, went to Europe to take a degree in Mathematics from
the College of France; but before completing her course, she shared
the fate of too many of our American girls; she expatriated herself
by marrying a foreigner.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_96_96" id="Footnote_96_96"></a><a href="#FNanchor_96_96"><span class="label">[96]</span></a> Letters were also received from Rebecca Moore,
England; Mrs. Z. G. Wallace, Indianapolis; Frederick Douglass,
Washington, D. C.; Theodore Stanton, Paris, France; Sarah Knox
Goodrich, Clarina Howard Nichols, California, and many others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_97_97" id="Footnote_97_97"></a><a href="#FNanchor_97_97"><span class="label">[97]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The National Woman Suffrage Association has
labored unremittingly to secure the appointment of a committee in
the congress of the United States to receive and consider the
petitions of women and whereas, this Association realizes the
importance of such a committee,
</p><p>
<i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of this Association are due and are
hereby tendered to congress for the appointment at its last session
of a Select Woman Suffrage Committee in each house.
</p><p>
<i>Resolved</i>, That the thanks of this Association are hereby tendered
to Senators Lapham, Ferry, Blair and Anthony, of the Select
Committee, for their able majority report.
</p><p>
<i>Resolved</i>, That it is the paramount duty of congress at its next
session to submit a sixteenth amendment to the constitution which
shall secure the enfranchisement of the women of the republic.
</p><p>
<i>Resolved</i>, That the recent action of King Christian of Denmark, in
conferring the right of municipal suffrage upon the women in
Iceland, and the similar enlargement of woman's political freedom
in Scotland, India and Russia, are all encouraging evidences of the
progress of self-government even in monarchical countries. And
farther, that while the possession of these privileges by our
foreign sisters is an occasion of rejoicing to us, it still but
emphasizes the inconsistency of a republic which refuses political
recognition to one-half of its citizens.
</p><p>
<i>Resolved</i>, That the especial thanks of the officers and delegates
of this convention are due and are hereby most cordially tendered
to Mrs. Clara Bewick Colby, for the exceptionally efficient manner
in which she has discharged the onerous duties which devolved upon
her in making all preparations for this convention and for the
grand success which her efforts have secured.
</p><p>
<i>Resolved</i>, That the National Woman Suffrage Association on the
occasion of this, its fourteenth annual convention, does, in the
absence of its honored president, desire to send greeting to
Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and to express to her the sympathetic
admiration with which the members of this body have followed her in
her reception in a foreign land.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_98_98" id="Footnote_98_98"></a><a href="#FNanchor_98_98"><span class="label">[98]</span></a> Committee on Resolutions, composed of Lillie Devereux
Blake of New York city, Virginia L. Minor of St. Louis, Harriet R.
Shattuck of Boston, May Wright Sewall of Indianapolis, and Ellen H.
Sheldon of the District of Columbia.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_99_99" id="Footnote_99_99"></a><a href="#FNanchor_99_99"><span class="label">[99]</span></a> Mrs. Spofford, the treasurer, reported that $5,000
were spent in Nebraska in the endeavor to carry the amendment in
that State.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_100_100" id="Footnote_100_100"></a><a href="#FNanchor_100_100"><span class="label">[100]</span></a> Short speeches were made by Mrs. Rogers, Mrs.
Lockwood, Mrs. McKinney, Mrs. Loder and others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_101_101" id="Footnote_101_101"></a><a href="#FNanchor_101_101"><span class="label">[101]</span></a> This was the last word from this dear friend to one
of our number. I met her afterward as Mrs. Hudson with her husband
in London. We dined together one evening at the pleasant home of
Moncure D. Conway. She was as full as ever of plans for future
usefulness and enjoyment. From England she went for a short trip on
the continent. In parting I little thought she would so soon finish
her work on earth. E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_102_102" id="Footnote_102_102"></a><a href="#FNanchor_102_102"><span class="label">[102]</span></a> Mr. Springer had never been present at a single
meeting of the committee, though always officially notified.
Neither did Mr. Muldrow of Mississippi ever honor the committee
with his presence. However, Mr. Stockslager of Indiana and Mr.
Vance of North Carolina were always in their places, and the
latter, we thought, almost persuaded to consider with favor the
claims of women to political equality.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_103_103" id="Footnote_103_103"></a><a href="#FNanchor_103_103"><span class="label">[103]</span></a> Reports of congressional action and the conventions
of 1884-85 have been already published in pamphlet form, and we
shall print the reports hereafter once in two years, corresponding
with the terms of congress. Our plan is to bind these together once
in six years, making volumes of the size of those already
published. These pamphlets, as well as the complete History in
three volumes, are for sale at the publishing house of Charles
Mann, 8 Elm Park, Rochester, N. Y.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_265" id="Page_265">[Pg 265]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXI" id="CHAPTER_XXXI"></a>CHAPTER XXXI.</h2>

<h3>MASSACHUSETTS.</h3>

<h4>BY HARRIET H. ROBINSON.</h4>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>The Woman's Hour&mdash;Lydia Maria Child Petitions Congress&mdash;First New
England Convention&mdash;The New England, American and Massachusetts
Associations&mdash;<i>Woman's Journal</i>&mdash;Bishop Gilbert Haven&mdash;The
Centennial Tea-party&mdash;County Societies&mdash;Concord
Convention&mdash;Thirtieth Anniversary of the Worcester
Convention&mdash;School Suffrage Association&mdash;Legislative
Hearing&mdash;First Petitions&mdash;The Remonstrants Appear&mdash;Women in
Politics&mdash;Campaign of 1872&mdash;Great Meeting in Tremont
Temple&mdash;Women at the Polls&mdash;Provisions of Former State
Constitutions&mdash;Petitions, 1853&mdash;School-Committee Suffrage,
1879&mdash;Women Threatened with Arrest&mdash;Changes in the Laws&mdash;Woman
Now Owns her own Clothing&mdash;Harvard Annex&mdash;Woman in the
Professions&mdash;Samuel E. Sewall and William I. Bowditch&mdash;Supreme
Court Decisions&mdash;Sarah E. Wall&mdash;Francis Jackson&mdash;Julia Ward
Howe&mdash;Mary E. Stevens&mdash;Lucia M. Peabody&mdash;Lelia Josephine
Robinson&mdash;Eliza (Jackson) Eddy's Will. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">From</span> 1860 to 1866 there is no record to be found of any public
meeting on the subject of woman's rights, in Massachusetts.<a name="FNanchor_104_104" id="FNanchor_104_104"></a><a href="#Footnote_104_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a>
During these years the war of the rebellion had been fought.
Pending the great struggle the majority of the leaders, who were
also anti-slavery, had thought it to be the wiser policy for the
women to give way for a time, in order that all the working energy
might be given to the slave. "It is not the woman's but the negro's
hour"; "After the slave&mdash;then the woman," said Wendell Phillips in
his stirring speeches, at this date. "Keep quiet, work for us,"
said other of the anti-slavery leaders to the women. "Wait! help us
to abolish slavery, and then we will work for you." And the women,
who had the welfare of the country as much at heart as the men,
kept quiet; worked in hospital and field; sacrificed sons and
husbands; did what is always woman's part in wars between man and
man&mdash;and waited. If anything can make the women of the State regret
that they were silent as to their own claims for six eventful years
that the freedom of the black man might be secured, it is the fact
that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_266" id="Page_266">[Pg 266]</a></span> now in 1885 his vote is ever adverse to women's
enfranchisement. When the fourteenth amendment to the United States
Constitution was proposed, in which the negro's liberty and his
right to the ballot were to be established, an effort was made to
secure in it some recognition of the rights of woman. Massachusetts
sent a petition, headed with the name of Lydia Maria Child, against
the introduction of the word "male" in the proposed amendment. When
this petition was offered to the greatest of America's emancipation
leaders, for presentation to congress, he received and presented it
under protest. He thought the woman question should not be forced
at such a time, and the only answer from congress this
"woman-intruding" petition received was found in the fourteenth
amendment itself, in which the word "male," with unnecessary
iteration, was repeated, so that there might be no mistake in
future concerning woman's rights, under the Constitution of the
United States.<a name="FNanchor_105_105" id="FNanchor_105_105"></a><a href="#Footnote_105_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a></p>

<p>The war was over. The rights of the black man, for whom the women
had worked and waited, were secured, but under the new amendment,
by which his race had been made free, the white women of the United
States were more securely held in political slavery. It was time,
indeed, to hold conventions and agitate anew the question of
woman's rights. The lesson of the war had been well learned. Women
had been taught to understand politics, the "science of
government," and to take an interest in public events; and some who
before the war had not thought upon the matter, began to ask
themselves why thousands of ignorant <i>men</i> should be made voters
and they, or their sex, still kept in bondage under the law.</p>

<p>In 1866, May 31, the first meeting of the American Equal Rights
Association was held at the Meionaon in Boston.<a name="FNanchor_106_106" id="FNanchor_106_106"></a><a href="#Footnote_106_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a> In 1868 the
call for a New England convention was issued and the meeting was
held November 18, 19, at Horticultural Hall, Boston. James Freeman
Clarke presided. In this convention sat many of the distinguished
men and women of the New England States,<a name="FNanchor_107_107" id="FNanchor_107_107"></a><a href="#Footnote_107_107" class="fnanchor">[107]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_267" id="Page_267">[Pg 267]</a></span></a> old-time advocates,
together with newer converts to the doctrine, who then became
identified with the cause of equal rights irrespective of sex. This
convention was called by the Rev. Olympia Brown.<a name="FNanchor_108_108" id="FNanchor_108_108"></a><a href="#Footnote_108_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a> The hall was
crowded with eager listeners anxious to hear what would be said on
a subject thought to be ridiculous by a large majority of people in
the community. Some of the teachers of Boston sent a letter to the
convention, signed with their names, expressing their interest as
women. Henry Wilson avowed his belief in the equal rights of woman,
but thought the time had not yet come for such a consummation, and
said that, for this reason, he had voted against the question in
the United States Senate; "though," he continued, "I was afterwards
ashamed of having so voted." Like another celebrated Massachusetts
politician, he believed in the principle of the thing, but was
"agin its enforcement." At this date the popular interest
heretofore given to the anti-slavery question was transferred to
the woman suffrage movement.</p>

<p>The New England Woman Suffrage Association was formed at this
convention. Julia Ward Howe was elected its president, and made her
first address on the subject of woman's equality with man. On its
executive board were many representative names from the six New
England States.<a name="FNanchor_109_109" id="FNanchor_109_109"></a><a href="#Footnote_109_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> By the formation of this society, a great
impetus was given to the suffrage cause in New England. It held
conventions and mass-meetings, printed tracts<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_268" id="Page_268">[Pg 268]</a></span> and documents, and
put lecturers in the field. It set in motion two woman suffrage
bazars, and organized subscription festivals, and other enterprises
to raise money to carry on the work. It projected the American, and
Massachusetts suffrage associations; it urged the formation of
local and county suffrage societies, and set up the <i>Woman's
Journal</i>. The New England Association held its first anniversary in
May, 1869, and the meeting was even more successful than the
opening one of the preceding year. On this occasion Mrs. Livermore
spoke in Boston for the first time, and many new friends coming
forward gave vigor and freshness to the movement.<a name="FNanchor_110_110" id="FNanchor_110_110"></a><a href="#Footnote_110_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> Wendell
Philips, Lucy Stone and Gilbert Haven, spoke at this convention. It
was on this occasion that the "good Bishop," as he afterward came
to be called, was met on leaving the meeting by one who did not
know his opinion on the subject. This person expressed surprise on
seeing him at a woman's rights meeting, and said: "<i>What! you</i>
here?" "Yes," said he, "I <i>am</i> here! I <i>believe</i> in this reform. I
am going to start in the beginning, and ride with the procession."
After this, not until his earthly journey was finished, was his
place in "the procession" found vacant. Since 1869 the New England
Association has held its annual meeting in Boston during
anniversary week, in May, when reports from various States are
offered, concerning suffrage work done during the year. The
American Woman Suffrage Association was organized in 1869. Since
its formation it has held its annual conventions in some of the
chief cities of the several States.<a name="FNanchor_111_111" id="FNanchor_111_111"></a><a href="#Footnote_111_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> A meeting was held in
Horticultural Hall, Boston, January 28, 1870, to organize the
Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association.<a name="FNanchor_112_112" id="FNanchor_112_112"></a><a href="#Footnote_112_112" class="fnanchor">[112]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_269" id="Page_269">[Pg 269]</a></span></a></p>

<p>The Massachusetts Association is the most active of the three
societies named. Its work is generally local though it has sent
help to Colorado, Michigan, and other Western States. It has kept
petitions in circulation, and has presented petitions and memorials
to the State legislatures. It has asked for hearings and secured
able speakers for them. It has held conventions, mass-meetings,
Fourth of July celebrations. It has helped organize local Woman
suffrage clubs and societies, and has printed for circulation
numerous woman suffrage tracts. The amount of work done by its
lecturing agents can be seen by the statement of Margaret W.
Campbell, who alone, as agent of the American, the New England and
the Massachusetts associations, traveled in twenty different States
and two territories, organizing and speaking in conventions.<a name="FNanchor_113_113" id="FNanchor_113_113"></a><a href="#Footnote_113_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a>
As part of the latest work of this society may be mentioned its
efforts to present before the women of the State, in clear and
comprehensive form, an explanation of the different sections of the
new law "allowing women to vote for school committees." As soon as
the law passed the legislature of 1879, a circular of instructions
to women was carefully prepared by Samuel E. Sewall, an eminent
lawyer and member of the board of the Massachusetts Association, in
which all the points of law in relation to the new right were ably
presented. Thousands of copies of this circular were sent to women
all over the State.</p>

<p>The Centennial Tea Party was held in Boston, December 15, 1873, in
response to the following call:</p>

<blockquote><p>The women of New England who believe that "taxation without
representation is tyranny," and that our forefathers were
justified in defying despotic power by throwing the tea into
Boston harbor, invite the men and women of New England to unite
with them in celebrating the one-hundredth anniversary of that
event in Fanueil Hall.<a name="FNanchor_114_114" id="FNanchor_114_114"></a><a href="#Footnote_114_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_270" id="Page_270">[Pg 270]</a></span></p>

<p>Three thousand people were in attendance, and it was altogether an
enthusiastic occasion and one long to be remembered.</p>

<p>The record of conventions and meetings held by the Massachusetts
Association by no means includes all such gatherings held in
different towns and cities of the State. The county and local
societies have done a vast amount of work. The Hampden society was
started in 1868, with Eliphalet Trask, Frank B. Sanborn and
Margaret W. Campbell as leading officers. This was the first county
society formed in the State. Julia Ward Howe, a fresh convert of
the recent convention went to Salem to lecture on woman suffrage,
and the Essex county society was formed with Mrs. Sarah G. Wilkins
and Mrs. Delight R. P. Hewitt&mdash;the only two Salem women who went to
the 1850 convention at Worcester&mdash;on its executive board. The
Middlesex county society followed, planned by Ada C. Bowles and
officered by names well known in that historic old county. The
Hampshire and Worcester societies brought up the rear; the former
planned by Seth Hunt of Northampton. Notable conventions were held
by the Middlesex society in 1876&mdash;one in Malden, one in Melrose and
one in Concord, organized and conducted by its president, Harriet
H. Robinson. This last celebrated town had never before been so
favored. These meetings were conducted something after the style of
local church conferences. They were well advertised, and many
people came. A collation was provided by the ladies of each town,
and the feast of reason was so judiciously mingled with the
triumphs of cookery, that converts to the cause were never so
easily won. Many women present said to the president: "I never
before heard a woman's rights speech. If these are the reasons why
women should vote, I believe in voting."</p>

<p>The Concord convention was held about a month after the great
centennial celebration of April 19, 1875&mdash;a celebration in which no
woman belonging to that town took any official part. Nor was there
any place of honor found for the more distinguished women who had
come long distances to share in the festivities. Some of the women
were descendents of Governor John Hancock, Dr. Samuel Prescott,
Major John Buttrick, Rev. William Emerson and Lieutenant Emerson
Cogswell. Though no seat of honor in the big tent in which the
speeches were made was given to the women of to-day, silent
memorials of those who had taken part in the events of one hundred
years ago, had found<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_271" id="Page_271">[Pg 271]</a></span> a conspicuous place there&mdash;the scissors that
cut the immortal cartridges made by the women on that eventful day,
and the ancient flag that the fingers of some of the mothers of the
Revolution had made. Though the Concord women were not permitted to
share the centennial honors, they were not deprived of the
privilege of paying their part of the expenses incident to the
occasion. To meet these, an increased tax-rate was assessed upon
all the property owners in the town; and, since one-fifth of the
town tax of Concord is paid by women, it will be seen what was
their share in the great centennial celebration of 1876.</p>

<p>The knowledge of the proceedings at Concord added new zest to the
spirit of the three conventions, and the events of the day were
used by the speakers to point the moral of the woman's rights
question. Lucy Stone made one of her most effective and eloquent
speeches upon this subject. She said:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Fellow Citizens</span> (I had almost said fellow subjects): What we need
is that women should feel their mean position; when that happens,
they will soon make an effort to get out of it. Everything is
possible to him that wills. All that is needed for the success of
the cause of woman suffrage is to have women know that they want
to vote. Concord and Lexington got into a fight about the
centennial, and Concord voted $10,000 for the celebration in
order to eclipse Lexington. One-fifth of the tax of Concord is
paid by the women, yet not one of these women dared to go to the
town hall and cast her vote upon that subject. This is exactly
the same thing which took place one hundred years ago&mdash;taxation
without representation, against which the <i>men</i> of Concord then
rebelled. If I were an inhabitant of Concord, I would let my
house be sold over my head and my clothes off my back and be
hanged by the neck before I would pay a cent of it! Men of
Melrose, Concord and Malden, why persecute us? Would you like to
be a slave? Would you like to be disfranchised? Would you like to
be bound to respect the laws which you cannot make? There are
15,000,000 of women whom the government denies legal rights. </p></blockquote>

<p>It might be supposed that a spot upon which the battle for freedom
and independence was first begun would always be the vantage ground
of questions relating to personal liberty. But such is not the
fact. Concord was never an anti-slavery town, though some of its
best citizens took active part in all the abolition movements. When
the time came that women were allowed to vote for school
committees, the same intolerant spirit which ignored and shut them
out of the centennial celebration was again manifested toward
them&mdash;not only by the leading magnates, but also by the petty
officials of the town. Some of them have from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_272" id="Page_272">[Pg 272]</a></span> the first shown a
great deal of ingenuity in inventing ways to intimidate and mislead
the women voters.</p>

<p>At the annual convention of the Massachusetts Association, in May,
1880, the following resolution was passed:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, We believe in keeping the land-marks and traditions of
our movement; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, It will be thirty years next October since the first
woman's rights meeting was held in the State, and it seems
fitting that there should be some celebration of the event;
therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we will hold a woman suffrage jubilee in
Worcester, October 23 and 24 next, to commemorate the anniversary
of our first convention. </p></blockquote>

<p>A committee<a name="FNanchor_115_115" id="FNanchor_115_115"></a><a href="#Footnote_115_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a> of arrangements was chosen, and the meeting was
held. There were present many whose silver hairs told of long and
faithful service. The oldest ladies there were Mrs. Lydia Brown of
Lynn, Mrs. Wilbour of Worcester, and Julia E. Smith Parker of
Glastonbury, Conn. On the afternoon of the first day there was an
informal gathering of friends in the ante-room of Horticultural
Hall. Old-time memories were recalled by those who had not seen
each other for many years, and the common salutation was: "How gray
you've grown!" Many of them had indeed grown gray in the service,
and their faces were changed, but made beautiful by a life devoted
to a noble purpose. There were many present who had attended the
convention of thirty years ago&mdash;Abby Kelley Foster, Lucy Stone,
Antoinettë Brown Blackwell, Paulina Gerry, Rev. Samuel May, Rev. W.
H. Channing, Joseph A. Howland, Adeline H. Howland, Dr. Martha H.
Mowry and many, many others. It was very pleasant indeed to hear
these veterans whose clear voices have spoken out so long and so
bravely for the cause. The speaking<a name="FNanchor_116_116" id="FNanchor_116_116"></a><a href="#Footnote_116_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a> at all the sessions was
excellent, and the spirit of the convention was very reverent and
hopeful.</p>

<p>The tone of the press concerning woman's rights meetings had
changed greatly since thirty years before. "Hen conventions" had
gone by, and a woman's meeting was now called by its proper<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_273" id="Page_273">[Pg 273]</a></span> name.
Representatives of leading newspapers from all parts of the State
were present, and the reports were written in a just and friendly
spirit.</p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 365px;">
<a name="v3_273" id="v3_273">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_273.jpg" width="365" height="500" alt="Harriet H. Robinson" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>The Massachusetts School Suffrage Association was formed in 1880,
Abby W. May, president.<a name="FNanchor_117_117" id="FNanchor_117_117"></a><a href="#Footnote_117_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> Its efforts are mostly confined to
Boston. An independent movement of women voters in Boston, distinct
from all organizations, was formed in 1884, and subdivided into
ward and city committees. These did much valuable work and secured
a larger number of voters than had qualified in previous years. In
1880 the number of registered women in the whole State was 4,566,
and in Boston 826. In 1884, chiefly owing to the ward and city
committees, the number in Boston alone was 1,100. This year (1885)
a movement among the Roman Catholic women has raised the number who
are assessed to vote to 1,843; and it is estimated that when the
tax-paying women are added, the whole number will be about 2,500.</p>

<p>The National Woman Suffrage Association<a name="FNanchor_118_118" id="FNanchor_118_118"></a><a href="#Footnote_118_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> of Massachusetts was
formed in January, 1882, of members who had joined the National
Association at its thirteenth annual meeting, held in Tremont
Temple, Boston, May 26, 27, 1881. According to Article II. of its
constitution, its object is to secure to women their right to the
ballot, by working for national, State, municipal, school, or any
other form of suffrage which shall at the time seem most expedient.
While it is auxiliary to the National Association, it reserves to
itself the right of independent action. It has held
conventions<a name="FNanchor_119_119" id="FNanchor_119_119"></a><a href="#Footnote_119_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> in Boston and some of the chief cities of the
State, sent delegates to the annual Washington<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_274" id="Page_274">[Pg 274]</a></span> Convention<a name="FNanchor_120_120" id="FNanchor_120_120"></a><a href="#Footnote_120_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> and
published valuable leaflets.<a name="FNanchor_121_121" id="FNanchor_121_121"></a><a href="#Footnote_121_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> It has rolled up petitions to the
State legislature and to congress. Its most valuable work has been
the canvass made in certain localities in the city and country in
1884, to ascertain the number of women in favor of suffrage, the
number opposed and the number indifferent. The total result showed
that there were 405 in favor, 44 opposed, 166 indifferent, 160
refusing to sign, 39 not seen; that is, over nine who would sign
themselves in favor to one who would sign herself opposed. This
canvass was made by women who gave their time and labor to this
arduous work, and the results were duly presented to the
legislature.</p>

<p>In 1883 this Association petitioned the legislature to pass a
resolution recommending congress to submit a proposition for a
sixteenth amendment to the national constitution. The Senate
Committee on Woman Suffrage granted a hearing March 23, and soon
after presented a favorable report; but the resolution, when
brought to a vote, was lost by 21 to 11. This was the first time
that the National doctrine of congressional action was ever
presented or voted upon in the Massachusetts legislature. A second
hearing<a name="FNanchor_122_122" id="FNanchor_122_122"></a><a href="#Footnote_122_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> was granted on February 28, 1884, before the Committee
on Federal Relations. They reported leave to withdraw.</p>

<p>The associations mentioned are not the only ones that are aiding
the suffrage movement. Its friends are found in all the women's
clubs, temperance associations, missionary movements, charitable
enterprises, educational and industrial unions and church
committees. These agencies form a network of motive power which is
gradually carrying the reform into all branches of public work.</p>

<p>The <i>Woman's Journal</i> was incorporated in 1870 and is owned by a
joint stock company, shares being held by leading members of the
suffrage associations of New England. Shortly after it was
projected, the <i>Agitator</i>, then published in Chicago by Mary A.
Livermore, was bought by the New England Association on condition
that she should "come to Boston for one year, at a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_275" id="Page_275">[Pg 275]</a></span> reasonable
compensation, to assist the cause by her editorial labor and
speaking at conventions." Lucy Stone and Henry B. Blackwell,
invited by the same society to "return to the work in
Massachusetts," at once assumed the editorial charge. T. W.
Higginson, Julia Ward Howe and W. L. Garrison were assistant
editors. "Warrington," Kate N. Doggett, Samuel E. Sewall, F. B.
Sanborn, and many other good writers, lent a helping hand to the
new enterprise. The <i>Woman's Journal</i> has been of great value to
the cause. It has helped individual women and brought their
enterprises into public notice. It has opened its columns to
inexperienced writers and advertised young speakers. To sustain the
paper and furnish money for other work, two mammoth bazars or fairs
were held in Music Hall in 1870, 1871. Nearly all the New England
States and many of the towns in Massachusetts were represented by
tables in these bazars. Donations were sent from all directions and
the women worked, as they generally do in a cause in which they are
interested, to raise money to furnish the sinews of war. The
newspapers from day to day were full of descriptions of the
splendors of the tables, and the reporters spoke well of the women
who had taken this novel method to carry on their movement. People
who had never heard of woman suffrage before came to see what sort
of women were those who thus made a public exhibition of their zeal
in this cause. In remote places, as well as nearer the scene of
action, many people who had never thought of the significance of
the woman's rights movement, began to consider it through reading
the reports of the woman suffrage bazar.</p>

<p>Female opponents of the suffrage movement began to make a stir as
early as 1868. A remonstrance was sent into the legislature, from
two hundred women of Lancaster, giving the reasons why women should
not enjoy the exercise of the elective franchise: "It would
diminish the purity, the dignity and the moral influence of woman,
and bring into the family circle a dangerous element of discord."
In <i>The Revolution</i> of August 5, 1869, Parker Pillsbury said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Dolly Chandler and the hundred and ninety-four other women who
asked the Massachusetts legislature not to allow the right of
suffrage, were very impudent and tyrannical, too, in petitioning
for any but themselves. They should have said: "We, Dolly
Chandler and her associates, to the number of a hundred and
ninety-five in all, do not want the right of suffrage; and we
pray your honorable bodies to so decree and enact that we shall
never have it." So far they might go. But when they undertake<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_276" id="Page_276">[Pg 276]</a></span> to
prevent a hundred and ninety-four thousand other women who do
want the ballot and who have an acknowledged right to it, and are
laboring for it day and night, it is proper to ask, What business
have Dolly Chandler and her little coterie to interpose? Nobody
wants them to vote unless they themselves want to. They can stay
at home and see nobody but the assessor, the tax-gatherer and the
revenue collector, from Christmas to Christmas, if they so
prefer. Those gentlemen they will be pretty likely to see,
annually or quarterly, and to feel their power, too, if they have
pockets with anything in them, in spite of all petitions to the
legislature. </p></blockquote>

<p>It did not occur to these women that by thus remonstrating they
were doing just what they were protesting against. What <i>is</i> a
vote? An expression of opinion or a desire as to governmental
affairs, in the shape of a ballot. The "aspiring blood of
Lancaster" should have mounted higher than this, since, if it
really was the opinion of these remonstrants that woman cannot vote
without becoming defiled, they should have kept themselves out of
the legislature, should have kept their hands from petitioning and
their thoughts from agitation on either side of the subject. Just
such illogical reasoning on the woman suffrage question is often
brought forward and passes for the profoundest wisdom and
discreetest delicacy! The same arguments are used by the
remonstrants of to-day, who are now fully organized and doing very
efficient political work in opposing further political action by
women. In their carriages, with footman and driver, they solicit
names to their remonstrances. As a Boston newspaper says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The anti-woman suffrage women get deeper and deeper into politics
year by year in their determination to keep out of politics. By
the time they triumph they will be the most accomplished
politicians of the sex, and unable to stop writing to the papers,
holding meetings, circulating remonstrances, any more than the
suffrage sisterhood. </p></blockquote>

<p>These persons, men and women, bring their whole force to bear
before legislative committees at woman suffrage hearings, and use
arguments that might have been excusable forty years ago. However
this is merely a phase of the general movement and will work for
good in the end. It can no more stop the progress of the reform
than it can stop the revolution of the globe.</p>

<p>Political agitation on the woman suffrage question began in
Massachusetts in 1870. A convention to discuss the feasibility of
forming a woman suffrage political party was held in Boston, at
which Julia Ward Howe presided, and Rev. Augusta Chapin offered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_277" id="Page_277">[Pg 277]</a></span>
prayer. The question of a separate nomination for State officers
was carefully considered.<a name="FNanchor_123_123" id="FNanchor_123_123"></a><a href="#Footnote_123_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a> Delegates were present from the
Labor Reform and Prohibition parties, and strong efforts were made
by them to induce the convention to nominate Wendell Phillips, who
had already accepted the nomination of those two parties, as
candidate for governor. The convention at one time seemed strongly
in favor of this action, the women in particular thinking that in
Mr. Phillips they would find a staunch and well tried leader. But
more politic counsels prevailed, and it was finally concluded to
postpone a separate nomination until after the Republican and
Democratic conventions had been held. A State central committee was
formed, and at once began active political agitation. A memorial
was prepared to present to each of the last-named conventions; and
the candidates on the State tickets of the four political parties
were questioned by letter concerning their opinions on the right of
the women to the ballot. At the Republican State convention held
October 5, 1870, the question was fairly launched into politics, by
the admission, for the first time, of two women, Lucy Stone and
Mary A. Livermore, as regularly accredited delegates. Both were
invited to speak, and the following resolution drawn up by Henry B.
Blackwell, was presented by Charles W. Slack:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Republican party of Massachusetts is mindful
of its obligations to the loyal women of America for their
patriotic devotion to the cause of liberty; that we rejoice in
the action of the recent legislature in making women eligible as
officers of the State; that we thank Governor Claflin for having
appointed women to important political trusts; that we are
heartily in favor of the enfranchisement of women, and will hail
the day when the educated, intelligent and enlightened conscience
of the women of Massachusetts has direct expression at the ballot
box. </p></blockquote>

<p>This resolution was presented to the committee, who did not agree
as to the propriety of reporting it to the convention, and they
instructed their chairman, George F. Hoar, to state the fact and
refer the resolution back to that body for its own action. A warm
debate arose, in which several members of the convention made
speeches on both sides of the question. The resolution was finally
defeated, 137 voting in its favor, and 196 against it. Although
lost, the large vote in the affirmative was thought to mean a great
deal as a guaranty of the good faith of the Republican party, and
the women were willing to trust to its promises. It was thought
then, as it has been thought since, that most of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_278" id="Page_278">[Pg 278]</a></span> friends of
woman suffrage were in the Republican party, and that the interests
of the cause could best be furthered by depending on its action.
The women were, however, mistaken, and have learned to look upon
the famous resolution in its true light. It is now known as the
<i>coup d'état</i> of the Worcester convention of 1870, which really had
more votes than it was fairly entitled to. After
that,&mdash;"forewarned, forearmed," said the enemies of the enterprise,
and woman suffrage resolutions have received less votes in
Republican conventions.</p>

<p>When the memorial prepared by the State Central Committee was
presented to the Democratic State convention, that body, in
response, passed a resolution conceding the <i>principle</i> of women's
right to suffrage, but at the same time declared itself against its
being <i>enforced</i>, or put into practice. To finish the brief record
of the dealings of the Democratic party, with the women of the
State, it may be said that since 1870, it has never responded to
their appeals, nor taken any action of importance on the question.</p>

<p>In 1871 a resolution endorsing woman suffrage was passed in the
Republican convention. In June, 1872, the national convention at
Philadelphia, passed the following:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Republican party is mindful of its
obligations to the loyal women of America for their noble
devotion to the cause of freedom; their admission to wider fields
of usefulness is viewed with satisfaction; and the honest demand
of any class of citizens for additional rights, should be treated
with respectful consideration. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Massachusetts Republican State Convention, following this lead,
again passed a woman suffrage resolution:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That we heartily approve the recognition of the
rights of woman contained in the fourteenth clause of the
national Republican platform; that the Republican party of
Massachusetts, as the representative of liberty and progress, is
in favor of extending suffrage to all American citizens
irrespective of sex, and will hail the day when the educated
intellect and enlightened conscience of woman shall find direct
expression at the ballot-box. </p></blockquote>

<p>This was during the campaign of 1872, when General Grant's chance
of reëlection was thought to be somewhat uncertain, and the
Republican women in all parts of the country were called on to
rally to his support. The National Woman Suffrage Association had
issued "an appeal to the women of America," asking them to
coöperate with the Republican party and work for the election of
its candidates. In response to this appeal a ratification meeting
was held at Tremont Temple, in Boston, at which hundreds stayed to
a late hour listening to speeches made by women on the political
questions of the day. An address was issued from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_279" id="Page_279">[Pg 279]</a></span> the "Republican
women of Massachusetts to the women of America." In this address
they announced their faith in and willingness to "trust the
Republican party and its candidates, as saying what they mean and
meaning what they say, and in view of their honorable record we
have no fear of betrayal on their part." Mrs. Livermore, Lucy Stone
and Huldah B. Loud took part in the canvass, and agents employed by
the Massachusetts Association were instructed to speak for the
Republican party.<a name="FNanchor_124_124" id="FNanchor_124_124"></a><a href="#Footnote_124_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a> Women writers furnished articles for the
newspapers and the Republican women did as much effective work
during the campaign as if each one had been a "man and a voter."
They did everything but vote. All this agitation was a benefit to
the Republican party, but not to woman suffrage, because for a time
it arrayed other political parties against the movement and caused
it to be thought merely a party issue, while it is too broad a
question for such limitation.</p>

<p>General Grant was reëlected and the campaign was over. When the
legislature met and the suffrage question came up for discussion,
that body, composed in large majority of Republicans, showed the
women of Massachusetts the difference between "saying what you mean
and meaning what you say," the Woman Suffrage bill being defeated
by a large majority. The women learned by this experience that
nothing is to be expected of a political party while it is in
power. To close the subject of suffrage resolutions in the platform
of the Republican party, it may be said that they continued to be
put in and seemed to mean something until after 1875, when they
became only "glittering generalities," and were as devoid of real
meaning or intention as any that were ever passed by the old Whig
party on the subject of abolition. Yet from 1870 to 1874 the
Republican party had the power to fulfill its promises on this
question. Since then, it has been too busy trying to keep breath in
its own body to lend a helping hand to any struggling reform. At
the Republican convention, held in Worcester in 1880, an attempt
was made by Mr. Blackwell to introduce a resolution endorsing the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_280" id="Page_280">[Pg 280]</a></span>
right conferred upon women in the law allowing them to vote for
school committees, passed by the legislature of 1879. This
resolution was rejected by the committee, and when offered in
convention as an amendment, it was voted down without a single
voice, except that of the mover, being raised in its support. Yet
this resolution only asked a Republican convention to endorse an
existing right, conferred on the women of the State by a Republican
legislature! A political party as a party of freedom must be very
far spent when it refuses at its annual convention to endorse an
act passed by a legislature the majority of whose members are
representatives elected from its own body. Since that time the
Republican party has entirely ignored the claims of woman. In 1884,
at its annual convention, an effort was made, as usual, by Mr.
Blackwell, to introduce a resolution, but without success, and yet
some of the best of our leaders advised the women to "stand by the
Republican party."<a name="FNanchor_125_125" id="FNanchor_125_125"></a><a href="#Footnote_125_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a></p>

<p>The question of forming a woman suffrage political party had, since
1870, been often discussed.<a name="FNanchor_126_126" id="FNanchor_126_126"></a><a href="#Footnote_126_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> In 1875 Thomas J. Lothrop proposed
the formation of a separate organization. But it was not until 1876
that any real effort in this direction was made. The Prohibitory
(or Temperance) party sometimes holds the balance of political
power in Massachusetts, and many of the members of that party are
also strong advocates of suffrage. The feeling had been growing for
several years that if forces could be joined with the
Prohibitionists some practical result in politics might be reached,
and though there was a difference of opinion on this subject, many
were willing to see the experiment tried.</p>

<p>The Prohibitory party had at its convention in 1876 passed a
resolution inviting the women to take part in its primary meetings,
with an equal voice and vote in the nomination of candidates and
transaction of business. After long and anxious discussions, the
Massachusetts Woman Suffrage State Central Committee, in whose
hands all political action rested, determined to accept this
invitation. A woman suffrage political convention was held, at
which the Prohibitory candidates were endorsed and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_281" id="Page_281">[Pg 281]</a></span> a joint State
ticket was decided on, to be headed "Prohibition and Equal Rights."
These tickets were sent to women all over the State, and they were
strongly urged to go to the polls and distribute them on election
day. Lucy Stone, Mary A. Livermore and other leading speakers took
part in the campaign, and preparations were completed by which it
was expected both parties would act harmoniously together. Clubs
were formed at whose headquarters were seen men and women gathered
together to organize for political work. From some of these
headquarters hung transparencies with "Baker and Eddy" on one side,
and "Prohibition and Equal Rights" on the other. Caucuses and
conventions were held in Chelsea, Taunton, Malden, Lynn, Concord,
and other places. A Middlesex county (first district) senatorial
convention was called and organized by women, and its proceedings
were fully reported by the Boston newspapers.<a name="FNanchor_127_127" id="FNanchor_127_127"></a><a href="#Footnote_127_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a></p>

<p>The nominations made at these caucuses were generally unanimous,
and it seemed at the time as if the two wings of the so-called
"Baker party" would work harmoniously together. But, with a few
honorable exceptions, the Prohibitionists, taking advantage of the
fact that the voting power of the women was over, once outside the
caucus, repudiated the nominations, or held other caucuses and shut
the doors of entrance in the faces of the women who represented
either the suffrage or the Prohibitory party. This was the case
invariably, excepting in towns where the majority of the voting
members of the Prohibitory party were also in favor of woman
suffrage. This result is what might have been expected. Of what use
was woman in the ranks of any political party, with no vote outside
the caucus?</p>

<p>After being thus ignored in one of their caucuses in Malden,
Middlesex county, the suffragists in that town determined to hold
another caucus. This was accordingly done, and two "straight"
candidates were nominated as town representatives to the
legislature. A "Woman Suffrage ticket"<a name="FNanchor_128_128" id="FNanchor_128_128"></a><a href="#Footnote_128_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> was thereupon printed
to offer to the voters on election day. The next question was, who
would distribute these ballots<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_282" id="Page_282">[Pg 282]</a></span> most effectively at the polls. Some
men thought that the women themselves should go and present in
person the names of their candidates. At first the women who had
carried on the campaign shrank from this last test of their
faithfulness; but, after carefully considering the matter, they
concluded that it was the right thing to do. The repugnance felt at
that time, at the thought of "women going to the polls" can hardly
be appreciated to-day. Since they have begun to vote in
Massachusetts the terror expressed at the idea of such a proceeding
has somewhat abated; but in 1876 it was thought to be a rash act
for a woman to appear at the polls in company with men. Some
attempt was made to deter them from their purpose, and stories of
pipes and tobacco and probable insults were told; but they had no
terrors for women who knew better than to believe that their
neighbors would be turned into beasts (like the man in the fairy
tale) for this one day in the year.<a name="FNanchor_129_129" id="FNanchor_129_129"></a><a href="#Footnote_129_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a></p>

<p>It was a sight to be remembered, to behold women "crowned with
honor" standing at the polls to see the freed slave go by and vote,
and the newly-naturalized fellow-citizen, and the blind, the
paralytic, the boy of twenty-one with his newly-fledged vote, the
drunken man who did not know Hayes from Tilden, and the man who
read his ballot upside down. All these voted for the men they
wanted to represent them, but the women, being neither colored, nor
foreign, nor blind, nor paralytic, nor newly-fledged, nor drunk,
nor ignorant, but only <i>women</i>, could not vote for the men they
wanted to represent them.<a name="FNanchor_130_130" id="FNanchor_130_130"></a><a href="#Footnote_130_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a></p>

<p>The women learned several things during this campaign in
Massachusetts. One was, that weak parties are no more to be trusted
than strong ones; and another, that men grant but little until the
ballot is placed in the hands of those who make the demand. They
learned also how political caucuses and conventions are managed.
The resolution passed by the Prohibitionists enabled them to do
this. So the great "open sesame" is reached. It is but fair to
state that since 1876 the Prohibitory party has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_283" id="Page_283">[Pg 283]</a></span> treated the woman
suffrage question with consideration. In its annual convention it
has passed resolutions endorsing woman's claims to political
equality, and has set the example to other parties of admitting
women as delegates. At the State convention in 1885 the following
resolution was adopted by a good majority:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That women having interests to be promoted and rights
to be protected, and having ability for the discharge of
political duties, should have the right to vote and to be voted
for, as is accorded to man. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the early history of Massachusetts, when the new colony was
governed by laws set down in the Province charter (1691, third year
of William and Mary) women were not excluded from voting. The
clause in the charter relating to this matter says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The great and general court shall consist of the governor and
council (or assistants for the time being) and of such
freeholders as shall be from time to time elected or deputed by
the major part of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the
respective towns or places, who shall be present at such
elections. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the original constitution (1780) women were excluded from voting
except for certain State officers.<a name="FNanchor_131_131" id="FNanchor_131_131"></a><a href="#Footnote_131_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a> In the constitutional
convention of 1820, the word "male" was first put into the
constitution of the State, in an amendment to define the
qualifications of voters. In this convention, a motion was made at
three different times, during the passage of the act, to strike out
the intruding word, but the motion was voted down. Long before the
second attempt was made to revise the constitution of the State,
large numbers of women began to demand suffrage. Woman's sphere of
operations and enterprise had become so widened, that they felt
they had not only the right, but also an increasing fitness for
civil life and government, of which the ballot is but the sign and
the symbol.</p>

<p>In the constitutional convention of 1853, twelve petitions were
presented, from over 2,000 adult persons, asking for the
recognition of woman's right to the ballot, in the proposed
amendments to the constitution of the State. The committee reported
leave to withdraw, giving as their reason that the "consent of the
governed" was shown by the small number of petitioners. Hearings
before this committee were granted.<a name="FNanchor_132_132" id="FNanchor_132_132"></a><a href="#Footnote_132_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a> The chairman of this
committee, in presenting the report, moved that all debate on the
subject should cease in thirty minutes, and on motion of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_284" id="Page_284">[Pg 284]</a></span> Benjamin
F. Butler of Lowell, the whole report, excepting the last clause,
was stricken out. There was then left of the whole document
(including more than two closely-printed pages of reasoning) only
this: "It is inexpedient for this convention to take any action."</p>

<p>Legislative action on the woman's rights question began in 1849,
when William Lloyd Garrison presented the first petition on the
subject to the State legislature. Following him was one from
Jonathan Drake and others, "for a peaceable secession of
Massachusetts from the Union." Both these petitions were probably
considered by the legislature to which they were addressed as of
equally incendiary character, since they both had "leave to
withdraw." In 1851 an order was introduced asking "whether any
legislation was necessary concerning the wills of married women?"
In 1853 a bill was enacted "to exempt certain property of widows
and unmarried women from taxation." In the legislature of 1856 the
first great and important act relating to the property rights of
women was passed. It was to the effect that women could hold all
property earned or acquired independently of their husbands. This
act was amended and improved the next session.</p>

<p>In 1857 a hearing was held before the Committee on the Judiciary to
listen to arguments in favor of the petition of Lucy Stone and
others for equal property rights for women and for the "right of
suffrage." Another hearing was held in the same place in February,
1858, before the Joint Special Committee on the Qualifications of
Voters. A second hearing on the right of suffrage for women was
held the following week before the same committee. Thomas W.
Higginson made an address and Caroline Kealey Dall read an essay.</p>

<p>In 1858, Stephen A. Chase of Salem, from the same Committee on the
Qualifications of Voters, made a long report on the petitions. This
report closed with an order that the State Board of Education make
inquiry and report to the next legislature "whether it is not
practicable and expedient to provide by law some method by which
the women of this State may have a more active part in the control
and management of the schools." There is nothing in legislative
records to show that the State Board of Education reported
favorably; but from the above statement it appears that ten years
before Samuel E. Sewall's petition<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_285" id="Page_285">[Pg 285]</a></span> on the subject, a movement was
made towards making women "eligible to serve as members of
school-committees."</p>

<p>The petitions for woman's rights were usually circulated by women
going from house to house. They did the drudgery, endured the
hardships and suffered the humiliations attendant upon the early
history of our cause; but their names are forgotten, and others
reap the benefit of their labors. These women were so modest and so
anxious for the success of their petitions, that they never put
their own names at the head of the list, preferring the signature
of some leading man, so that others seeing his name, might be
induced to follow his example. Among the earliest of these silent
workers was Mary Upton Ferrin. Her petitions were for a change in
the laws concerning the property rights of married women, and for
the political and legal rights of all women. In 1849 she prepared a
memorial to the Massachusetts legislature in which are embodied
many of the demands for woman's equality before the law, which have
so often been made to that body since that time.<a name="FNanchor_133_133" id="FNanchor_133_133"></a><a href="#Footnote_133_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a></p>

<p>In 1861 the legislature debated a bill to allow a widow, "if she
have woodland as a part of her dower, the privilege of cutting wood
enough for one fire." This bill failed, and the widow, by law, was
<i>not</i> allowed to keep herself warm with fuel from her own wood-lot.
In 1863 a bill providing that "a wife may be allowed to be a
witness and proceed against her husband for desertion," was
reported inexpedient, and a bill was passed to <i>prevent</i> women from
forming copartnerships in business. In 1865, Gov. John A. Andrew,
seeing the magnitude of the approaching woman question, in his
annual message to the legislature, made a memorable suggestion:</p>

<blockquote><p>I know of no more useful object to which the commonwealth can
lend its aid, than that of a movement, adopted in a practical
way, to open the door of emigration to young women who are wanted
for teachers and for every appropriate, as well as domestic,
employment in the remote West, but who are leading anxious and
aimless lives in New England. </p></blockquote>

<p>By the "anxious and aimless" it was supposed the governor meant the
widowed, single or otherwise unrepresented portion of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_286" id="Page_286">[Pg 286]</a></span> the citizens
of the State. No action was taken by the legislature on this
portion of the governor's message. But a member of the Senate
actually made the following proposition before that body:</p>

<blockquote><p>That the "anxious and aimless women" of the State should assemble
on the Common on a certain day of the year (to be hereafter
named), and that Western men who wanted wives, should be invited
to come here and select them. </p></blockquote>

<p>Legislators who make such propositions, do not foresee that the
time may come, when perhaps those nearest and dearest to them, may
be classed among the superfluous or "anxious and aimless" women!</p>

<p>In 1865 bills allowing married women to testify in suits at law
where their husbands are parties, and permitting them to hold trust
estates were rejected. It will be seen that though all this
legislation was adverse to woman's interest, the question had
forced itself upon the attention of the members of both House and
Senate. In 1866 a joint committee of both houses was appointed to
consider:</p>

<blockquote><p>If any additional legislation can be adopted, whereby the means
of obtaining a livelihood by the women of this commonwealth may
be increased and a more equal and just compensation be allowed
for their labor. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1867, Francis W. Bird presented the petition of Mehitable
Haskell of Gloucester for "an amendment to the constitution
extending suffrage to women." In 1868 Mr. King of Boston presented
the same petition, and it was at this time, and in answer thereto,
that the subject first entered into the regular orders of the day,
and became a part of the official business of the House of
Representatives. Attempts to legislate on the property question
were continued in 1868, in bills "to further protect the property
of married women," "to allow married women to contract for
necessaries," and if "divorced from bed and board, to allow them to
dispose of their own property." These bills were all defeated.
Annual legislative hearings on woman suffrage began in 1869. These
were first secured through the efforts of the executive committee
of the New England Woman Suffrage Association. Eight thousand women
had petitioned the legislature that suffrage might be allowed them
on the same terms as men, and in answer, two hearings were held in
the green room at the State House.<a name="FNanchor_134_134" id="FNanchor_134_134"></a><a href="#Footnote_134_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a> In 1870 a joint special
committee on woman suffrage<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_287" id="Page_287">[Pg 287]</a></span> was formed, and since that time there
have been one or more annual hearings on the question. To what
extent legislative sentiment has been created will be shown later
in the improvement of many laws with regard to the legal status of
woman.</p>

<p>William Claflin was the first governor of Massachusetts to present
officially to the voters of the commonwealth the subject of woman's
rights as a citizen. In his address to the legislature of 1871, he
strongly recommended a change in the laws regarding suffrage and
the property rights of woman. His attitude toward this reform made
an era in the history of the executive department of the State.
Since that time nearly every governor of the State has, in his
annual message, recommended the subject to respectful
consideration. In 1879 Governor Thomas Talbot proposed a
constitutional amendment which should secure the ballot to women on
the same terms as to men. In response to this portion of the
governor's message, and to the ninety-eight petitions presented on
the subject, a general suffrage bill passed the Senate by a
two-thirds majority, and an act to "give women the right to vote
for members of school committees," passed both branches of the
legislature and became a law of the State.<a name="FNanchor_135_135" id="FNanchor_135_135"></a><a href="#Footnote_135_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> Governor John D.
Long, in his inaugural address before the legislature of 1880,
expressed his opinion in favor of woman suffrage perhaps more
decidedly than any who had preceded him in that high official
position. He said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I repeat my conviction of the right of woman suffrage. If the
commonwealth is not ready to give it in full by a constitutional
amendment, I approve of testing it in municipal elections. </p></blockquote>

<p>The law allowing women to vote for school committees is one of the
last results of the legislative agitations, though it is true that
the petition, the answer to which was the passage of this act, did
not emanate from any suffrage association. It was the outcome of a
conference on the subject, held in the parlors of the New England
Women's Club.<a name="FNanchor_136_136" id="FNanchor_136_136"></a><a href="#Footnote_136_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a></p>

<p>But the petitions of the suffragists had always been for general
and unrestricted suffrage, and they opposed any scheme for securing
the ballot on a class or a restricted basis, holding that the true
ground of principle is equality of rights with man. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_288" id="Page_288">[Pg 288]</a></span> practical
result, so far, of voting for school committees has justified this
position; for, as shown by the recent elections, the women of the
State have not availed themselves to any extent of their new right
to vote, and, therefore, the measure has not forwarded the cause of
general suffrage. In fact, the school-committee question is not a
vital one with either male or female voters, and it is impossible
to get up any enthusiasm on the subject. As a test question upon
which to try the desire of the women of the State to become voters,
it is a palpable sham. Our Revolutionary fathers would not have
fought, bled and died for such a figment of a right as this; and
their daughters, or grand-daughters, inherit the same spirit, and
if they vote at all, want something worth voting for. The result
is, that the voting has been largely done by those women who have
long been in favor of suffrage, and who have gone to the polls on
election day from pure principle and a sense of duty.<a name="FNanchor_137_137" id="FNanchor_137_137"></a><a href="#Footnote_137_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a></p>

<p>The law allowing women to vote for school committees was very
elastic and capable of many interpretations. It reminded one of the
old school exercise in transposing the famous line in Gray's Elegy,</p>

<blockquote><p>"The ploughman homeward plods his weary way," </p></blockquote>

<p>which has been found to be capable of over twenty different
transpositions. The collectors and registrars in some towns and
cities took advantage of this obscurity of expression, and
interpreted the law according to their individual opinion on the
woman suffrage question. In places where these officials were in
sympathy, a broad construction was put upon the provisions of the
law, the poll-tax payers were allowed to vote upon the payment of
one dollar (under the divided tax law of 1879), and the women
voters generally were given all necessary information, and treated
courteously both by the assessors and registrars and at the polls.
In places where leading officials were opposed to women's voting,
the case was far different. Without regarding the clause in the law
which said that a woman may vote upon paying either State or county
poll-tax, such officials have threatened the women with arrest when
they refused to pay both. In some towns they have been treated with
great indignity, as if they were doing an unlawful act. In one town
the women were actually required to pay a poll-tax the second year,
in spite of the clause in the law<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_289" id="Page_289">[Pg 289]</a></span> that a female citizen who has
paid a State or county tax within two years shall have the right to
vote. The town assessor, whose duty it was to inform the women on
this point of the law when asked concerning the matter, <i>willfully</i>
withheld the desired information, saying he "did not know," though
he afterwards said that he <i>did</i> know, but intended to let the
women "find out for themselves." This assessor forgot that the
women, as legal voters, had a right to ask for this information,
and that by virtue of his official position he was legally obliged
to answer. In another town two ladies who were property tax-payers
were made to pay the two dollars poll-tax, and the record of this
still stands on the town books. Some ladies were frightened and
paid the tax under protest; others ran the risk. Here is a letter
addressed to a lady 83 years of age:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Malden</span>, Dec. 2, 1879.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Harriet Hanson</span>: There is a balance of ninety cents due on your
poll-tax of 1879, duly assessed upon you. Payment of the same is
hereby demanded, and if not paid within fourteen days from this
date, with twenty cents for the summons, the collector is
required to proceed forthwith to collect the same in manner
provided by law.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Theodore N. Fogue</span>, <i>Collector</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Hanson paid no attention to the summons, and that was the end
of it.</p>

<p>In 1881, under the amended act the poll-tax was reduced to fifty
cents, and the property tax-paying women (who are not required to
pay a poll-tax) are no longer obliged to make a return of property
exempt from taxation, as was required under the original statute.
Though some of the disabilities were removed, yet the privileges
are no greater; and it is for members of school-committees and for
nothing else, that the women of this State can vote. This is hardly
worthy to be called "school suffrage"! It is to be regretted that a
better test than that of school-committee suffrage, could not have
been given to the women of the State, so that the issue of what
under the circumstances cannot be called a fair trial of their
desire to vote, might be more nearly what the friends of reform had
desired.</p>

<p>The first petition to the Massachusetts legislature, asking that
women might be allowed to serve on school-boards was presented in
1866 by Samuel E. Sewall of Boston. The same petition was again
presented in 1867. About this time Ashfield and Monroe, two of the
smallest towns in the State, elected women as members of the school
committee. Worcester and Lynn soon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_290" id="Page_290">[Pg 290]</a></span> followed the good example, and
in 1874, Boston, for the first time, chose six women to serve in
this capacity.<a name="FNanchor_138_138" id="FNanchor_138_138"></a><a href="#Footnote_138_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> There had hitherto been no open objection to
this innovation, but the school committee of Boston not liking the
idea of women co-workers, declared them ineligible to hold such
office. Miss Peabody applied to the Supreme Court for its opinion
upon the matter, but the judges refused to answer, and dismissed
the petition on the ground that the school committee itself had
power to decide the question of the qualifications of members of
the board. The subject was brought before the legislature of the
same year, and that body, almost unanimously, passed "An Act to
Declare Women Eligible to Serve as Members of School Committees."
Thus the women members were reïnstated.<a name="FNanchor_139_139" id="FNanchor_139_139"></a><a href="#Footnote_139_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></p>

<p>This refusal on the part of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts to answer a question relating to woman's rights under
the law, was received with a knowing smile by those who remembered
the three adverse decisions relating to women which had been given
by that august body. The first of these was on the case of Sarah E.
Wall of Worcester. The second was concerning a clause in the will
of Francis Jackson of Boston, who left $5,000 and other property to
the woman's rights cause. Its third adverse decision was given in
1871. In that year, Julia Ward Howe and Mary E. Stevens were
appointed by Governor Claflin as justices of the peace. Some member
of the governor's council having doubted whether women could
legally hold the office, the opinion of the Supreme Court was asked
and it decided substantially that because women were women, or
because women were not <i>men</i>, they could <i>not</i> be justices of the
peace; and the appointment was not confirmed.</p>

<p>Changes in the common law began in 1845 with reference to the
wife's right to hold her own property. In 1846 she could legally
sign a receipt for money earned or deposited by herself.<a name="FNanchor_140_140" id="FNanchor_140_140"></a><a href="#Footnote_140_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a>
Before 1855 a woman could not hold her own property, either earned
or acquired by inheritance. If unmarried, she was obliged<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_291" id="Page_291">[Pg 291]</a></span> to place
it in the hands of a trustee, to whose will she was subject. If she
contemplated marriage, and desired to call her property her own,
she was forced by law to make a contract with her intended husband,
by which she gave up all title or claim to it. A woman, either
married or unmarried, could hold no office of trust or power. She
was not a person. She was not recognized as a citizen. She was not
a factor in the human family. She was not a unit; but a zero, a
nothing, in the sum of civilization.</p>

<p>To-day, a married woman can hold her own property, if it is held or
bought in her own name, and can make a will disposing of it. A man
is no longer the sole heir of his wife's property. A married woman
can make contracts, enter into co-partnerships, carry on business,
invest her own earnings for her own use and behoof,&mdash;and she is
also responsible for her own debts. She can be executor,
administrator, guardian or trustee. She can testify in the courts
for or against her husband. She can release, transfer, or convey,
any interest she may have in real estate, subject only to the life
interest which the husband may have at her death. Thirty years ago,
when the woman's rights movement began, the status of a married
woman was little better than that of a domestic servant. By the
English common law, her husband was her lord and master. He had the
sole custody of her person, and of her minor children. He could
"punish her with a stick no bigger than his thumb," and she could
not complain against him.<a name="FNanchor_141_141" id="FNanchor_141_141"></a><a href="#Footnote_141_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> But the real "thumb" story seems to
have originated with a certain Judge Buller of England, who lived
about one hundred years ago. In his ruling on one of those cases of
wife-beating, now so common in our police courts, he said that a
man had a right to punish his wife, "with a stick no bigger than
his thumb." That was his opinion. Shortly after this some ladies
sent the judge a letter in which they prayed him to give the size
of his thumb! We are not told whether he complied with their
request.]</p>

<p>The common law of this State held man and wife to be one person,
but that person was the husband. He could by will deprive her of
every part of his property, and also of what had been her own
before marriage. He was the owner of all her real estate and of her
earnings. The wife could make no contract and no will, nor, without
her husband's consent, dispose of the legal interest of her real
estate. He had the income of her real estate till she died, and if
they ever had a living child his ownership of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_292" id="Page_292">[Pg 292]</a></span> real estate
continued to his death. He could forbid her to buy a loaf of bread
or a pound of sugar, or contract for a load of wood to keep the
family warm. She did not own a rag of her own clothing. She had no
personal rights, and could hardly call her soul her own.</p>

<p>Her husband could steal her children, rob her of her clothing, and
her earnings, neglect to support the family; and she had no legal
redress. If a wife earned money by her labor, the husband could
claim the pay as his share of the proceeds. There is a clause
sometimes found in old wills, to the effect that if a widow marry
again, she shall forfeit all right to her husband's property. The
most conservative judge in the commonwealth would now rule that a
widow cannot be kept from her fair share of the property, by any
such unjust restriction. In a husband's eyes of a hundred and fifty
years ago, a woman's mission was accomplished after she had been
<i>his</i> wife and borne <i>his</i> children. What more could be desired of
her, he argued, but a corner somewhere in which, respectably
dressed as his <i>relict</i>, she could sit down and mourn for him, for
the rest of her life.<a name="FNanchor_142_142" id="FNanchor_142_142"></a><a href="#Footnote_142_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a></p>

<p>The law no longer sanctions such a will, but provides that the
widow shall have a fair share of all personal property. If a widow
permits herself to-day to be defrauded of her legal rights in the
division of property, it is her own fault, and because she does not
study and understand for herself the general statutes of
Massachusetts, and the laws concerning the rights of married women.
The result of thirty years of property legislation for women is
well stated by Mr. Sewall in his admirable pamphlet, in which he
says, "the last thirty years have done more to improve the law for
married women than the four hundred preceding." The legislature
has, during this time, enacted laws allowing women to vote in
parishes and religious societies, declaring that women <i>must</i>
become members of the board of trustees of the three State primary
and reform schools, of the State workhouse, of the State almshouse
at Tewksbury, and of the board of prison commissioners; also, that
certain officers and managers of the reformatory prison for women
at Sherborn "shall be women." Without legislation, women now are
school supervisors, overseers of the poor, trustees of public
libraries and members of the State<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_293" id="Page_293">[Pg 293]</a></span> Board of Education and of the
State Board of Health, Lunacy and Charity.<a name="FNanchor_143_143" id="FNanchor_143_143"></a><a href="#Footnote_143_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a></p>

<p>These great changes in legislation for the women of Massachusetts
are the result of their own labors. By conventions and documents
they have informed the people and enlightened public sentiment. By
continued agitation the question has been kept prominently before
their representatives in the legislature. And, though so much has
been gained, they are still hard at work, nor will they rest until,
woman's equality with man before the law is firmly established.</p>

<p>Among the most important acts passed recently is one of 1879, by
which a married woman is the owner of her own clothing to the value
of $2,000, although the act granting this calls such apparel the
"gifts of her husband," not recognizing the fact that most married
women earn or help to earn their own clothes. A law was passed, in
1881, to "mitigate the evils of divorce." Two important acts were
passed by the legislature of 1882, one allowing women to become
practising attorneys, and the other providing, that in case of the
death of a married woman intestate and leaving children, one-half
only of her personal estate shall go to her husband, instead of the
whole, as in previous years. In 1883, a wife was given the right of
burial in any lot or tomb belonging to her husband. In 1884, the
only measures were a bill providing for the appointment of women on
the board of State lunatic hospitals, and another providing for the
appointment of women assistant physicians in the same hospitals,
and an act giving women the power to dispose of their separate
estates by will or deed. In 1885, very little was done to improve
the legal status of women.</p>

<p>When any vote on the Suffrage bill is taken, it is enough to make
the women who sit in the gallery weep to hear the "O's" and the
"Mc's," almost to a man, thunder forth the emphatic "<i>No!</i>"; and to
think that these men (some of whom a few years ago were walking
over their native bogs, with hardly the right to live and breathe)
should vote away so thoughtlessly the rights of the women of the
country in which they have found a shelter and a home. When they
came to this country, poor,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_294" id="Page_294">[Pg 294]</a></span> and with no inheritance but the
"shillalah," the ballot was freely given to them, as the poor man's
weapon for defence. Why cannot men, who have been political serfs
in their own country, see the incongruity of voting against the
enfranchisement of over one-half of the inhabitants of the State
which has made free human beings of them? It is not long since one
of these adopted citizens, in a discussion, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>When the women show that they want to vote, I am willing to give
them all the rights they want. </p></blockquote>

<p>Give! I thought. Where did you get the right to <i>give</i>
Massachusetts women the right to vote? You did not inherit it. In
what consists your prerogative over the women whose ancestors
fought to secure the very right of suffrage of which you so glibly
talk, and which neither you, nor your father before you, did aught
to establish or maintain?</p>

<p>The improvement in the social or general condition of woman has
been even greater than that in legislation. Previous to 1840, women
were employed only as teachers of summer schools, to "spell the
men" during the haying season; and this only occasionally. They
held no responsible position in any public school in the State.
To-day there are eight women to one man employed in all grades of
this profession, and there are numerous instances where women are
head-teachers of departments, or principals of high, normal and
grammar schools. Previous to 1825, girls could attend only the
primary schools of Boston. Through the influence of Rev. John
Pierpont, the first high-school for girls was opened in that city.
There was a great outcry against this innovation; and, because of
the excitement on the subject, and the <i>great number of girls</i> who
applied for admission, the scheme was abandoned. The public-school
system, as it is now called, was established in Boston in 1789;
boys were admitted the whole year round; girls, from April to
October. This inequality in the opportunities for education roused
John Pierpont's indignation, and moved him to make strenuous
efforts to secure justice for girls. Now there are 6,246 schools,
seventy-two academies, six normal schools, two colleges, Boston
University and the "Harvard Annex" all open to girls. In the town
of Plymouth, where the Pilgrim fathers and mothers first landed,
when the question whether girls should receive any public
instruction first came up in town-meeting, there was great
opposition to it. However, the majority showed a liberal spirit,
and voted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_295" id="Page_295">[Pg 295]</a></span> to give the girls one hour of instruction daily. This
was in 1793. In 1853 a normal school for girls was established in
Boston; in 1855 its name was changed to the Girls' High and Normal
School. In 1878 the Girls' Latin School in Boston was founded. The
establishment of this successful institution was the result of
discussions on the subject first brought before the public by
ladies of Boston. High schools in almost all the towns and cities
of the State have long been established, in which the boys and
girls are educated together. In 1880 the pupils in the high and
normal schools of Boston were about 2,000 girls to 1,000 boys. In
1867 the Lowell Institute and the Massachusetts Institute of
Technology advertised classes free to both sexes in French,
mathematics and in practical science.<a name="FNanchor_144_144" id="FNanchor_144_144"></a><a href="#Footnote_144_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a> Since that time Chauncy
Hall School and Boston University have been opened to women, with
the equal privileges of male students. It might be explained here
that the "Harvard Annex," or "Private Collegiate Instruction for
Women," is not an organic part of the University itself. Under a
certain arrangement, a limited number of young women are allowed a
few of the privileges of the young men. They are also permitted to
use all the books belonging to the library and to attend many of
the lectures. No college-building is appropriated for this purpose,
but recitation-rooms are provided in private houses. A witty
Cambridge lady called this mythical college the "Harvard Annex";
the public adopted the name, and many people suppose that there is
such a building. From the last annual report of the "Private
Collegiate Instruction for Women," it appears that in 1885
sixty-five women availed themselves of the privilege of attending
this course of instruction.<a name="FNanchor_145_145" id="FNanchor_145_145"></a><a href="#Footnote_145_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> Three-fourths of this number are
Massachusetts girls. Some of the professors say that the average of
scholarship there is higher than in the University. Fifty courses
of studies are open to women students. Miss Brown of Concord, a
graduate of 1884, astonished the faculty by her high per cent. in
the classics. Her average was higher than that reached by any young
man. These students go unattended to the lectures and to the
library of the college. A great change indeed,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_296" id="Page_296">[Pg 296]</a></span> since the time when
women began to attend the Lowell Institute lectures! Then it was
thought almost disgraceful to go to a public meeting without male
protection, and they went with veiled faces, as if ashamed to be
seen of men. The "Annex" has some advantages, but they cannot
compare with Girton and Newnham of Cambridge, England.</p>

<p>The treasurer of the "Harvard Annex" declares the great need that
exists for funds to provide a suitable building, etc., for the
numerous women who continue to apply there for admission; and he
appeals to the generosity of the public for contributions of money
to be used for this purpose. The casual observer might suggest that
those women who will hereafter become the benefactors of this
university should remember the needs of their own sex, and leave
their donations or bequests so that they can be used for the
benefit of the "Harvard Annex," which is a wholly private
enterprise, conducted by the University instructors and supervised
by a committee of ladies.</p>

<p>Colleges for women have also been founded. Wellesley and Smith have
long been doing good university work. Thirty years ago there was no
college in the country, except Oberlin, to which women were
admitted. To-day, even conservative Harvard begins to melt a little
under this regenerating influence, and invites women, through the
doors of its "Annex," to come and enjoy some of the privileges
found within its sacred halls of learning. This was a late act of
grace from a college whose inception was in the mind of a
woman<a name="FNanchor_146_146" id="FNanchor_146_146"></a><a href="#Footnote_146_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a> longing for a better opportunity<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_297" id="Page_297">[Pg 297]</a></span> than the new colony
could give to educate her afterward ungrateful son.</p>

<p>The number of young men educated by the individual efforts of women
cannot be estimated. T. W. Higginson, in the <i>Woman's Journal</i>,
says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The late President Walker once told me that, in his judgment,
one-quarter of the young men in Harvard College were being
carried through by the special self-denial and sacrifices of
women. I cannot answer for the ratio, but I can testify to having
been an instance of this, myself; and to having known a
never-ending series of such cases of self-devotion. </p></blockquote>

<p>Some of these men, educated by the labor and self-sacrifice of
others, look down upon the social position in which their women
friends are still forced to remain. The result to the recipient has
often been of doubtful value, so far as the development of the
affections is concerned. Sometimes the great obligation has been
forgotten. Only in rare instances, to either party did the
life-long sacrifice on the part of the women of the family become
of permanent and spiritual value!</p>

<p>The average woman of forty years ago was very humble in her notions
of the sphere of woman. What if she did hunger and thirst after
knowledge? She could do nothing with it, even if she could get it.
So she made a <i>fetich</i> of some male relative, and gave him the
mental food for which she herself was starving, and devoted all her
energies towards helping him to become what she felt, under better
conditions, she herself might have been. It was enough in those
early days to be the <i>mother</i> or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_298" id="Page_298">[Pg 298]</a></span> <i>sister</i> of somebody. Women were
almost as abject in this particular as the Thracian woman of old,
who said:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"I am not of the noble Grecian race,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">I'm poor Abrotonon, and born in Thrace;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Let the Greek women scorn me, if they please,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">I was the mother of Themistocles."<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>There are women still left who believe their husbands, sons, or
male friends can study, read and <i>vote</i> for them. They are like
some frugal house-mothers, who think their is no need of a dinner
if the good-man of the family is not coming home to share it. Just
as if the man-half of the human family can "eat, learn and inwardly
digest," to make either physical or mental strength for the other
half!</p>

<p>Maria Mitchell of Massachusetts became Professor of Astronomy and
Mathematics at Vassar, in 1866, the first woman in the country to
hold such a position. Since that time women have become members of
the faculty in several of the large colleges in the country.</p>

<p>In the early days of the commonwealth women practiced midwifery,
and were very successful. Mrs. John Eliot, Anne Hutchinson, Mrs.
Fuller and Sarah Alcock were the first in the State. Janet
Alexander, a Scotchwoman, was a well-trained midwife.<a name="FNanchor_147_147" id="FNanchor_147_147"></a><a href="#Footnote_147_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a> She
lived in Boston, and was always recognized as a good practitioner
in her line by the leading doctors in that city. Dr. John C. Warren
of Boston invited this lady to come to this country. His biography,
recently published, contains a short record of the matter, in which
he says: "We determined to recommend Mrs. Alexander. She was a
Scotchwoman, regularly educated, and having Dr. Hamilton's
diploma." Quite a storm was raised among the younger physicians of
Boston by this attempted innovation, because they thought Dr.
Warren was trying to deprive them of profitable practice. But Mrs.
Alexander, supported by Dr. Warren, and perhaps other physicians,
continued her occupation and educated her daughter in the same
profession. Dr. Harriot K. Hunt practiced in Boston as early as
1835. She sought admission to the Harvard Medical School, and was
many times refused. She was not what is called a "regular
physician." In her day there existed no schools or colleges for the
medical education of women, but she studied by herself,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_299" id="Page_299">[Pg 299]</a></span> and
acquired some knowledge of diseases peculiar to women. Her success
was so great in her line of practice that she proved the need
existing for physicians of her own sex.</p>

<p>Dr. Hunt's tussle with the medical faculty will long be remembered.
She was the first woman in the State who dared assert her right to
recognition in this profession. For this, and for her persistent
efforts to secure for them a higher education, she deserves the
gratitude of every woman who has since followed her footsteps into
a profession over which the men had long held undisputed control.
In 1853 the degree of M. D. was conferred on her by the Woman's
Medical College of Pennsylvania. The first medical college for
women, organized by Dr. Samuel Gregory of Boston, was chartered in
1856, under the name of the New England Female Medical College, and
in 1874, by an act of the legislature, united with the Boston
University School of Medicine. In 1868 it had graduated seventy-two
women, among whom were Dr. Lucy E. Sewall and Dr. Helen Morton (who
afterwards went to Paris and studied obstetrics at Madame Aillot's
Hospital of Maternity) and Dr. Mercy B. Jackson.<a name="FNanchor_148_148" id="FNanchor_148_148"></a><a href="#Footnote_148_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> There are now
205 regular practitioners in the State.</p>

<p>In 1863, Dr. Zakrzewska, in coöperation with Lucy Goddard and Ednah
D. Cheney, established the New England Hospital for Women and
Children. Its avowed objects were: (1) to provide women the medical
aid of competent physicians of their own sex; (2) to assist
educated women in the practical study of medicine; (3) to train
nurses for the care of the sick. This was the first hospital in New
England over which women have had entire control, both as
physicians and surgeons. Boston University is open to both sexes,
with equal studies, duties and privileges. This institution was
incorporated in 1869, and includes, among other schools and
colleges, schools of theology, law and medicine. The faculty
consists of many distinguished men and women. Boston University
School of Medicine (homeopathic) was organized in 1873. Of the
thirty-two lecturers and professors who constitute the faculty,
five are women. In 1884 the three highest of the four prizes for
the best medical thesis were won by women. Of the 610 pupils in
1884, 155 were women; sixty of these were in the school of
medicine. There are women in all departments, except agriculture
and theology.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_300" id="Page_300">[Pg 300]</a></span> They do not study theology because they cannot be
ordained to preach in any of the leading churches.</p>

<p>The Massachusetts Medical Society in 1884, on motion of Dr. Henry
I. Bowditch, voted to admit women to membership. Dr. Emma L. Call
and Dr. Harriet L. Harrington were the first two women admitted.
January 11, 1882, at the monthly meeting of Harvard overseers, the
question of admitting women to the Medical School came before the
board. An individual desiring to contribute a fund for the medical
education of women in Harvard University asked the president and
fellows whether such a fund would be accepted and used as designed.
Majority and minority reports were submitted by the committee in
charge, and after a long discussion it was voted, 11 to 6, to
accept the fund, the income to be ultimately used for the medical
education of women. At the April meeting, the Committee on the
Medical Education of Women presented a report, which was adopted by
a vote of 13 to 12:</p>

<blockquote><p>That, in the opinion of the board, it is not advisable for the
University to hold out any encouragement that it will undertake
the medical education of women. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Harvard Divinity School at Cambridge sometimes admits women,
but does not recognize them publicly, nor grant them degrees; but
there are other theological schools in the State where a complete
preparation for the ministerial profession can be obtained. The
attitude of the churches toward women has changed greatly within
thirty years. As early as 1869, women began to serve on committees,
and to be ordained deaconesses of churches. They also hold
important offices connected with the different church
organizations. They serve on the boards of State and national
religious associations. There are also missionary associations,
both home and foreign, and Christian unions, all officered and
managed exclusively by women. Even the treasurers of these large
bodies are women, and their husbands or trustees are no longer
required to give bonds for them.<a name="FNanchor_149_149" id="FNanchor_149_149"></a><a href="#Footnote_149_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a> At the general conference of
the Methodist Episcopal Church, the word "male" was stricken from
the discipline, and the word "person" inserted in its place, in all
cases save those that concerned the ordination of clergy.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_301" id="Page_301">[Pg 301]</a></span></p>

<p>Olympia Brown was the first woman settled as pastor in the State.
Her parish was at Weymouth Landing. In 1864 she petitioned the
Massachusetts legislature "that marriages performed by a woman
should be made legal." The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom the
matter was referred, reported that no legislation was necessary, as
marriages solemnized by women were already legal.<a name="FNanchor_150_150" id="FNanchor_150_150"></a><a href="#Footnote_150_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a> Thus the
legislature of the State established the precedent, that "he" meant
"she" under the law, in one instance at least. Phebe Hanaford, Mary
H. Graves and Lorenza Haynes were the first Massachusetts women to
be ordained preachers of the gospel. Rev. Lorenza Haynes has been
chaplain of the Maine House of Representatives.</p>

<p>The three best-known women sculptors in this country were born and
bred in Massachusetts. They are Harriet Hosmer, Margaret Foley and
Anne Whitney. Harriet Hosmer was the first to free herself from the
traditions of her sex and follow her profession as a sculptor. When
she desired to fit herself for her vocation there was no art school
east of the Mississippi river where she could study anatomy, or
find suitable models. Margaret Foley, who, amid the hum of the
machinery of the Lowell cotton mills, first conceived the idea of
chiseling her thought on the surface of a "smooth-lipped shell,"
was obliged to go to Rome in order to get the necessary instruction
in cameo-cutting. There her genius developed so much that she began
to model in clay, and soon became a successful sculptor in marble.
Lucy Larcom, in her "Idyl of Work," says of Miss Foley:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"That broad-browed delicate girl will carve at Rome<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Faces in marble, classic as her own."<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>One of her finest creations is "The Fountain," first exhibited in
Horticultural Hall at the Centennial Exposition in Philadelphia,
1876. A free art-school was opened to women in Boston in 1867, and
Anne Whitney was not obliged to go to Rome for instruction in the
appliances of her art. Harriet Hosmer and Margaret Foley have both
made statues which adorn the public buildings and parks of their
native country; and Anne Whitney's statues of Samuel Adams and
Harriet Martineau are the crowning works of her genius.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_302" id="Page_302">[Pg 302]</a></span></p>

<p>No great work has yet been done by Massachusetts women in oil
painting; but in water colors, and in decorative art, many have
excelled, first prizes in superiority of design having been taken
by them over their masculine competitors. Lizzie B. Humphrey,
Jessie Curtis, Sarah W. Whitman and Fidelia Bridges, take high rank
as artists. Helen M. Knowlton, a pupil of William M. Hunt, is a
skillful artist in charcoal and has produced some fine pictures.
Women form a large proportion of the students in the school of
design recently opened in Boston. A great deal of the ornamental
painting now so fashionable on cards and all fancy articles is done
by the deft fingers of women. The census of 1880 reports 268
artists and 1,270 musicians and teachers of music.</p>

<p>Of woman as actress and public singer, it is unnecessary to speak,
since she has the right of way in both these professions. Here,
fortunately, the supply does not exceed the demand; consequently
she has her full share of rights, and what is better, equitable pay
for her labor. In 1880 there were 111 actresses. Charlotte Cushman,
Clara Louise Kellogg and Annie Louise Cary were born in
Massachusetts.</p>

<p>The drama speaks too feebly on the right side of the woman
question. No successful modern dramatist has made this "humour" of
the times the subject of his play. An effort was made in 1879, by
the executive committee of the New England Association, to secure a
woman suffrage play: but it was not successful, and there is yet to
be written a counteractive to that popular burlesque, "The Spirit
of '76." It is to be regretted that the stage still continues to
ridicule the woman's rights movement and its leaders; for, as
Hamlet says:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i6">"The play's the thing,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>In 1650, when Anne Bradstreet lived and wrote her verses, a woman
author was almost unknown in English literature. This lady was the
wife of the governor of Massachusetts, and because of her literary
tendencies was looked upon by the people of her time as a marvel of
womankind. Her contemporaries called her the "tenth muse lately
sprung up in America," and one of them, Rev. Nathaniel Ward, was
inspired to write an address to her, in which he declares his
wonder at her success as a poet, and playfully foretells the
consequences if women are permitted to intrude farther into the
domain of man. The closing lines express<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_303" id="Page_303">[Pg 303]</a></span> so well the conflicting
emotions which torment the minds of the opponents of the woman
suffrage movement, that I venture to quote them:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"Good sooth," quoth the old Don, "tell ye me so?<br /></span>
<span class="i0">I muse whither at length these Girls will go.<br /></span>
<span class="i0">It half revives my chil, frost-bitten blood<br /></span>
<span class="i0">To see a woman once do aught that's good.<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And, chode by Chaucer's Boots and Homer's Furrs,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Let men look to't least Women wear the Spurrs."<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>In 1818, Hannah Mather Crocker, grand-daughter of Cotton Mather,
published a book, called "Observations on the Rights of Women." In
speaking of Mary Wollstonecraft, Mrs. Crocker says, that while that
celebrated woman had a very independent mind, and her "Rights of
Woman" is replete with fine sentiments, yet, she continues,
patronizingly, "we do not coincide with her respecting the total
independence of the sex." Mrs. Crocker evidently wanted her sex to
be not too independent, but just independent enough.<a name="FNanchor_151_151" id="FNanchor_151_151"></a><a href="#Footnote_151_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a></p>

<p>In 1841, when Lydia Maria Child edited the <i>Anti-Slavery Standard</i>,
Margaret Fuller the <i>Dial</i>, and Harriot F. Curtis and Harriet
Farley the <i>Lowell Offering</i>, there were perhaps in New England no
other well-known women journalists or editors. Cornelia Walter of
the <i>Evening Transcript</i> was the first woman journalist in Boston.
To-day, women are editors and publishers of newspapers all over the
United States; and the woman's column is a part of many leading
newspapers. Sallie Joy White was the first regular reporter in
Boston. She began on the <i>Boston Post</i>, a Democratic newspaper, in
1870. Her first work was to report the proceedings of a woman
suffrage meeting. She is now on the staff of the <i>Boston Daily
Advertiser</i>. Lilian Whiting is on the staff of the <i>Traveller</i>, and
most of the other Boston newspapers have women among their editors
and reporters. Some of the best magazine writing of the time is
done by women; one needs but to look over the table of contents of
the leading periodicals to see how large a proportion of the
articles is written by them.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_304" id="Page_304">[Pg 304]</a></span> Really, the sex seems to have taken
possession of what Carlyle called the "fourth estate"&mdash;the literary
profession, and they journey into unexplored regions of thought to
give the omniverous modern reader something new to feed upon. The
census of 1880 reports 445 women as authors and literary persons.</p>

<p>The newspaper itself, that great engine "whose ambassadors are in
every quarter of the globe, whose couriers upon every road," has
slowly swung round, and is at last headed in the right direction.
Reporters for the daily press in Massachusetts no longer write in a
spirit of flippancy or contempt, and there is not an editor in the
State of any account who would permit a member of his staff to
report a woman's meeting in any other spirit than that of courtesy.
Teachers occupying high positions and presidents of colleges have
given pronounced opinions in favor of the reform. Said President
Hopkins of Williams College, in 1875:</p>

<blockquote><p>I would at this point correct my teaching in "The Law of Love,"
to the effect that <i>home</i> is peculiarly the sphere of woman, and
civil government that of man. I now regard the home as the joint
sphere of man <i>and</i> woman, and the sphere of civil government
more of an open question between the two. </p></blockquote>

<p>The New England Women's Club, parent<a name="FNanchor_152_152" id="FNanchor_152_152"></a><a href="#Footnote_152_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> of the modern clubs and
associations for the advancement of women, has been one of the
factors in the woman's rights movement. Its members have, in their
work and in their lives, illustrated the doctrine of woman's
equality with man. It was formed in February, 1868.<a name="FNanchor_153_153" id="FNanchor_153_153"></a><a href="#Footnote_153_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a></p>

<p>There has never been, from time immemorial, much difference of
opinion concerning woman's right to do a good share in the
<i>drudgery</i> of the world. But in the remunerative employments,
before 1850, she was but sparsely represented. In 1840, when<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_305" id="Page_305">[Pg 305]</a></span>
Harriet Martineau visited this country, she found to her surprise
that there were only seven vocations, outside home, into which the
women of the United States had entered. These were "teaching,
needlework, keeping boarders, weaving, type-setting, and folding
and stitching in book-bindery." In contrast, it is only necessary
to mention that in Massachusetts alone, woman's ingenuity is now
employed in nearly 300 different branches of industry. It cannot be
added that for doing the same kind and amount of work women are
paid men's wages. The census does not include the services of the
mother and daughter among the <i>paid</i> vocations, though, as is well
known, in many instances they do all the housework of the family.
They get no wages, and therefore do not appear among the "useful
classes." They are not earners, but savers of money. A
money-<i>saver</i> is not a recognized factor, either in political
economy or in the State census. The mother, daughter or wife is put
down in its pages as "keeping house." If they were paid for their
services they would be called "housekeepers," and would have their
place among the paid employments.</p>

<p>Among the many rights woman has appropriated to herself must be
included the "patent right." The charge has often been made that
women never invent anything, but statistics on the subject declare
that in 1880 patents for their own inventions were issued to
eighty-seven different women in the United States. A fair
proportion of these were from Massachusetts.</p>

<p>This progress in the various departments encountered great
opposition from certain teachers and writers. Dr. Bushnell's
"Reform Against Nature," Dr. Fulton's talk both in and out of the
pulpit, served to show the weakness of that side of the question.
Frances Parkman, Dr. Holland, Dr. W. H. Hammond, Rev. Morgan Dix,
and even some women have added their so-called arguments in the
vain attempt to keep woman as they think "God made her."</p>

<p>Much the stronger writers and speakers have been found on the right
side of this question. The names of leading speakers, such as
William Lloyd Garrison, Wendell Phillips and Theodore Parker, have
already been mentioned. Perhaps the most suggestive articles in
favor of the reform were T. W. Higginson's "Ought Women to Learn
the Alphabet," published in the <i>Atlantic Monthly</i> of February,
1859, and Samuel Bowles' "The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_306" id="Page_306">[Pg 306]</a></span> Woman Question and Sex in Politics,"
published at a later date in the <i>Springfield Republican</i>.
"Warrington," in his letters to the same newspaper, from 1868 to
1876, never failed to present a good and favorable argument on some
phase of the woman question. Caroline Healey Dall's lectures before
1860, and her book "The College, the Market and the Court,"
published in 1868, were seed-grain sown in the field of this
reform. Samuel E. Sewall's able digest of the laws relating to the
legal condition of married women, and William I. Bowditch's
admirable pamphlets,<a name="FNanchor_154_154" id="FNanchor_154_154"></a><a href="#Footnote_154_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a> have done incalculable service.</p>

<p>Of women in the civil service, there are: 58 clerks, 266 employés
and 387 officials&mdash;total, 411. This includes postmasters and clerks
in bureaus. In 1880, General F. A. Walker, superintendent of the
census, instructed the supervisors of the several districts to
appoint women as enumerators when practicable. They were
accordingly so appointed in many parts of the United States.
Carroll D. Wright, supervisor of the district of Massachusetts was
in favor of General Walker's instructions, and out of the 903
enumerators appointed by him, thirty were women. This was an
exceedingly large proportion compared with the number appointed in
States where supervisors were not in favor of women enumerators.</p>

<p>Thanks to the efforts of Caroline Healey Dall, the American Social
Science Association, formed in 1865, put women on its board of
officers, as did the Boston Social Science Association, organized
the same year. These were the first large organizations in the
country to admit women on an absolute equality with men. The result
of this action vindicated at once and forever woman's fitness to
occupy positions of honor in associations that man had hitherto
claimed for himself alone. This has encouraged women to express
themselves in the presence of the wisest men, and enabled them to
present to the public the woman side of some great questions. Women
are officers as well as members of many societies originally
established exclusively for men. A national society for political
education, formed in 1880, of which women are members, has at least
one woman on its board of officers. What would have been thought
thirty years ago, if women had studied finance, banks and banking,
money, currency, sociology and political science?<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_307" id="Page_307">[Pg 307]</a></span></p>

<p>The Summer School of Philosophy at Concord was founded in
1879.<a name="FNanchor_155_155" id="FNanchor_155_155"></a><a href="#Footnote_155_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a> A majority of the students are women, as was not the
case in the elder schools of philosophy, and they come from far and
near to spend a few weeks of their summer vacation in the enjoyment
of this halcyon season of rest. Day after day they sit patiently on
the æsthetic benches of the Hillside chapel and bask in the calm
light of mild philosophy. Its seed was sown forty years ago, in
what was called the Transcendental movement in New England. The
Concord school finds in Mr. Sanborn its executive spirit, without
which it could no more have come into existence at this time than
its first seed could have been planted forty years ago, without the
conceptive thought of Mr. Emerson, Mr. Alcott and Margaret Fuller.</p>

<p>Boston University long ago offered the advantages of its law-school
to women, but they do not much avail themselves of this privilege.
Lelia J. Robinson, in March, 1881, made her application for
admission to the bar. In presenting her claim before the court,
April 23, Mr. Charles R. Train admitted that it was a novel one;
but in a very effective manner he went on to state the cogent
reasons why a woman who had carefully prepared herself for the
profession of the law should be permitted to practice in the
courts. At the close, Chief-Justice Gray gave the opinion,
informally, that the laws, as they now exist, preclude woman from
being attorney-at-law; but he reserved the matter for the
consideration of the full bench. The Supreme Judicial Court
rendered an adverse decision. Petitions were then sent to the
legislature of 1882, and that body passed an act<a name="FNanchor_156_156" id="FNanchor_156_156"></a><a href="#Footnote_156_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> declaring
that, "The provisions of law relating to the qualification and
admission to practice of attorneys-at-law shall apply to women."
The petition of Lelia Josephine Robinson to the Supreme Court was
as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>1. The best administration of justice may be most safely secured
by allowing the representation of all classes of the people in
courts of justice.</p>

<p>2. To allow women to practice at the bar as attorneys is only to
secure to the people the right to select their own counsel. It is
to give the women of Massachusetts the opportunity of consulting
members of their own sex for that advice and assistance which
none but authorized attorneys and counsellors are legally
qualified to give.</p>

<p>3. To exclude women from the bar would be to do an injustice to
the community, in preventing free and wholesome competition of
existing talent, and to do still greater injustice to those women
who are qualified for the profession, by shutting them out from
an honorable and remunerative means of gaining a livelihood.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_308" id="Page_308">[Pg 308]</a></span></p>

<p>4. To exclude women from the bar because there are certain
departments of the profession which are peculiarly ill-adapted to
their sex and nature, would be to assume arbitrarily that, with
entire lack of judgment or discretion, modesty or policy, they
would seek or accept such business; and to close to them those
avenues of the profession for which they are generally admitted
to be eminently well adapted, for such a reason, and upon such an
assumption, would be so grossly unjust that no argument can be
based on such an impossible contingency.</p>

<p>Your applicant, having faithfully and diligently pursued the
study of law for three years, being a graduate of the Boston
University Law School, and having complied with the other
requirements of the statute and the rules of court upon the
subject, respectfully prays that her petition for examination,
which was duly filed, may be favorably considered, and that it be
included in the general notice to the Board of Examiners of
Suffolk county.</p>
<p class="ltr-from">Lelia Josephine Robinson.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The opinion given by the Supreme Judicial Court, so far as it
relates to the main point at issue, is as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>The question presented by this petition and by the report on
which it has been reserved for our determination, is whether,
under the laws of the commonwealth, an unmarried woman is
entitled to be examined for admission as an attorney and
counsellor of this Court. This being the first application of the
kind in Massachusetts, the Court, desirous that it might be fully
argued, informed the executive committee of the Bar Association
of the city of Boston of the application, and has received
elaborate briefs from the petitioner in support of her petition
and from two gentlemen of the bar as <i>amici curiæ</i> in opposition
thereto. The statute under which the application is made is as
follows: "A citizen of this State, or an alien who has made the
primary declaration of his intention to become a citizen of the
United States, and who is an inhabitant of this State, at the age
of twenty-one years and of good moral character, may, on the
recommendation of an attorney, petition the Supreme Judicial or
Superior Court to be examined for admission as an attorney,
whereupon the Court shall assign a time and place for the
examination, and if satisfied with his acquirements and
qualifications he shall be admitted." St. 1876, c. 107.</p>

<p>The word "citizen," when used in its most common and most
comprehensive sense, doubtless includes women; but a woman is
not, by virtue of her citizenship, vested by the Constitution of
the United States, or by the constitution of the commonwealth,
with any absolute right, independent of legislation, to take part
in the government, either as voter or as an officer, or to be
admitted to practice as an attorney. <i>Miuor vs. Happersett, 51
Wall. 162. Bradwell vs. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130.</i> The rule that
"words importing the masculine gender maybe applied to females,"
like all other general rules of construction of statutes, must
yield when such construction would be either "repugnant to the
context of the same statute," or "inconsistent with the manifest
intent of the legislature." Gen. Sts. c. 3, § 7.</p>

<p>The only statute making any provisions concerning attorneys, that
mentions women, is the poor-debtor act, which, after enumerating
among the cases in which an arrest of the person may be made on
execution in an action of contract, that in which "the debtor is
attorney-at-law," who has unreasonably neglected to pay to his
client money collected, enacts, in the next section but one,
"that no woman shall be arrested on any civil process except for
tort." Gen. Sts. c. 124, §§ 5, 7. If these provisions do not
imply that the legislature assumed that women should not be
attorneys, they certainly have no tendency to show that it
intended that they should. The word "citizen," in the statute
under which this application is made, is but a repetition of the
word originally adopted with a view of excluding aliens, before
the statute of 1852, c. 154, allowed those aliens to be admitted
to the bar who had made the preliminary declaration of intention
to become citizens. Rev. Sts., c. 88, § 19. Gen. Sts., c. 121, §
28.</p>

<p>The reënactment of the act relating to the admission of attorneys
in the same words without more so far as relates to the personal
qualifications of the applicant, since<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_309" id="Page_309">[Pg 309]</a></span> other statutes have
expressly modified the legal rights and capacity of women in
other important respects, tends rather to refute than to advance
the theory that the legislature intended that these words should
comprehend women. No inference of an intention of the legislature
to include women in the statutes concerning the admission of
attorneys can be drawn from the mere omission of the word "male."
The only statute to which we have referred, in which that word is
inserted, is the statute concerning the qualifications of voters
in town affairs, which, following the language of the article of
the constitution that defines the qualifications of voters for
governor, lieutenant-governor, senators and representatives,
speaks of "every male citizen of twenty-one years of age," etc.
Gen. Sts. c. 18, § 19. Const. Mass. Amendments, art. 3. Words
which taken by themselves would be equally applicable to women
and to men are constantly used in the constitution and statutes,
in speaking of offices which it could not be contended, in the
present state of law, that women were capable of holding.</p>

<p>The Courts of the commonwealth have not assumed by their rules to
admit to the bar any class of persons not within the apparent
intent of the legislature as manifested in the statutes. The word
"persons," in the latest rule of Court upon the subject, was the
word used in the rule of 1810 and in the statutes of 1785 and
1836, at times when no one contemplated the possibility of a
woman's being admitted to practice as an attorney. 121 Mass. 600.
6. Mass. 382. St. 1785, c. 23. Rev. St. c. 18, 20. Gen. Sts. c.
121, § 29. The United States Court of Claims, at December term,
1873, on full consideration, denied an application of a woman to
be admitted to practice as an attorney upon the ground "that
under the constitution and laws of the United States a Court is
without power to grant such an application, and that a woman is
without legal capacity to take the office of an attorney."
<i>Lockwood's Case, 9 Ct. of Claims, 346, 356.</i> At October terms
1876 of the Supreme Court of the United States, the same
petitioner applied to be admitted to practice as an attorney and
counsellor of that Court, and her application was denied.</p>

<p>The decision has not been officially reported, but upon the
record of the Court, of which we have an authentic copy, it is
thus stated: "Upon the presentation of this application, the
chief-justice said that notice of this application having been
previously brought to his attention, he had been instructed by
the Court to announce the following decision upon it: By the
uniform practice of the Court from its organization to the
present time, and by the fair construction of its rules, none but
men are permitted to practice before it as attorneys and
counsellors. This is in accordance with immemorial usages in
England, and the law and the practice in all the States until
within a recent period, and the Court does not feel called upon
to make a change until such change is required by statute or a
more extended practice in the highest Courts of the States." The
subsequent act of congress of February 15, 1879, enables only
those women to be admitted to practice before the Supreme Court
of the United States who have been for three years members of the
bar of the highest Court of a State or territory, or of the
Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>The conclusion that women cannot be admitted to the bar under the
existing statutes of the commonwealth is in accordance with
judgments of the highest Courts of the States of Illinois and
Wisconsin. <i>Bradwell's Case, 55 Ill., 525. Goodell's Case, 39
Wis., 232.</i> The suggestion in the brief of the petitioner that
women have been admitted in other States can have no weight here,
in the absence of all evidence that (except under clear
affirmative words in a statute) they have ever been so admitted
upon deliberate consideration of the question involved, or by a
Court whose decisions are authoritative.</p>

<p>It is hardly necessary to add that our duty is limited to
declaring the law as it is, and that whether any change in that
law would be wise or expedient is a question for the legislative
and not for the judicial department of the government.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">Marcus Morton</span>, <i>Chief-Justice</i>,</p>
<p class="ltr-left0">Petition dismissed.</p>

<div class="center">
<table width="80%" summary="Authors">
<tr><td align="left">[Signed:]</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Charles Devens</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">William E. Endicott</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"></td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">William Allen</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Otis P. Lord</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"></td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Charles Allen</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Walbridge A. Field</span>.</td></tr>
</table></div>

</blockquote>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_310" id="Page_310">[Pg 310]</a></span></p>

<p>The three preceding decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts against the rights of the women of the commonwealth
were as follows:</p>

<p>The first decision was in the case of Sarah E. Wall of Worcester,
who had refused to pay her taxes under the following protest:</p>

<blockquote><p>Believing with the immortal Declaration of Independence that
taxation and representation are inseparable; believing that the
constitution of the State furnishes no authority for the taxation
of woman; believing also that the constitution of the higher law
of God, written on the human soul, requires us, if we would be
worthy the rich inheritance of the past and true to ourselves and
the future, to yield obedience to no statute that shall tend to
fetter its aspirations, I shall henceforth pay no taxes until the
word <i>male</i> is stricken from the voting clauses of the
constitution of Massachusetts.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Sarah E. Wall</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0">Worcester <i>Daily Spy</i>, October 5, 1858.</p>

</blockquote>

<p class="break">Miss Wall was prosecuted by the city collector, and she carried her
case before the Supreme Court, where she appeared for herself, W.
A. Williams appearing for the collector. In an account of this
matter in 1881, Miss Wall says: "Although it was in 1858 that my
resistance to taxation commenced, it was not until 1863 that the
contest terminated and the decision was rendered. I think the
Supreme Court would always find some way to evade a decision on
this question."</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Wheeler vs. Wall, 6 Allen, 558</i>: By the constitution of
Massachusetts, c. 1, § 1, article 4, the legislature has power to
impose taxes upon all the inhabitants of and persons resident,
and estates lying within the said commonwealth. By the laws
passed by the legislature in pursuance of this power and
authority, the defendant is liable to taxation, although she is
not qualified to vote for the officers by whom the taxes were
assessed. The Court, acting under the constitution, and bound to
support it and maintain its provisions faithfully, cannot declare
null and void a statute which has been passed by the legislature,
in pursuance of an express authority conferred by the
constitution.&mdash;[Opinion by the chief-justice, George Tyler
Bigelow. </p></blockquote>

<p>The second decision on the will of Francis Jackson is copied
<i>verbatim</i> from <i>Allen's Reports</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Jackson vs. Phillips and others, 14 Allen, 539</i>: A bequest to
trustees, to be expended at their discretion, * * * * "to secure
the passage of laws granting whether women, married or unmarried,
the right to vote, to hold office, to hold, manage and devise
property, and all other civil rights enjoyed by men," is not a
charity.</p>

<p class="hang"><i>Bill in equity by the executor of the will of Francis Jackson of
Boston, for instructions as to the validity and effect of the
following bequests and devises:</i></p>

<p>Art. 6th. "I give and bequeath to Wendell Phillips of said
Boston, Lucy Stone, formerly of Brookfield, Mass., now the wife
of Henry Blackwell of New York, and Susan B. Anthony of
Rochester, N. Y., their successors and assigns, $5,000, not for
their own use, but in trust, nevertheless, to be expended by them
without any responsibility to any one, at their discretion, in
such sums, at such times and in such places as they may deem fit,
to secure the passage of laws granting women, whether married or
unmarried, the right to vote, to hold office, to hold, manage and
devise property, and all other civil rights enjoyed by men; and
for the preparation and circulation of books, the delivery of
lectures, and such other means as they may judge best; and I
hereby constitute them a board of trustees for that intent and
purpose, with power to add two other persons to said board if
they deem it expedient. And I hereby appoint<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_311" id="Page_311">[Pg 311]</a></span> Wendell Phillips
president and treasurer, and Susan B. Anthony secretary of said
board. I direct the treasurer of said board not to loan any part
of said bequest, but to invest, and, if need be, sell and
reïnvest the same in bank or railroad shares, at his discretion.
I further authorize and request said board of trustees, the
survivor and survivors of them, to fill any and all vacancies
that may occur from time to time by death or resignation of any
member or any officer of said board. One other bequest,
hereinafter made, will, sooner or later, revert to this board of
trustees. My desire is that they may become a permanent
organization, until the rights of women shall be established
equal with those of men; and I hope and trust that said board
will receive the services and sympathy, the donations and
bequests, of the friends of human rights. And being desirous that
said board should have the immediate benefit of said bequest,
without waiting for my exit, I have already paid it in advance
and in full to said Phillips, the treasurer of said board, whose
receipt therefor is on my files."</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Opinion</span>.&mdash;Gray, J. <span class="smcap">IV.</span> It is quite clear that the bequest in
trust to be expended "to secure the passage of laws granting
women, whether married or unmarried, the right to vote, to hold
office, to hold, manage and devise property, and all other civil
rights enjoyed by men," cannot be sustained as a charity. No
precedent has been cited in its support. This bequest differs
from the others, in aiming directly and exclusively to change the
laws; and its object cannot be accomplished without changing the
constitution also. Whether such an alteration of the existing
laws and frame of government would be wise and desirable, is a
question upon which we cannot, sitting in a judicial capacity,
properly express any opinion. Our duty is limited to expounding
the laws as they stand. And those laws do not recognize the
purpose of overthrowing or changing them, in whole or in part, as
a charitable use. This bequest, therefore, not being for a
charitable purpose, nor for the benefit of any particular
persons, and being unrestricted in point of time, is inoperative
and void. For the same reason, the gift to the same object, of
one-third of the residue of the testator's estate after the death
of his daughter, Mrs. Eddy, and her daughter, Mrs. Bacon, is also
invalid, and will go to his heirs-at-law as a resulting trust. </p></blockquote>

<p>Decision third was on the right of women to hold judicial offices.
To quote again from <i>Allen's Reports</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>On June 8, 1871, the following order was passed by the governor
and council, and on June 10 transmitted to the Justices of the
Supreme Judicial Court, who, on June 29, returned the reply which
is annexed. <i>Ordered</i>, That the opinion of the Supreme Judicial
Court be requested as to the following questions: <i>First</i>&mdash;Under
the constitution of this commonwealth, can a woman, if duly
appointed and qualified as a justice of the peace, legally
perform all acts appertaining to that office? <i>Second</i>&mdash;Under the
laws of this commonwealth, would oaths and acknowledgments of
deeds, taken before a married or unmarried woman duly appointed
and qualified as a justice of the peace, be legal and valid?</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Opinion</span>.&mdash;By the constitution of the commonwealth, the office of
justice of the peace is a judicial office, and must be exercised
by the officer in person, and a woman, whether married or
unmarried, cannot be appointed to such an office. The law of
Massachusetts at the time of the adoption of the constitution,
the whole frame and purport of the instrument itself, and the
universal understanding and unbroken practical construction for
the greater part of a century afterwards, all support this
conclusion, and are inconsistent with any other. It follows that,
if a woman should be formally appointed and commissioned as a
justice of the peace, she would have no constitutional or legal
authority to exercise any of the functions appertaining to that
office. Each of the questions proposed must, therefore, be
respectfully answered in the negative.</p>

<div class="center">
<table width="80%" summary="Authors">
<tr><td align="left">[Signed:]</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Reuben A. Chapman</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Horace Gray, Jr.</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"></td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">John Wells</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">James D. Colt</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"></td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Seth Ames</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Marcus Morton.</span></td></tr>
</table></div>

<p><i>Boston</i>, June 29, 1871.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_312" id="Page_312">[Pg 312]</a></span></p>

<p>It is to be remarked that the clause on which the court determined
its judgment was of no practical consequence, since the money
devised had already been paid to Wendell Phillips, who had disposed
of it as the bequest required, and he had given his receipt to the
testator for the amount.</p>

<p>Even the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has begun to
understand the trend of the woman's rights movement, and has
rendered its first favorable decision, in the famous Eddy-will
case. Wendell Phillips told me that he drew up this will, and that
its provisions were so carefully worded, that even the Supreme
Court could find no flaw in it. It is in his own hand-writing, and
Chandler R. Ransom was the executor. Eliza F. Eddy was the daughter
of Francis Jackson, and just before her death in 1882, desiring to
help the suffrage cause and thus carry out her father's intentions,
she made her will in which she bequeathed $40,000 for this purpose.
The clause relating to this bequest is as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>Whatever is left, after paying the above legacies, I direct shall
be divided into equal portions. One of said portions I leave to
Susan B. Anthony of Rochester, N. Y.; and the other portion I
leave to Lucy Stone, wife of Henry B. Blackwell, as her own
absolute separate property, free from any control by him. I
request said Susan and Lucy to use said fund thus given to
further what is called the "Woman's Rights' Cause"; but neither
of them is under any legal responsibility to any one or any court
to do so. </p></blockquote>

<p>Her will was filed and the Probate Court declared its validity.
This decision was appealed from for several unimportant reasons by
relatives of Mrs. Eddy, Francis W. and Jerome A. Bacon, minors; and
the case was carried to the Supreme Judicial Court. After many
delays it was finally decided in favor of the validity of the will,
March, 1885, R. M. Morse, jr., and S. J. Elder for the plaintiff,
and B. F. Butler and F. L. Washburn for the defendants. The court's
final decision, rendered by Hon. Charles Devens, is as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p class="center"><span class="smcap">Albert F. Bacon</span> and others, executors and others <i>vs.</i> <span class="smcap">Chandler
R. Ransom</span>, executor, and others.</p>

<p>Suffolk. March 18, 19, 1885. <span class="smcap">W. Allen, Colburn and Holmes</span>, <i>Js.</i>,
absent.</p>

<p>After a bequest in trust to A. and B., to be by them expended in
securing the passage of laws granting women the right to vote,
had been decreed void as not being a charity, a daughter of the
testator bequeathed the residue of her estate (being about the
amount she had received from her father's estate) to A. and B.
"as their absolute property"; and added: "I request said A. and
B. to use said fund thus given to further what is called the
Woman's Rights Cause. But neither of them is under any legal
responsibility to any one or any court to do so." <i>Held</i>, that
the bequest was valid, and did not create a trust.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_313" id="Page_313">[Pg 313]</a></span></p>

<p>Bill in equity by the executors of the will of Lizzie F. Bacon,
and certain legatees thereunder, against the executor of the will
of Eliza F. Eddy, Lucy Stone, wife of H. B. Blackwell, Susan B.
Anthony, and other legatees thereunder, and the attorney-general,
to compel the executor of said Eddy's will to pay over to the
plaintiffs the residue of her estate. The bill alleged the
following facts:</p>

<p>Francis Jackson, the father of said Eliza F. Eddy, died in 1861,
leaving a will, by the sixth article of which he gave $5,000 to
Wendell Phillips, Lucy Stone Blackwell and Susan B. Anthony, in
trust, "to be expended by them without any responsibility to any
one, at their discretion, in such sums, at such times, and in
such places as they may deem fit, to secure the passage of laws
granting women, whether married or unmarried, the right to vote,
to hold office, to hold, manage and devise property, and all
other civil rights enjoyed by men; and for the preparation and
circulation of books, the delivery of lectures, and such other
means as they may judge best." By the eighth article he gave
one-third of the residue to a trustee, to pay the income to his
daughter, Eliza F. Eddy, during her life, and upon her death
one-half of the income to the trustees and on the trusts named in
the sixth article, and the other half to Mrs. Eddy's daughter,
Mrs. Lizzie F. Bacon, during her life, and, on the death of Mrs.
Bacon, the principal to the trustees and on the trusts named in
the sixth article.</p>

<p>It was held by this court that these bequests were not a charity
(see <i>Jackson vs. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539</i>).</p>

<p>In consequence of this decision, certain agreements, releases,
and a partition were made, by which one-third of the residue of
Mr. Jackson's estate became the property of Mrs. Eddy, subject to
being held in trust for herself for life, and thereafter, as to
one-half, for her daughter, Mrs. Bacon, during her life. Mrs.
Eddy died December 29, 1881, leaving a will by which she gave
absolute legacies to the amount of $24,500 to various persons
therein named. This disposed of all her estate except what came
to her from her father's estate. Her will then provided as
follows:</p>

<p>"What is left, after paying the above legacies, I direct shall be
divided into two equal portions; one of said portions I leave to
Miss Susan B. Anthony of Rochester, in the State of New York, as
her absolute property, and the other portion I leave to Lucy
Stone, wife of H. B. Blackwell, as her own absolute and separate
property, free from any control of him. I request said Susan and
Lucy to use said fund thus given to further what is called the
woman's rights cause; but neither of them is under any legal
responsibility to any one or any court to do so."</p>

<p>The will further alleged that this residue was substantially the
estate received from Francis Jackson; that the will was intended
by the testatrix to defeat the decision of this court, before
mentioned; that the testatrix had no personal acquaintance with
Lucy Stone or Susan B. Anthony; that said gift was intended as a
gift <i>in perpetuam</i> to the said cause, and was, without limit of
time, upon trust in favor of said cause; and that said cause was
not a charity within the meaning of the law, and was null and
void.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_314" id="Page_314">[Pg 314]</a></span></p>

<p>The defendants demurred to the bill for want of equity. The case
was heard by C. Allen, <i>J.</i>, on the bill and demurrer, and a
decree was entered sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the
bill. The plaintiffs appealed to the full court.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">R. M. Morse</span>, Jr., and <span class="smcap">S. J. Elder</span>, for the plaintiffs.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">B. F. Butler</span> and <span class="smcap">F. L. Washburn</span>, for the defendants.</p>

<p>Judge <span class="smcap">Charles Devens</span>. The fact that the respective portions of
the estate bequeathed by Mrs. Eddy to Mrs. Stone and Miss Anthony
were in amount equal to-or precisely the same as those which came
to her by descent from her father, Francis Jackson, is not of
importance in the case at bar. It had been held in <i>Jackson vs.
Phillips, 14 Allen, 539</i>, that a certain bequest made by Mr.
Jackson in trust was not, legally speaking, a public charity, and
that it could not therefore pass to the beneficiaries named in
his will. The property which he thus attempted to bequeath
descended therefore to his legal representatives, of whom Mrs.
Eddy was one. She received it with the same right to deal with it
or dispose of it in her lifetime, or by will at her decease, that
she had in any other estate which was her lawful property.</p>

<p>The bill alleges "that said will was intended by the testatrix to
defeat the decision of the court, before mentioned; that the
testatrix had no personal acquaintance with Lucy Stone or Susan
B. Anthony; that said gift was intended as a gift <i>in perpetuam</i>
to the said cause." But if Mrs. Eddy has complied with the rules
of law in the disposition of her property, even if she has hoped
thereby to attain the same object as that desired by her father,
the decision referred to is not defeated, but is recognized and
conformed to; and, whatever her intention may have been, her
bequest is to be upheld.</p>

<p>Her gift to her beneficiaries is absolute in terms. They may do
what they will with the property bequeathed to them, as they may
with any other property which is lawfully their own. It is true
that the gift is accompanied by a request that they will use the
fund bequeathed "to further what is called the woman's rights
cause." A request made by one who has the right to direct is
often, perhaps generally, interpreted as a command. For this
reason, recommendatory or precatory words used in a bequest are
frequently treated as an express direction. Thus, if a legacy
were given to A., with a request that out of the sum bequeathed
he would pay to another a certain sum, or a portion thereof, it
might well be construed as a legacy, to the amount named, to such
person. The expression of the desire of the testator would be the
expression of his will, and the words in form recommendatory
would be held to be mandatory and imperative. Where such words
are used, it is therefore a question of the fair construction to
be attributed to them (<i>Whipple vs. Adams, 1 Met., 444; Warner
vs. Bates, 98 Mass., 274; Spooner vs. Lovejoy, 108 Mass., 529</i>).</p>

<p>But the testatrix in the case at bar has left nothing to
construction. Apparently aware that a request, where she had a
right to direct, might be treated as a command, and desirous to
make it entirely clear that no restraint or duty in any legal
sense was imposed upon her legatees, and that the request of the
will was such in the limited sense of the word<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_315" id="Page_315">[Pg 315]</a></span> only, and in no
respect mandatory, she adds thereto, referring to the legatees,
"But neither of them is under any legal responsibility to any one
or to any court to do so." Each of the legatees is therefore the
sole judge of whether she will follow, or how far or in what way
she will follow, the suggestion of the testatrix in the
disposition of the estate absolutely bequeathed to her. It is a
matter in which she is to be guided only by her judgment and
conscience, and no trust is imposed upon the property she
receives.</p>

<p>As no trust is created, it would be superfluous to consider
whether, if the request of the testatrix were treated as a
command, one would then be indicated capable of enforcement
according to the rules of law.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF60">[Signed:]&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<span class="smcap">Marcus Morton</span>, <i>Chief-Justice</i>,</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><i>Bill dismissed.</i></p>

<div class="center">
<table width="80%" summary="Authors">
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Walbridge Abner Field</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Charles Devens</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">William Allen</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Charles Allen</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Waldo Coburn</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Oliver Wendell Holmes</span>, Jr.</td></tr>
</table></div>

</blockquote>

<hr class="short" />

<p>From these decisions our daughters should learn the importance of
having some knowledge of law. Had not Mrs. Eddy learned from
experience in her father's case that property could not be left in
trust to any societies except those called religious and
charitable, and made her bequest absolutely to persons, the gift of
$56,000 would have been lost to the woman suffrage movement. As it
was, nearly $10,000 was swallowed up in litigation to secure what
the donees did finally obtain. Considering that Mrs. Eddy<a name="FNanchor_157_157" id="FNanchor_157_157"></a><a href="#Footnote_157_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> is
the only woman who has ever had both the desire and the power to
make a large bequest to this cause, its friends have great reason
to rejoice in her wisdom as well as her generosity.</p>

<p>Civilization would have been immeasurably farther advanced than it
now is, had the many rich women, who have left large bequests to
churches, and colleges for boys, concentrated their wealth and
influence on the education, elevation and enfranchisement of their
own sex. We trust that Mrs. Eddy's example may not be lost on the
coming generation of women.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Editors.</span></p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_104_104" id="Footnote_104_104"></a><a href="#FNanchor_104_104"><span class="label">[104]</span></a> For details of early history see vol. I., chap.
viii. See also "Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement,"
Roberts Bros., Boston.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_105_105" id="Footnote_105_105"></a><a href="#FNanchor_105_105"><span class="label">[105]</span></a> As an original question, no friend of woman suffrage
can deny that it was a mean thing to put the word "male" into the
fourteenth amendment. It was, doubtless, wise to adopt that
amendment. It was an extension of the right of suffrage, and so far
in the line of American progress, yet it was also an implied denial
of the suffrage to women.&mdash;[Warrington in the <i>Springfield
Republican</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_106_106" id="Footnote_106_106"></a><a href="#FNanchor_106_106"><span class="label">[106]</span></a> See <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_178">Vol. II., page 178</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_107_107" id="Footnote_107_107"></a><a href="#FNanchor_107_107"><span class="label">[107]</span></a> John Neal came from Maine; Nathaniel and Armenia
White from New Hampshire; Isabella Hooker from Connecticut; Thomas
W. Higginson from Rhode Island; and John G. Whittier, Samuel May,
jr., Gilbert Haven, John T. Sargent, Frank W. Bird, Wendell
Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, William S. Robinson, Stephen and
Abby Kelley Foster, with a host of others, from Massachusetts. Lucy
Stone and Henry B. Blackwell, who then lived in New Jersey, were
also among the speakers.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_108_108" id="Footnote_108_108"></a><a href="#FNanchor_108_108"><span class="label">[108]</span></a> In giving an account of her efforts in this
direction she says: "After my return from Kansas in 1867, I felt
that we ought to do something for the cause in Massachusetts. There
was at that time no organization in the State, and there had been
no revival of the subject in the minds of the people since the war,
which had swallowed up every other interest. In the spring of 1868,
I wrote to Abby Kelley Foster, telling her my wish to have
something done in our own State, and she advised me to call
together a few persons known to be in favor of suffrage, some day
during anniversary week, in some parlor in Boston. I corresponded
with Adin Ballou, E. D. Draper, and others, on the subject, and
talked the matter over with Prof. T. T. Leonard, teacher of
elocution, who offered his hall for a place of meeting. I wrote a
notice inviting all persons interested in woman suffrage to come to
Mr. Leonard's hall, on a certain day and hour. At the time
appointed the hall was full of people. I opened the meeting, and
stated why I had called it; others took up the theme, and we had a
lively meeting. All agreed that something should be done, and a
committee of seven was appointed to call a convention for the
purpose of organizing a woman suffrage association. Caroline M.
Severance, Stephen S. Foster, Sarah Southwick and myself, were of
this committee. We held a number of meetings and finally decided to
call a convention early in the autumn of 1868. This convention was
held in Horticultural Hall, and the result was the organization of
the New England Woman Suffrage Association."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_109_109" id="Footnote_109_109"></a><a href="#FNanchor_109_109"><span class="label">[109]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Julia Ward Howe; <i>Vice-presidents</i>,
William Lloyd Garrison, Boston; Paulina W. Davis, Providence, R.
I.; James Freeman Clarke, Boston; Sarah Shaw Russell, Boston; Neil
Dow, Me.; Lucy Goddard, Boston; Samuel E. Sewall, Melrose; Lidian
Emerson, Concord; John Hooker, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Hartford,
Ct.; Harriot K. Hunt, Boston; James Hutchinson, jr., West Randolph,
Vt.; Armenia S. White, Concord, N. H.; Louisa M. Alcott, Concord;
L. Maria Child, Wayland; John Weiss, Watertown. <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Sara Clark, Boston. <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Charles K.
Whipple, Boston. <i>Treasurer</i>, E. D. Draper, Boston. <i>Executive
Committee</i>: Lucy Stone, Newark, N. J.; T. W. Higginson, Newport, R.
I.; Caroline M. Severance, West Newton; Francis W. Bird, East
Walpole; Mary E. Sargent, Boston; Nathaniel White, Concord, N. H.;
Richard P. Hallowell, Boston; Stephen S. Foster, Worcester; Sarah
H. Southwick, Grantville; Rowland Connor, Boston; B. F. Bowles,
Cambridge; George H. Vibbert, Rockport; Olympia Brown, Weymouth;
Samuel May, jr., Leicester; Nina Moore, Hyde Park.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_110_110" id="Footnote_110_110"></a><a href="#FNanchor_110_110"><span class="label">[110]</span></a> Ednah D. Cheney, Rev. C. A. Bartol, Rev. F. E.
Abbot, Rev. Ph&oelig;be Hanaford and Hon. George F. Hoar.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_111_111" id="Footnote_111_111"></a><a href="#FNanchor_111_111"><span class="label">[111]</span></a> For report of American Association see
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_756">Vol. II., page 756</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_112_112" id="Footnote_112_112"></a><a href="#FNanchor_112_112"><span class="label">[112]</span></a> Lucy Stone, Mary A. Livermore, Stephen S. and Abby
Kelley Foster, H. B. Blackwell, Rev. W. H. Channing, Rev. J. F.
Clarke, Rev. Gilbert Haven, Julia Ward Howe and Elizabeth K.
Churchill made eloquent speeches.
</p><p>
The first board of officers of the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage
Association was: <i>President</i>, Julia Ward Howe. <i>Vice-presidents</i>:
William Lloyd Garrison, Roxbury; Anne B. Earle, Worcester; John G.
Whittier, Amesbury; Lidian Emerson. Concord; Hon. Robert C. Pitman,
New Bedford; Mrs. Richmond Kingman, Cummington; Rev. R. B.
Stratton, Worcester; Edna D. Cheney, Jamaica Plain; Hon. Isaac
Ames, Haverhill; Sarah Shaw Ames, Boston; J. Ingersoll Bowditch,
West Roxbury; Lydia Maria Child, Wayland; Mary Dewey, Sheffield;
Hon. George F. Hoar, Worcester; Sarah Grimke, Hyde Park; Sarah R.
Hathaway, Boston; William I. Bowditch, Boston; Harriot K. Hunt, M.
D., Boston; Hon. Samuel E. Sewall, Melrose; A. Bronson Alcott,
Concord; Angelina G. Weld, Hyde Park; Hon. Henry Wilson, Natick;
Rev. James Freeman Clarke, Boston; Charlotte A. Joy, Mendon; Jacob
M. Manning, D. D., Lucy Sewall, M. D., Boston; Rev. Joseph May,
Newburyport; Maria Zakrzewska, M. D., Roxbury; Rev. William B.
Wright, Boston; Rev. Jesse H. Jones, Natick; Ph&oelig;be A. Hanaford,
Reading; Seth Hunt, Northampton: Maria S. Porter, Melrose.
<i>Executive Committee</i>: Rev. Rowland Connor, Boston; Caroline M.
Severance, West Newton; Rev. W. H. H. Murray, Boston; Gordon M.
Fiske, Palmer; Sarah A. Vibbert, Rockport; Rev. Gilbert Haven,
Maiden; Caroline Remond Putman, Salem; Frank B. Sanborn,
Springfield; Mercy B. Jackson, M. D., Boston; Samuel May, jr.,
Leicester; Margaret W. Campbell, Springfield; Rev. C. M. Wines,
Brookline; Mary A. Livermore, Melrose; William S. Robinson, Maiden;
Henry B. Blackwell, Boston; Lucy Stone, Boston; S. S. Foster,
Worcester; Mrs. Wilcox, Worcester; Ada R. Bowles, Cambridge.
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Nina Moore, Hyde Park. <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Charles C. Whipple, Boston. <i>Treasurer</i>, E. D. Draper,
Hopedale.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_113_113" id="Footnote_113_113"></a><a href="#FNanchor_113_113"><span class="label">[113]</span></a> Mary F. Eastman, Ada C. Bowles, Lorenza Haynes,
Elizabeth K. Churchill, Hulda B. Loud, Matilda Hindman and other
agents in the lecture field have also done a great deal of
missionary work.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_114_114" id="Footnote_114_114"></a><a href="#FNanchor_114_114"><span class="label">[114]</span></a> The committee of arrangements were Mrs. Isaac Ames,
Harriet H. Robinson, Sarah B. Otis, Philip Wheeler, Jane Tenney,
Mrs. A. A. Fellows, Mrs. Jackson, Miss Talbot and Miss Halsey.
</p><p>
The speakers were: Wendell Phillips, Mary A. Livermore, Frederick
Douglass, William Lloyd Garrison, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Margaret
W. Campbell, Mary F. Eastman, Henry B. Blackwell, Lucy Stone and
others. Julia Ward Howe and Mr. C. P. Cranch, read original poems.
Two old-time tea-party songs, curiosities in their line, were read.
One, dated Boston, 1773, entitled "Lines on Bohea Tea," was written
by Susannah Clarke, great-aunt of W. S. Robinson; the other, copied
from Thomas' <i>Boston Journal</i>, of December 2, 1773, was written by
Mrs. Ames, a tailoress.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_115_115" id="Footnote_115_115"></a><a href="#FNanchor_115_115"><span class="label">[115]</span></a> <i>Committee of Arrangements</i>&mdash;Lucy Stone, Abby Kelley
Foster, Thomas J. Lothrop, Timothy K. Earle, Sarah E. Wall, Harriet
H. Robinson and E. H. Church. At this public gathering, Athol,
Boston, Haverhill, Leicester, Leominster, Lowell, Malden, Melrose,
Milford, North Brookfield, Taunton, and many other Massachusetts
towns were well represented.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_116_116" id="Footnote_116_116"></a><a href="#FNanchor_116_116"><span class="label">[116]</span></a> The speakers were Lucy Stone, Rev. W. H. Channing,
Mary A. Livermore, Mary F. Eastman, Kate N. Doggett, Rev. F. A.
Hinckley, Ednah D. Cheney, T. Wentworth Higginson, Isabella Beecher
Hooker, Anna Garlin Spencer and Julia E. Parker. Harriet H.
Robinson read a condensed history of Massachusetts in the woman
suffrage movement. Interesting letters were received from Elizabeth
Stuart Phelps, F. W. Bird, H. B. Blackwell, Margaret W. Campbell,
Mrs. C. I. H. Nichols and Frances D. Gage. Two original woman
suffrage songs, written by Anna Q. T. Parsons and Caroline A.
Mason, were sung on the occasion.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_117_117" id="Footnote_117_117"></a><a href="#FNanchor_117_117"><span class="label">[117]</span></a> Board of officers for 1885: <i>President</i>, Miss Abby
W. May; <i>Vice-president</i>, Mrs. Edna Dean Cheney; <i>Secretary</i>, Miss
Brigham; <i>Treasurer</i>, Miss S. F. King; <i>Assistant-secretary</i>, Miss
Von Arnim; <i>Directors</i>, Miss H, Lemist, Mrs. J. W. Smith, Mrs. M.
P. Lowe, Mrs. H. G. Jackson, Mrs. L. H. Merrick, Mrs. G. L. Ruffin,
Mrs. Walton, Mrs. Whitman, Miss Rogers, Miss E. Foster, Miss Shaw,
Miss Lougee, Miss L. M. Peabody, Dr. A. E. Fisher, Mrs. Buchanan,
Mrs. O. A. Cheney, Mrs. E. Hilt, Mrs. M. W. Nash, Mrs. M. H. Bray,
Mrs. Fifield, Mrs. J. F. Clarke, Miss L. P. Hale, Mrs. A. H.
Spalding; <i>Lecture Committee</i>, Miss Lucia M. Peabody, Mrs. Fifield
and Mrs. L. H. King.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_118_118" id="Footnote_118_118"></a><a href="#FNanchor_118_118"><span class="label">[118]</span></a> It is the only organization in the State whose
business is managed by its members. Its officers are a president,
one or more vice-presidents for each county, a secretary,
treasurer, auditor, and a standing committee of seven with power to
add to its number. These officers are elected annually. Executive
meetings, in which all members participate, are held monthly.
<i>President</i>, Harriette R. Shattuck; <i>Vice-presidents</i>, Dr. Salome
Merritt, Joan D. Foster, Emma F. Clarry, Louisa E. Brooks, Esther
P. Hutchinson, Sarah S. Eddy, Harriet M. Spaulding, Martha E. S.
Curtis, Dr. Sarah E. Sherman, Sarah G. Todd, Abbie M. Meserve,
Sophia A. Forbes, Esther B. Smith, Emma A. Todd. <i>Treasurer</i>, Sara
A. Underwood; <i>Auditor</i>, Lavina A. Hatch; <i>Secretaries</i>, Hannah M.
Todd, Elizabeth B. Atwell, Harriet H. Robinson; <i>Standing
Committee</i>, H. R. Shattuck, Dr. S. Merritt, H. H. Robinson, Lydia
E. Hutchings, Mary R. Brown, E. B. Attwill, Lucretia H. Jones.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_119_119" id="Footnote_119_119"></a><a href="#FNanchor_119_119"><span class="label">[119]</span></a> South Framingham, South Boston, Winchester,
Rockland, Wakefield, Uxbridge, Millbury, Bedford, Westboro', Salem,
Lynn, Lowell, Rowley, Concord, Woburn, Malden, Cambridge, Beverly
Farms.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_120_120" id="Footnote_120_120"></a><a href="#FNanchor_120_120"><span class="label">[120]</span></a> Two of these, Harriet H. Robinson and Harriette R.
Shattuck, spoke at the first hearing before the Senate committee.
It chanced that Mrs. Robinson was the first woman to speak before
this Special Committee. The other delegates were: Mary R. Brown,
Emma F. Clarry, Louisa E. Brooks, Mrs. G. W. Simonds, Sarah S.
Eddy, Mr. and Mrs. D. W. Forbes, Mary H. Semple, Louisa A. Morrison
and Cora B. Smart.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_121_121" id="Footnote_121_121"></a><a href="#FNanchor_121_121"><span class="label">[121]</span></a> The authors and compilers of these leaflets are
Harriette R. Shattuck, Sara A. Underwood, Hannah M. Todd and Mary
R. Brown.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_122_122" id="Footnote_122_122"></a><a href="#FNanchor_122_122"><span class="label">[122]</span></a> The speakers at these hearings were Harriette R.
Shattuck, Mary R. Brown, Sidney D. Shattuck, Nancy W. Covell, Dr.
Julia C. Smith, Mr. S. C. Fay, Louisa A. Morrison, Sara A.
Underwood and Harriet H. Robinson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_123_123" id="Footnote_123_123"></a><a href="#FNanchor_123_123"><span class="label">[123]</span></a> The speakers were Rev. J. T. Sargent, A. Bronson
Alcott, H. B. Blackwell, Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, S. S. Foster, Mary
A. Livermore, Rev. B. F. Bowles, F. B. Sanborn, W. S. Robinson,
Gilbert Haven and many others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_124_124" id="Footnote_124_124"></a><a href="#FNanchor_124_124"><span class="label">[124]</span></a> In the records of the executive meetings of this
Association I find the following votes. In October, 1872, it was
voted, That any invitation to speak at Republican meetings,
extended to our agents by Republican committees in this State, be
accepted by them until the coming election, their usual salaries
being paid by this Association; that Miss Loud be notified by Lucy
Stone of our arrangement in regard to Republican meetings, and be
requested, after the 15th instant, to hold her meetings in that
manner as far as practicable; that the balance of expenses of the
woman's meeting held at Tremont Temple be paid by this Association.
[This was a political meeting held by the Massachusetts Woman
Suffrage Association to endorse General Grant as the presidential
candidate of the Republican party.]</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_125_125" id="Footnote_125_125"></a><a href="#FNanchor_125_125"><span class="label">[125]</span></a> The National Association of Massachusetts at its
executive session, August 23, passed the following:
</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we respect the advice of our leaders, as
their private political opinion, we deem it worse than useless to
"stand by the Republican" or any other party while we are
deprived of the only means of enforcing a political opinion; and
that we advise all associations, to concentrate their efforts
upon securing the ballot to women, withholding all attempt at
political influence until they possess the right which alone can
make their influence effective. </p></blockquote>
</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_126_126" id="Footnote_126_126"></a><a href="#FNanchor_126_126"><span class="label">[126]</span></a> At the executive meeting of the New England
Association, May, 1874, it was voted that a circular be sent to the
friends of woman suffrage, requesting them to meet in Boston, May
25, to consider the expediency of calling a convention to form a
political party for woman suffrage.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_127_127" id="Footnote_127_127"></a><a href="#FNanchor_127_127"><span class="label">[127]</span></a> The call for this convention was signed by Harriet
H. Robinson, Rev. A. D. Sargent, Rev. G. H. Vibbert, William
Johnson, Mrs. T. R. Woodman, Helen Gale and Mrs. M. Slocum. Judge
Robert C. Pitman was the candidate for governor.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_128_128" id="Footnote_128_128"></a><a href="#FNanchor_128_128"><span class="label">[128]</span></a> This "Woman Suffrage ticket," the first ever offered
to a Massachusetts voter, received 41 votes out of the 1,340 cast
in all by the voters of the town, a larger proportion than that
first cast by the old Liberty party in Massachusetts, which began
with only 307 votes in the whole State, and ended in the Free Soil
and Republican parties.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_129_129" id="Footnote_129_129"></a><a href="#FNanchor_129_129"><span class="label">[129]</span></a> Election day dawned and it rained hard, but the
women braved the storm. There they stood from 9 o'clock <span class="smcap">a.m.</span> till a
quarter of 5 <span class="smcap">p.m.</span> and distributed votes, only leaving their
positions long enough to get a cup of coffee and a luncheon, which
was provided at the headquarters. They distributed 1,700 woman
suffrage ballots and 1,000 circulars containing arguments on the
rights of women. They were treated with unexceptionable politeness
and kindness by the voters.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_130_130" id="Footnote_130_130"></a><a href="#FNanchor_130_130"><span class="label">[130]</span></a> The first time women went to the polls in
Massachusetts was in 1870, when forty-two women of Hyde Park, led
by Angelina Grimké Weld and Sarah Grimké, deposited their ballots,
in solemn protest "against the political ostracism of women,
against leaving every vital interest of a majority of the citizens
to the monopoly of a male minority." It is hardly needful to record
that these ballots were not counted.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_131_131" id="Footnote_131_131"></a><a href="#FNanchor_131_131"><span class="label">[131]</span></a> For summary of voting laws relating to women from
1691 to 1822, see "Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement,"
by Harriet H. Robinson: Roberts Brothers, Boston.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_132_132" id="Footnote_132_132"></a><a href="#FNanchor_132_132"><span class="label">[132]</span></a> Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Lucy Stone, Theodore
Parker, Wendell Phillips, and other speakers of ability, presented
able arguments in favor of giving women the right to vote.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_133_133" id="Footnote_133_133"></a><a href="#FNanchor_133_133"><span class="label">[133]</span></a> This memorial was printed by order of the
legislature (Leg. Doc. Ho. 57) and is called "Memorial of the
Female Signers of the Several Petitions of Henry A. Hardy and
Others," presented March 1, 1849. The document is not signed and
Mrs. Ferrin's name is not found with it upon the records, neither
does her name appear in the journal of the House in connection with
any of the petitions and addresses she caused to be presented to
the legislature of the State. But for the loyal friendship of the
few who knew of her work and were willing to give her due credit,
the name of Mary Upton Ferrin [see <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_208">Vol. I., page 208</a>] and the
memory of her labors as well as those of many another silent
worker, would have gone into the "great darkness."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_134_134" id="Footnote_134_134"></a><a href="#FNanchor_134_134"><span class="label">[134]</span></a> The committee was addressed by Wendell Phillips,
Julia Ward Howe, Lucy Stone, Rev. James Freeman Clarke and Hon.
George F. Hoar.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_135_135" id="Footnote_135_135"></a><a href="#FNanchor_135_135"><span class="label">[135]</span></a> Two years before (1869), while sitting as visitor in
the gallery of the House of Representatives, I heard the whole
subject of woman's rights referred to the (bogus) committee on
graveyards!</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_136_136" id="Footnote_136_136"></a><a href="#FNanchor_136_136"><span class="label">[136]</span></a> It was perhaps intended to serve as a means of
reïnstating Abby W. May and other women who had been defeated as
candidates for reëlection on the Boston school-board. The names of
Isa E. Gray, Mrs. C. B. Richmond, Elizabeth P. Peabody and John M.
Forbes led the lists of petitioners.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_137_137" id="Footnote_137_137"></a><a href="#FNanchor_137_137"><span class="label">[137]</span></a> At the first annual election for school committees
in cities and towns in 1879-80, about 5,000 women became registered
voters.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_138_138" id="Footnote_138_138"></a><a href="#FNanchor_138_138"><span class="label">[138]</span></a> Lucretia P. Hale, Abby W. May, Lucia M. Peabody,
Mary J. S. Blake, Kate G. Wells, Lucretia Crocker.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_139_139" id="Footnote_139_139"></a><a href="#FNanchor_139_139"><span class="label">[139]</span></a> This act, so brief and so <i>expressive</i>, is worthy to
be remembered. It simply reads: "<i>Be it enacted, etc., as follows</i>:
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Sec. 1.</span> No person shall be deemed ineligible to serve upon a school
committee by reason of sex.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> This act shall take effect upon its passage. (<i>Approved
June 30, 1874.</i>)
</p><p>
By force of habit, the legislature said not a word in the law about
<i>women</i>. There are now (1885) 102 women members of school-boards in
Massachusetts.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_140_140" id="Footnote_140_140"></a><a href="#FNanchor_140_140"><span class="label">[140]</span></a> See "Women under the law of Massachusetts," Henry H.
Sprague. Boston: W. B. Clarke &amp; Carruth.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_141_141" id="Footnote_141_141"></a><a href="#FNanchor_141_141"><span class="label">[141]</span></a> The authority for this old "thumb" tradition, that
"a man had the right to whip his wife with a stick no bigger than
his thumb," is found in an early edition of <i>Phillip's Evidence</i>.
That book was authority in English common law and in it Phillips is
quoted as saying, that according to the law of his day a husband
"might lawfully chastise his wife with a reasonable weapon, as a
<i>broomstick</i>," adding, however, "but if he use an unreasonable
weapon, such as an iron bar, and death ensue, it would be
murder."&mdash;[Chamberlin, p. 818.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_142_142" id="Footnote_142_142"></a><a href="#FNanchor_142_142"><span class="label">[142]</span></a> In an old will, made a hundred and fifty years ago,
a husband of large means bequeathed to his "dearly beloved wife"
$50 and a new suit of clothes, with the injunction that she should
return to her original, or family home. And with this small sum, as
her share of his property, he returned her to her parents.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_143_143" id="Footnote_143_143"></a><a href="#FNanchor_143_143"><span class="label">[143]</span></a> The little actual gain in votes since 1874, in favor
of municipal or general suffrage for women, might cause the
careless observer to draw the inference that no great progress had
been made in legislative sentiment during all these years. In 1870
the vote in the House of Representatives on the General Woman
Suffrage Bill was 133 to 68. In 1885 the bill giving municipal
suffrage was defeated in the House by a vote of 130 to 61. But this
is not a true index of the progress of public opinion.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_144_144" id="Footnote_144_144"></a><a href="#FNanchor_144_144"><span class="label">[144]</span></a> Mrs. Ellen M. Richards was the first woman who
entered.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_145_145" id="Footnote_145_145"></a><a href="#FNanchor_145_145"><span class="label">[145]</span></a> The Harvard Annex, so called, began its seventh year
with sixty-five young ladies enrolled for study. The enrollment for
the preceding six years was as follows: First year, 29: second, 47;
third 40; fourth, 39; fifth, 49, sixth, 55. Some of the students
come from distant places, but a majority are from the Cambridge and
neighboring high-schools. The institution occupies this year for
the first time a building which has been conveniently arranged for
its purposes. The endowment of the association which manages the
work now amounts to $85,000.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_146_146" id="Footnote_146_146"></a><a href="#FNanchor_146_146"><span class="label">[146]</span></a> This lady was Lucy Downing, a sister of the first
governor of Massachusetts. She was the wife of Emanuel Downing, a
lawyer of the Inner Temple, a friend of Governor Winthrop and
afterward a man of mark in the infant colony. In a letter to her
brother, Lucy Downing expresses the desire of herself and husband
to come to New England with their children, but laments that if
they do come her son George cannot complete his studies. She says:
"You have yet noe societies nor means of that kind for the
education of youths in learning. It would make me goe far nimbler
to New England, if God should call me to it, than otherwise I
should, and I believe a colledge would put noe small life into the
plantation." This letter was written early in 1636, and in October
of the same year the General Court of the Massachusetts colony
agreed to give £400 towards establishing a school or college in
Newtowne (two years later called Cambridge). Soon afterwards Rev.
John Harvard died and left one-half of his estate to this "infant
seminary," and in 1638 it was ordered by the General Court that the
"Colledge to be built at Cambridge shall be called Harvard
Colledge."
</p><p>
Early in 1638 Lucy Downing and her husband arrived in New England,
and the name of George Downing stands second on the list of the
first class of Harvard graduates in 1642. The Downings had other
sons who do not seem to have been educated at Harvard, and
daughters who were put out to service. The son for whom so much was
done by his mother, was afterwards known as Sir George Downing, and
he became rich and powerful in England. Downing street in London is
named for him. In after life he forgot his duty to his mother, who
so naturally looked to him for support; and her last letter written
from England after her husband died, when she was old and feeble,
tells a sad story of her son's avarice and meanness, and leaves the
painful impression that she suffered in her old age for the
necessaries of life.
</p><p>
It is hard to estimate how much influence the earnest longing of
this one woman for the better education of her son, had in the
founding of this earliest college in Massachusetts. But for her
thinking and speaking at the right time the enterprise might have
been delayed for half a century. It is to be deplored that Lucy
Downing established the unwise precedent of educating one member of
the family at the expense of the rest; an example followed by too
many women since her time. Harvard College itself has followed it
as well, in that it has so long excluded from its privileges that
portion of the human family to which Lucy Downing belonged.
</p><p>
Although women have never been permitted to become students of this
college, or of any of the schools connected with it, yet they have
always taken a great interest in its pecuniary welfare, and the
University is largely indebted to the generosity of women for its
endowment and support. From the records of Harvard College, it
appears that funds have been contributed by 167 women, which
amount, in the aggregate, to $325,000. Out of these funds a
proportion of the university scholarships were founded, and at
least one of its professors' chairs. In its Divinity school alone
five of the ten scholarships bear the names of women. Caroline A.
Plummer of Salem gave $15,000 to found the Plummer Professorship of
Christian Morals. Sarah Derby bequeathed $1,000 towards founding
the Hersey Professorship of Anatomy and Physic. The Holden Chapel
was built with money given for that purpose by Mrs. Samuel Holden
and her daughters. Anna E. P. Sever, in 1879, left a legacy to this
college of $140,000. [See Harvard Roll of Honor for women in
<i>Harvard Register</i> in 1880-81.] Other known benefactors of Harvard
University are: Lady Moulson, Hannah Sewall, Mary Saltonstall,
Dorothy Saltonstall, Joanna Alford, Mary P. Townsend, Ann Toppan,
Eliza Farrar, Ann F. Schaeffer, Levina Hoar, Rebecca A. Perkins,
Caroline Merriam, Sarah Jackson, Hannah C. Andrews, Nancy Kendall,
Charlotte Harris, Mary Osgood, Lucy Osgood, Sarah Winslow, Julia
Bullock, Marian Hovey, Anna Richmond, Caroline Richmond, Clara J.
Moore and Susan Cabot.&mdash;[H. H. R.
</p><p>
The question is often asked, why are women so much more desirous
than men to see their children educated? Because it is a right that
has been denied to themselves. To them education means liberty,
wealth, position, power. When the black race at the South were
emancipated, they were far more eager for education than the poor
whites, and for the same reason.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Eds.</span></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_147_147" id="Footnote_147_147"></a><a href="#FNanchor_147_147"><span class="label">[147]</span></a> Ruth Barnaby, aged 101 in 1875, Elizabeth Phillips
and Hannah Greenway were also members of this branch of the
profession. The last was midwife to Mrs. Judge Sewall, who was the
mother of nineteen children. Judge Samuel E. Sewall mentions this
fact in his diary, recently published.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_148_148" id="Footnote_148_148"></a><a href="#FNanchor_148_148"><span class="label">[148]</span></a> Dr. Jackson had a large practice in Boston, and
filled for five years the chair of professor of diseases of
children in the Boston University School of Medicine.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_149_149" id="Footnote_149_149"></a><a href="#FNanchor_149_149"><span class="label">[149]</span></a> In 1840, a Massachusetts woman could not legally be
treasurer of even a sewing society without having some man
responsible for her. In 1809, it was necessary that the
subscriptions of a married woman for a newspaper or for charities
should be in the name of her husband.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_150_150" id="Footnote_150_150"></a><a href="#FNanchor_150_150"><span class="label">[150]</span></a> Olympia Brown's own account of this transaction is
as follows: In 1864, soon after my settlement in Weymouth, I
solemnized a marriage. It was the first time a woman had officiated
in this capacity, and there was so much talk about the legality of
the act, that I petitioned the legislature to take such action as
was necessary in order to make marriages solemnized by me legal.
The committee to whom it was referred reported that no legislation
was necessary.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_151_151" id="Footnote_151_151"></a><a href="#FNanchor_151_151"><span class="label">[151]</span></a> This little book is worthy of mention, from the fact
that it is probably the first publication of its kind in
Massachusetts, if not in America. The whole title of the book is,
"Observations on the Rights of Women, with their appropriate duties
agreeable to Scripture, reason and common sense." Mrs. Crocker, in
her introduction, says: "The wise author of Nature has endowed the
female mind with equal powers and faculties, and given them the
same right of judging and acting for themselves as he gave the male
sex." She further argues that, "According to Scripture, woman was
the first to transgress and thus forfeited her original right of
equality, and for a time was under the yoke of bondage, till the
birth of our blessed Savior, when she was restored to her equality
with man."
</p><p>
This is a very fine beginning, and would seem to savor strongly of
the modern woman's rights doctrine; but, unfortunately, the author,
with charming inconsistency, goes on to say,&mdash;"We shall strictly
adhere to the principle of the impropriety of females ever
trespassing on masculine grounds, as it is morally incorrect, and
physically impossible."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_152_152" id="Footnote_152_152"></a><a href="#FNanchor_152_152"><span class="label">[152]</span></a> In 1836 there was a small woman's club of Lowell
factory operatives, officered and managed entirely by women. This
may be a remote first cause of the origin of the New England
Women's Club, since it bears the same relation to that flourishing
institution, that the native crab does to the grafted tree. This
was the first woman's club in the State, if not in the whole
country.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_153_153" id="Footnote_153_153"></a><a href="#FNanchor_153_153"><span class="label">[153]</span></a> A few ladies met at the house of Dr. Harriot K. Hunt
to consider a plan for organization. Its avowed object was "to
supply the daily increasing need of a great central resting place,
for the comfort and convenience of those who may wish to unite with
us, and ultimately become a center for united and organized social
thought and action." Its first president was Caroline M. Severance.
On the executive board were the names of Julia Ward Howe, Ednah D.
Cheney, Lucy Goddard, Harriet M. Pitnam, Jane Alexander, Abby W.
May, and many others who have since become well known. This club
held its first meetings in private houses, but it has for several
years occupied spacious club rooms on Park street in Boston. Julia
Ward Howe is its president. The club has its own historian, and
when this official gives the result of her researches to the
public, there will be seen how many projects for the elevation of
women and the improvement of social life have had their inception
in the brains of those who assemble in the parlors of the New
England Woman's Club. In 1874, it projected the movement by which
women were first elected on the school committee of Boston, and
also prepared the petition to be sent to the Massachusetts
legislature of 1879, the result of which was the passage of the law
allowing women to vote for school committees. In the <i>Woman's
Journal</i> for 1883 will be found a sketch of this club.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_154_154" id="Footnote_154_154"></a><a href="#FNanchor_154_154"><span class="label">[154]</span></a> "Taxation of Women in Massachusetts"; "Woman
Suffrage a Right, not a Privilege," and "The Forgotten Woman in
Massachusetts."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_155_155" id="Footnote_155_155"></a><a href="#FNanchor_155_155"><span class="label">[155]</span></a> Its projectors were A. Bronson Alcott, Ralph Waldo
Emerson, Professor W. T. Harris, Frank B. Sanborn, Professor
Benjamin Pierce, Dr. H. K. Jones, Elizabeth P. Peabody and Ednah D.
Cheney.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_156_156" id="Footnote_156_156"></a><a href="#FNanchor_156_156"><span class="label">[156]</span></a> This act is almost as brief as a certain clause in
one of the election laws of the State of Texas, which says: "The
masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_157_157" id="Footnote_157_157"></a><a href="#FNanchor_157_157"><span class="label">[157]</span></a> We deeply regret that we have been unable to procure
a good photograph of our generous benefactor, as it was our
intention to make her engraving the frontispiece of this volume,
and thus give the honored place to her through whose liberality we
have been enabled at last to complete this work. We are happy to
state that Mrs. Eddy's will was not contested by any of the
descendents of the noble Francis Jackson, but by Jerome Bacon, a
millionaire, the widower of her eldest daughter who survived the
mother but one week. When the suit was entered the daughters of
Mrs. Eddy, Sarah and Amy, her only surviving children, in a letter
to the executor of the estate, Hon. C. R. Ransom, said: "We hereby
consent and agree that, in case this suit now pending in the court
shall be decided against the claims of Lucy Stone and Susan B.
Anthony, we will give to them the net amount of any sum that as
heirs may be awarded to us, in accordance with our mother's
will."</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_316" id="Page_316">[Pg 316]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXII" id="CHAPTER_XXXII"></a>CHAPTER XXXII.</h2>

<h3>CONNECTICUT.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Prudence Crandall&mdash;Eloquent Reformers&mdash;Petitions for
Suffrage&mdash;The Committee's Report&mdash;Frances Ellen Burr&mdash;Isabella
Beecher Hooker's Reminiscences&mdash;Anna Dickinson in the Republican
Campaign&mdash;State Society Formed, October 28, 29,
1869&mdash;Enthusiastic Convention in Hartford&mdash;Governor Marshall
Jewell&mdash;He Recommends More Liberal Laws for Women&mdash;Society Formed
in New Haven, 1871&mdash;Governor Hubbard's Inaugural, 1877&mdash;Samuel
Bowles of the <i>Springfield Republican</i>&mdash;Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford,
Chaplain, 1870&mdash;John Hooker, esq., Champions the Suffrage
Movement. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">While</span> Connecticut has always been celebrated for its puritanical
theology, political conservatism and rigid social customs, it was
nevertheless the scene of some of the most hotly contested of the
anti-slavery battles. While its leading clergymen and statesmen
stoutly maintained the letter of the old creeds and constitutions,
the Burleighs, the Mays, and the Crandalls strove to illustrate the
true spirit of religion and republicanism in their daily lives by
"remembering those that were in bonds as bound with them."</p>

<p>The example of one glorious woman like Prudence Crandall,<a name="FNanchor_158_158" id="FNanchor_158_158"></a><a href="#Footnote_158_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> who
suffered shameful persecutions in establishing a school for colored
girls at Canterbury, in 1833, should have been sufficient to rouse
every woman in Connecticut to some thought on the basic principles
of the government and religion of the country. Yet we have no
record of any woman in that State publicly sustaining her in that
grand enterprise, though no doubt her heroism gave fresh
inspiration to the sermons of Samuel J. May, then preaching in the
village of Brooklyn, and the speeches and poems of the two eloquent
reformers, Charles C. and William H. Burleigh. The words and deeds
of these and other great souls, though seeming to slumber for many
years, gave birth at last to new demands for another class of
outraged citizens. Thus liberty is ever born of the hateful spirit
of persecution. One question of reform settled forever by the civil
war, the initiative for the next was soon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_317" id="Page_317">[Pg 317]</a></span> taken. In <i>The
Revolution</i> of January 16, 1868, we find the following
well-considered report on woman's enfranchisement, presented by a
minority of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments to the
legislature of Connecticut at its session of 1867:</p>

<blockquote><p>The undersigned members of the committee believe that the prayer
of the petitioners ought to be granted. It would be much easier
for us to reject the petition and silently to acquiesce in the
opinions of the majority upon the subject to which it relates,
but our attention was challenged and an investigation invited by
the bold axioms upon which the cause of suffrage for woman was
claimed to rest, and the more we have examined the subject the
more convinced we have become that the logic of our institutions
requires a concession of that right. It is claimed by some that
the right to vote is not a natural right, but that it is a
privilege which some have acquired, and which may be granted to
others at the option of the fortunate holders. But they fail to
inform us how the possessors first acquired the privilege, and
especially how they acquired the rightful power to withhold that
privilege from others, according to caprice or notions of
expediency. We hold this doctrine to be pernicious in tendency,
and hostile to the spirit of a republican government; and we
believe that it can only be justified by the same arguments that
are used to justify slavery or monarchy&mdash;for it is an obvious
deduction of logic that if one thousand persons have a right to
govern another thousand without their consent, one man has a
right to govern all.</p>

<p>Mr. Lincoln tersely said, "If slavery is not wrong nothing is
wrong." So it seems to us that if the right to vote is not a
natural right, there is no such thing as a natural right in human
relations. The right to freedom and the right to a ballot both
spring from the same source. The right to vote is only the right
to a legitimate use of freedom. It is plain that if a man is not
free to govern himself, and to have a voice in the taxation of
his own property, he is not really free in any enlightened sense.
Even Edward I. of England said, "It is a most equitable rule that
what concerns all should be approved by all." This must
rightfully apply to women the same as to men. And Locke, in his
essay on civil government, said, "Nothing is more evident than
that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born
to the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same
faculties, should also be equal, one with another, without
subordination or subjection." Talleyrand said, as an argument for
monarchy, "The moment we reject an absolutely universal suffrage,
we admit the principle of aristocracy." The founders of this
nation asserted with great emphasis and every variety of
repetition, the essential equality of human rights as a
self-evident truth. The war of the Revolution was justified by
the maxim, "Taxation without representation is tyranny"; and all
republics vindicate their existence by the claim that
"Governments derive their just power from the consent of the
governed." Yet woman, in Connecticut, is governed without her
consent, and taxed without representation.</p>

<p>Lord Camden, one of England's ablest jurists, long ago declared,
"My position is this&mdash;taxation and representation are
inseparable. The position is founded in a law of nature&mdash;nay
more, it is itself an eternal law of nature." Our forefathers
held to this principle, and fought seven years to establish it.
They maintained their favorite theory of government against
immense odds, and transmitted to their posterity the great work
of putting it logically into practice. It is acknowledged by this
legislature that "taxation without representation is tyranny,"
and that "governments derive their just power from the consent of
the governed." If these phrases are anything more than the
meaningless utterances of demagogues, anything more than the
hypocritical apologies of rebellious colonies in a strait&mdash;then
we submit that a <i>primâ facie</i> case for woman's right to vote has
already been made out. To declare that a voice in the government
is the right of all, and then give it to less than half, and that
to the fraction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_318" id="Page_318">[Pg 318]</a></span> to which the theorist himself happens to belong,
is to renounce even the appearance of principle.</p>

<p>It is plain to your committee that neither the State nor the
nation can have peace on this suffrage question until some fair
standard shall be adopted which is not based on religion, or
color, or sex, or any accident of birth&mdash;a test which shall be
applicable to every adult human being. In a republic the ballot
belongs to every intelligent adult person who is innocent of
crime. There is an obvious and sufficient reason for excluding
minors, state-prison convicts, imbeciles and insane persons, but
does the public safety require that we shall place the women of
Connecticut with infants, criminals, idiots and lunatics? Do they
deserve the classification? It seems to your committee that to
enfranchise woman&mdash;or rather to cease to deprive her of the
ballot, which is of right hers, would be reciprocally beneficial.
We believe that it would elevate the character of our
office-holders; that it would purify our politics; that it would
render our laws more equitable; that it would give to woman a
protection against half the perils which now beset her; that it
would put into her hands a key that would unlock the door of
every respectable occupation and profession; that it would insure
a reconstruction of our statute laws on a basis of justice, so
that a woman should have a right to her own children, and a right
to receive and enjoy the proceeds of her own labor. John Neal
estimates that the ballot is worth fifty cents a day to every
American laborer, enabling each man to command that much higher
wages. Does not gentlemanly courtesy, as well as equal justice,
require that that weapon of defense shall be given to those
thousands of working women among us who are going down to
prostitution through three or four half-paid, over-crowded
occupations?</p>

<p>It is said that woman is now represented by her husband, when she
has one; but what is this representation worth when in
Connecticut, two years ago, all of the married woman's personal
property became absolutely her husband's, including even her
bridal presents, to sell or give away, as he saw fit&mdash;a statute
which still prevails in most of the States? What is that
representation worth when even now, in this State, no married
woman has the right to the use of her own property, and no woman,
even a widow, is the natural guardian of her own children? Even
in Connecticut, under man's representation, a widow whose husband
dies without a will is regarded by law as an encumbrance on the
estate which she, through years of drudgery, has helped to
acquire. She can inherit none of the houses or land, but has
merely the use of one-third, while the balance goes to his
relatives&mdash;rich, perhaps, and persons whom she never saw. Does
not this suggest reasons why woman should wish to represent
herself?</p>

<p>It is said that women do not desire the ballot. This is by no
means certain. It can be ascertained only by taking a vote. It is
not proved by the fact that they have not yet generally clamored
for the right, nor by the fact that some protest against it. In
Persia, it is a law of society that virtuous women shall appear
in public with their faces covered, and instead of murmuring at
the restraint, they are universal in upholding it, and wonder at
the immodesty and effrontery of English women who appear upon the
streets unveiled. Custom hardens us to any kind of degradation.
When woman was not admitted to the dinner-table as an equal with
man, she undoubtedly thought the exclusion was perfectly proper,
and quite in the nature of things, and the dinner-table became
vile and obscene. When she was forbidden to enter the church, she
approved the arrangement, and the church became a scene of
hilarity and bacchanalian revel. When she was forbidden to take
part in literature, she thought it was not her sphere, and
disdained the alphabet, and the consequence was that literature
became unspeakably impure, so that no man can now read in public
some of the books that were written before woman brought chastity
and refinement into letters. The Asiatics are probably not in
favor of political liberty, or the American Indians in favor of
civilization; but that does not prove that these would be bad for
them, especially if thousands of the most enlightened did desire
and demand the change. It is assumed that women are not in favor
of this right; how can this be better ascertained than by
submitting to them the question to vote upon&mdash;"yes" or "no."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_319" id="Page_319">[Pg 319]</a></span></p>

<p>If this legislature shall be averse to trusting woman to give her
opinion even on the question of her own enfranchisement, we
recommend that an amendment, striking the word "male" from the
State constitution, be submitted to the qualified electors of the
State. Can there be any possible danger in trusting those who
have trusted us? They, not we, are the law-makers. An assembly is
elected only because it would be inconvenient for all the
citizens to vote upon every statute. But when any change in the
fundamental law is seriously asked, it should be remitted to the
people without hesitation, especially when that proposed change
will render our logic consistent, and our institutions
harmonious; when it will enforce the democratic doctrine that, in
society, every human being has a right to do anything that does
not interfere with the rights of others, and when it will
establish equality in place of partiality, and vindicate the
principle of All Rights for All. We therefore recommend the
adoption of the following resolution: [Here follows a resolution
submitting to the people an amendment of the constitution giving
women the right to vote equally with men.] </p></blockquote>

<p>The members of the committee who signed this early declaration in
favor of the rights of women should be remembered with honor. They
are Henry Ashley, William Steele and J. D. Gallup, jr. The
resolution recommended received 93 votes in the House of
Representatives, against 111 in opposition. So strong an expression
in favor of it at that time is a noteworthy fact in the history of
the cause.</p>

<p>The petitions that called out this able report were secured through
the influence of Frances Ellen Burr, who may be said to have been
the pioneer of woman suffrage in Connecticut. She had made several
attempts, through conversations with influential friends, to
organize a State society many years before. From the inauguration
of the State association until the present time Miss Burr has been
one of its most efficient members, and has done more to popularize
the question of woman suffrage throughout the State than any other
person. Her accomplishments as a writer and speaker, as a reporter
and stenographer, as well as her connection with the <i>Hartford
Times</i> (a journal that has a very large circulation in the State),
edited by her brother, have qualified her for wide and efficient
influence. Her niece, Mrs. Ella Burr McManus, edits a column in
that paper, under the head of "Social Notes." She is also an
advocate of suffrage for women, and makes telling points, from week
to week, on this question. In issuing the first numbers of <i>The
Revolution</i>, the earliest words of good cheer came from Frances
Ellen Burr.<a name="FNanchor_159_159" id="FNanchor_159_159"></a><a href="#Footnote_159_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a></p>

<p>The general rebellion among women against the old conditions of
society and the popular opinions as to their nature and destiny,
has been organized in each State in this Union by the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_320" id="Page_320">[Pg 320]</a></span> sudden
awakening of some self-reliant woman, in whose soul had long
slumbered new ideas as to her rights and duties, growing out of
personal experiences or the distant echoes of onward steps in other
localities. In Connecticut this woman was Isabella Beecher Hooker,
who had scarcely dared to think, and much less to give shape in
words, to the thoughts that, like unwelcome ghosts, had haunted her
hours of solitude from year to year. Elizabeth Barrett Browning
describes a hero as one who does what others do but say; who says
what others do but think; and thinks what others do but dream. The
successive steps by which Mrs. Hooker's dreams at last took shape
in thoughts, words and actions, and brought her to the woman
suffrage platform, are well told by herself:</p>

<blockquote><p>My mind had long been disturbed with the tangled problem of
social life, but it involved so many momentous questions that I
could not see where to begin nor what to do. I could only protest
in my heart, and leave the whole matter for God<a name="FNanchor_160_160" id="FNanchor_160_160"></a><a href="#Footnote_160_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a> to deal with
in his wisdom. Thus matters stood until the year 1861, when Anna
Dickinson, then a girl of nineteen, came to Hartford to speak in
behalf of the Republican party, particularly on its hostility to
the extension of slavery. I shall never forget the dismay&mdash;I know
not what else to call it&mdash;which I felt at the announcement of her
first speech in one of our public halls, lest harm should come to
the political cause that enlisted my sympathies, and anxiety
about the speaker, who would have to encounter so much adverse
criticism in our conservative and prejudiced city. It was
certainly a most startling occurrence, that here in my very home,
where there had been hardly a lisp in favor of the rights of
women, this girl should speak on political subjects, and that,
too, upon the invitation of the leaders of a great political
party. Here was a stride, not a mere step; and a stride almost to
final victory for the suppressed rights of women.</p>

<p>My husband and I, full of anxiety and apprehension, but full,
too, of determination to stand by one who so bravely shook off
her trammels, went to hear this new Joan of Arc, and in a few
minutes after she began we found ourselves, with the rest of the
large audience, entranced by her eloquence. At the close of the
meeting we went with many others to be introduced and give her
the right hand of fellowship. She came home with us for the
night, and after the family retired she and I communed together,
heart to heart, as mother and daughter, and from this sweet,
grand soul, born to the freedom denied to all women except those
known as Quakers, I learned to trust as never before the
teachings of the inner light, and to know whence came to them the
recognition of equal rights with their brethren in the public
assembly.</p>

<p>It was she who brought me to the knowledge of Mrs. John Stuart
Mill, and her remarkable paper on "The Enfranchisement of Women,"
in <i>The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_321" id="Page_321">[Pg 321]</a></span> Westminster Review</i>. She told me, too, of Susan B.
Anthony, a fearless defender of true liberty and woman's right of
public speech; but I allowed an old and ignorant prejudice
against her and Mrs. Stanton to remain until the year 1864, when,
going South to nurse a young soldier who was wounded in the war,
I met Mrs. Caroline Severance from Boston, who was residing in
South Carolina, where her husband was in the service of the
government, who confirmed what Miss Dickinson had told me of Miss
Anthony, and unfolded to me the whole philosophy of the woman
suffrage movement.</p>

<p>She afterwards invited me to her home near Boston, where I joined
Mr. Garrison and others in issuing a call for a convention, which
I attended, and aided in the formation of the New England Woman
Suffrage Association. At this meeting, which I will not attempt
to describe, I met Paulina Wright Davis, whose mere presence upon
the platform, with her beautiful white hair and her remarkable
dignity and elegance, was a most potent argument in favor of
woman's participation in public affairs. I sought an introduction
to her, and confessing my prejudice against Mrs. Stanton and Miss
Anthony, whom I had never yet seen, she urged me to meet them as
guests at her home in Providence; and a few weeks later, under
the grand old trees of her husband's almost ducal estate, we went
over the whole subject of man's supremacy and woman's subjection
that had lain so many years a burden upon my heart, and, sitting
at their feet, I said: "While I have been mourning in secret over
the degradation of woman, you have been working, through
opposition and obloquy, to raise her to self-respect and
self-protection through enfranchisement, knowing that with equal
political rights come equal social and industrial opportunities.
Henceforth, I will at least share your work and your obloquy."</p>

<p>In September, 1869, just one year from that time, after spending
several weeks in correspondence with friends all over the State,
and making careful preliminary arrangements, I issued a call for
the first woman suffrage convention that was ever held in
Connecticut, at which a State society was formed. To my surprise
and satisfaction, the city press each day devoted several columns
to reports of our proceedings, and the enthusiasm manifested by
the large audiences was as unexpected as it was gratifying. The
speakers were worthy of the reception given them, and few
occasions have gathered upon one platform so notable an
assemblage of men and women.<a name="FNanchor_161_161" id="FNanchor_161_161"></a><a href="#Footnote_161_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> The resolutions which formed
the basis of the discussions were prepared and presented by Mr.
Hooker:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That there is no consideration whatever that makes
the right of suffrage valuable to men, or that makes it the duty
or the interest of the nation to concede it to men, that does not
make it valuable to women, and the duty and interest of the
nation to concede it to women.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the ballot will bring to woman a higher
education, larger industrial opportunities, a wider field for
thought and action, a sense of responsibility in her relations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_322" id="Page_322">[Pg 322]</a></span>
to the public welfare, and, in place of mere complaisance and
flattery, the higher and truer respect of men.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That political affairs, involving nearly all those
questions that relate to the welfare of the nation and the
progress of society towards a perfect Christian civilization,
ought to interest deeply every intelligent mind and every
patriotic heart; and, while women love their country and the
cause of Christian progress no less than men, they ought to have
the same opportunity with men to exert a political power in their
behalf.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the alarming prevalence of public dishonesty
and private immorality, which the present forces on the side of
public and private virtue are proving wholly unable to control,
it is our firm conviction that women, educated to the
responsibilities of a participation with men in political rights,
would bring to the aid of virtuous men a new and powerful element
of good, which cannot be spared, and for which there can be no
substitute.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in advocating the opening to woman of this
larger sphere, we do not undervalue her relations as a wife and
mother, than which none can be more worthy of a true woman's love
and pride; but it is only by a full development of her faculties
and a wide range for her thought that she can become the true
companion of an intelligent husband, and the wise and inspiring
educator of her children; while mere domestic life furnishes no
occupation to the great number of women who never marry, and a
very inadequate one to those who, at middle age, with large
experience and ripe wisdom, find their children grown up around
them and no longer needing their care.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That all laws which recognize a superior right in the
husband to the children whom the wife has borne, or a right on
the part of the husband to the property of the wife, beyond the
right given to her in his property, and all laws which hold that
husband and wife do not stand in all respects in the relation of
equals, ought to be abrogated, and the perfect equality of
husband and wife established.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That this equality of position and rights we believe
to have been intended by the Creator as the ultimate perfection
of the social state, when he said, "Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness, and let <span class="smcap">them</span> have dominion"; and to have been
a part of our Savior's plan for a perfect Christian society, in
which an Apostle says, "there is neither bond nor free, there is
neither male nor female." </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>The <i>Hartford Courant</i>, in its description of the convention, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>After a speech by Mr. Garrison, the Hutchinsons sang some of the
religious songs of the Southern negroes with excellent taste, and
then, led by them, the whole audience united in the chorus; and
as the melody rose strong and clear a pathos fell upon the
assembly that brought tears to many eyes. The tableau upon the
stage was striking and memorable. There stood the family of
singers, with the same cheerful, hopeful courage in their
uplifted faces with which for twenty years they have sung of the
good time <i>almost</i> here, of every reform; there stood William
Lloyd Garrison, stern Puritan, inflexible apostle, his work
gloriously done in one reform, lending the weight of his
unwearied, solid intellect to that which he believes is the last
needed; there was Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, a Roman matron in
figure, her noble head covered with clustering ringlets of white,
courageous after a quarter of a century of unsullied devotion,
though she had just confessed that sometimes she was almost
weary; there was Miss Anthony, unselfish, patient, wise and
practical; the graceful Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, the poet of the
movement; the tall and elegant Mrs. Celia Burleigh; the
benevolent Dr. Clemence Lozier; Mrs. Isabella B. Hooker, with
spiritual face and firm purpose, just taking her place in the
reform that has long had her heart and deep conviction, and many
others of fine presence and commanding beauty&mdash;matrons, with gray
hair and countenances illuminated with lives of charity; young
women, flushed with hope; and as the grand Christian song went
on, many a woman, leaning against a supporting pillar, gave way
to the tears that would come, tears of hope deferred, tears of
weary longings, tears of willing, patient devotion&mdash;e'en though
it be a cross that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_323" id="Page_323">[Pg 323]</a></span> raiseth me&mdash;and then the benediction, and the
assembly dispersed, touched, it may be, into a moment's sympathy.
* * *</p>

<p>At the closing evening session the opera house was completely
filled by an audience whose attendance was a compliment. * * *
The chairman, Rev. N. J. Burton, said: "Has not this convention
been a success? I say, emphatically, it has. We have had the very
best of audiences at every session, and we have provided speakers
as good as the audience. We have not given you even one poor
speech. I thank the audience and the speakers, one and all. I
feel like thanking everybody, myself included, as chairman. In
Stewart's store in New York they told me 1,500 persons were
employed, all guided by one brain up-stairs, and that one brain
giving the store a national reputation. This convention has been
inspired and managed by one person&mdash;Mrs. Hooker of this city."
After speculating as to the possible oratorical power of Mrs. H.,
had she received the advantages and enjoyed the practice of her
brother, who spoke the previous evening, he said: "But of course
Mrs. Hooker couldn't vote, nor be a member of the legislature, or
even a justice of the peace. Insufferable nonsense! If such women
don't vote before I die&mdash;well, like Gough's obstinate deacon, I
won't die till they do."</p>

<p>On motion of Franklin Chamberlin, esq., the thanks of the
convention were tendered to Mrs. Hooker for her efforts. At her
request the chairman said that she was wholly surprised by this
reference to herself. She would only say, "Thank God for our
success," to which the chairman added, "Amen and Amen." He then
introduced Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, daughter of the late
Judge Cady of Albany, wife of the Hon. Henry B. Stanton of New
York, and editor of <i>The Revolution</i>. She is perhaps fifty, and
in general appearance much resembles Mrs. Davis. She is
apparently in robust health, dresses in black, with just enough
of white lace, and, with her gray hair loosely gathered, and her
strong, symmetrical and refined face and perfect self-possession,
is a noble-looking woman. Her address, or oration, was before
her, but she was not hampered by it. Her voice is clear, her
gesticulation simple, and her general manner not surpassed by
Wendell Phillips. Rough notes of an oration so finished can only
indicate the main drift of her thoughts. * * * The eloquent
peroration was heard in profound silence, followed by
enthusiastic applause. * * * The chairman read the constitution
and offered it for signatures, and the officers of the
Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association were chosen.<a name="FNanchor_162_162" id="FNanchor_162_162"></a><a href="#Footnote_162_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>In <i>The Revolution</i> of November 11, 1869, Mrs. Stanton giving a
description of the convention, refers to the liberality of the
governor, Marshall Jewell, and the genial hospitalities of his
noble wife:<a name="FNanchor_163_163" id="FNanchor_163_163"></a><a href="#Footnote_163_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a></p>

<blockquote><p>In company with Mrs. Howe and Miss Anthony, we were entertained
at the governor's mansion, a fine brick building in the heart of
the town. It has a small pond on one side, and eight acres of
land, laid out in gardens, walks and lawns, with extensive
greenhouses and graperies. The house is spacious, elegantly and
tastefully furnished, with all the comforts and luxuries that
wealth can command. With a conservatory, library, pictures,
statuary, beautiful (strong-minded) wife and charming daughters,
the noble governor is in duty bound to remain the happy, genial,
handsome man he is to-day. Though the governor, owing to his
pressing executive duties, did not honor our convention with his
presence, we feel assured, in reading over his last able message,
that he feels a deep interest in the education and elevation of
women. In speaking of their school system, he calls attention to
the low wages of female teachers, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_324" id="Page_324">[Pg 324]</a></span> the injustice of excluding
girls from the scientific schools and polytechnic institutions in
the State. He says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I would especially call the attention of the legislature to the
importance of furnishing to women such educational facilities as
will better fit them for the industrial pursuits which the true
progress of the times is opening to them. </p></blockquote>

<p>On the rights of married women, he says:</p>

<blockquote><p>While our laws with regard to married women have been amended
from time to time for several years past, so as to secure to them
in a more ample manner their property, held before or acquired
after marriage, yet we are still considerably behind many of our
sister States, and even conservative England, in our legislation
on the subject. I would recommend to your favorable consideration
such an amendment of our laws as will secure to a married woman
all her property, with the full control of it during her married
life, and free from liability for any debts, except those
contracted by herself or for which she has voluntarily made
herself responsible, with the same right on the part of the
husband to an interest in her property, on his surviving her,
that she now has, or that it may be best to give her, in his. </p></blockquote>

<p>On the subject of divorce the governor says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I recommend a revision of our laws with regard to divorce.
According to the report of the State librarian there were in the
State last year 4,734 marriages and 478 divorces. Discontented
people come here from other States, to take advantage of what is
called our liberal legislation, to obtain divorces which would be
denied them at home. As the sacredness of the marriage relation
lies at the foundation of civilized society, it should be
carefully guarded. Under our present laws the causes of divorce
are too numerous, and not sufficiently defined, and too wide a
discretion is given to the courts. I think the law of 1849 should
be modified, and so much of the statute as grants divorces for
"any such misconduct as permanently destroys the happiness of the
petitioner, and defeats the purposes of the marriage relation,"
should be repealed. I would also suggest that the law provide
that no decree of divorce shall take effect till one year after
it is granted.</p>

<p>In conversation with the governor on this point in his message he
stated the singular fact that the majority of the applications
for divorce were made by women. If this be so, we suggested that
the laws of Connecticut should stand as they are until the women
have the right of suffrage, that they may have a voice in a
social arrangement in which they have an equal interest with man
himself. If Connecticut, with its blue laws, disloyal Hartford
convention, and Democracy, has, nevertheless, been a Canada for
fugitive wives from the yoke of matrimony, pray keep that little
State, like an oasis in the desert, sacred to sad wives, at least
until the sixteenth amendment of the federal constitution shall
give the women of the republic the right to say whether they are
ready to make marriage, under all circumstances, for better or
worse, an indissoluble tie. We have grave doubts as to the
sacredness of a relation in which the subject-class has no voice
whatever in the laws that regulate it. We shall never know what
"laws lie at the foundation of all civilized society" until
woman's thought finds expression in the State, the church and the
home. It is presumption for man longer to legislate alone on this
vital question, when woman, too, should have a word to say in the
matter.</p>

<p>The morning after the convention we had a pleasant breakfast
under Mr. and Mrs. Hooker's hospitable roof, where Boston and New
York amicably broke bread and discussed the fifteenth amendment
together. All the wise and witty sayings that passed around that
social board, time fails to chronicle. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1877 Governor Hubbard called the attention of the legislature to
the wrongs of married women, in the following words:</p>

<blockquote><p>There has been for the last few years in this State much
slip-shod and fragmentary legislation in respect to the property
rights of married women. The old common law assumed the
subjugation of the wife, and stripped her of the better part of
her rights of person and nearly all her rights of property. It is
a matter of astonishment that Christian nations should have been
willing for eighteen centuries to hold the mothers of their race
in a condition of legal servitude. It has been the scandal of
jurisprudence.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_325" id="Page_325">[Pg 325]</a></span> Some progress has been made in reforming the law
in this State, but it has been done, as I have already said, by
patch-work and shreds, sometimes ill-considered, and often so
incongruous as to provoke vexatious litigation and defy the
wisdom of the courts. The property relations of husband and wife
do not to-day rest on any just or harmonious system. Not only has
the husband absolute disposal of all his own property freed from
all dower rights, but he is practically the owner during
coverture of all his wife's estate not specially limited to her
separate use; and after her death has, in every case, a life use
in all her personal, and in most cases in all her real property,
by a title which the wife, no matter what may have been his
ill-deserts, is powerless to impair or defeat; whereas, on the
other hand, the wife has during the husband's life no more power
of her own right to sell, convey, or manage her own estate than
if she were a lunatic or slave, and in case of his death has a
life use in only one-third part of the real estate of which he
dies possessed, and no indefeasible title whatever in any of his
personal estate. As a consequence, a husband may strip his wife,
by mere voluntary disposition to strangers, of all claim on his
estate after his death, and thus add beggary to widowhood.</p>

<p>I am sure this cannot seem right to any fair-minded man. Neither
is it strange that some of our countrywomen, stung by the
injustice of the law towards their sex, should be demanding, as a
mode of redress, a part in the making of the laws which govern
them. I am confident there is manhood enough in our own sex to
right this obvious wrong to which I have alluded.</p>

<p>I therefore recommend that the law on this subject be so recast
that, in all marriages hereafter contracted, the wife shall hold
her property and all her earnings for personal services not
rendered to her husband or minor children, as a sole and separate
estate, with absolute power of disposition in her own name, and
that the surviving wife shall have, by law, the same measure of
estate in the property of the deceased husband, as the surviving
husband shall be allowed to have in the property of his deceased
wife. This will reduce their property relations to a principle of
equality, and, in my judgment, is demanded by the most obvious
dictates of justice and equity. Those who are not satisfied with
this can make a different law for themselves by ante-nuptial
settlements.</p>

<p>I am not unmindful that the husband alone is liable in the first
instance for the support of the family; but this is much more
than neutralized by the fact that, in most cases, the wife's
whole life is spent in the toilsome and unpaid service of the
household, and that the whole drift of her estate, in consequence
of her more unselfish and generous nature, is towards the
husband's pockets, in spite of all the guards of the law and
every consideration of prudence. </p></blockquote>

<p>Calling attention to this stirring appeal, the <i>Hartford Times</i>,
Democratic, used the following language:</p>

<blockquote><p>Another notable feature of the message is its outspoken and manly
call for a reformation in our laws concerning the property rights
of married women. Here as in other points it is a model message.
The governor's experience as a lawyer has brought him often face
to face with this disgraceful one-sidedness of our laws on this
subject, and in some terse sentences he shows up the injustice
more effectively than has ever been done in any of the so-called
women's rights conventions.<a name="FNanchor_164_164" id="FNanchor_164_164"></a><a href="#Footnote_164_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a> </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_326" id="Page_326">[Pg 326]</a></span></p>

<p>The following editorial from the <i>Springfield Republican</i>, gives a
good digest of the new law passed upon Governor Hubbard's
recommendation:</p>

<blockquote><p>Connecticut has taken a great leap forward in the reform of the
property relations of married persons. The law had been long
neglected in that State, the obvious right of a married woman to
property acquired before marriage, which is now secured in most
States by constitutional provision, having been there denied. In
Massachusetts, the modification of the former inequalities has
gone on by piecemeal, till it is said that in some respects the
woman is now the more favored party.</p>

<p>The new Connecticut statute also puts the burden of the family
maintenance on the man, as under most circumstances the real
bread-winner. It simply lays down the principle of absolute
equality in the rights and privileges of the husband and wife,
with the above exception. In all marriages hereafter contracted,
neither husband nor wife shall acquire any right to or interest
in any property of the other, whether held before the marriage or
acquired after the marriage, except as provided in this law. The
separate earnings of the wife shall be her sole property. She
shall have the same right to make contracts with third persons as
if she were not married, and to convey her real and personal
estate. Her property is liable for her debts and not for his; his
is not liable for her debts, except those contracted for the
support of the family. Purchases made by either party shall be
presumed to be on the private account of the party, but both
shall be liable where any article purchased by either shall have
in fact gone to the support of the family, or for the joint
benefit of both, or for the reasonable apparel of the wife, or
for her reasonable support while abandoned by her husband. It
shall, however, be the duty of the husband to support his family,
and his property, when found, shall be first applied to satisfy
any such joint liability. The wife shall be entitled to indemnity
for any money of her own used to pay such claims. We have used
almost the precise language of the first and second sections of
the act.</p>

<p>On the death of either, the survivor shall be entitled to the use
for life of one-third the estate of the deceased, which right
cannot be defeated by will. If the deceased leaves no children or
representatives of children, the survivor is entitled to one-half
instead of one-third. When either party gives a legacy to the
other, the latter may choose between its rights under the will,
and those under the statute. Abandonment without cause may defeat
this provision, and a marriage contract may supersede it
entirely.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_327" id="Page_327">[Pg 327]</a></span> Parties already married may contract to surrender
their present rights for those secured by this statute, such
contracts to be recorded in the probate court.</p>

<p>Thus we have a new and clear statute framed in accordance with a
simple principle of reform, for which the <i>Republican</i> has long
done battle&mdash;the equality of married persons in their rights and
responsibilities of property. The adoption of the reform is due
deeply to the general agitation of the rights of women, the
efforts of Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, the Smith girls' cows,
and perhaps some flagrant instance of injustice to rich wives by
tyrant husbands near the capital. But the great occasion and
immediate cause, without which this generation might have pleaded
for it in vain, was the perception of the justice of it by
Governor Hubbard, and his open advocacy of it in his message.
Lawyers have one answer for all reforms regarding property or
civil contracts&mdash;they are impossible. But here was undeniably the
best lawyer in the State who said, and threw the weight of his
first State paper on the proposition, that this thing was
possible, and, if he said it was possible, there was no man who
could gainsay it. The legislature took the reform on its own
sense of justice and on the assurance of Richard D. Hubbard, that
it would work. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>On June 6, 1870, at a second hearing<a name="FNanchor_165_165" id="FNanchor_165_165"></a><a href="#Footnote_165_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> before the Joint
Committee on Woman Suffrage, in the capitol at New Haven, Rev.
Phebe A. Hanaford of the Universalist church, Mrs. Benchley and
Mrs. Russell were the speakers. During that session of the
legislature Mrs. Hanaford acted as chaplain both in the Senate and
House of Representatives, and received a check for her services
which she valued chiefly as a recognition of woman's equality in
the clerical profession.</p>

<p>Mrs. Hooker was ably sustained in her new position by her husband,
a prominent lawyer of the State. Being equally familiar with civil
and canon law, with Blackstone and the Bible, he was well equipped
to meet the opponents of the reform at every point. While Mrs.
Hooker held meetings in churches and school-houses through the
State, her husband in his leisure hours sent the daily press
articles on the subject. And thus their united efforts stirred the
people to thought and at last roused a Democratic governor of the
State to his duty on this question. From the many able tracts
issued and articles published in the journals we give a few
extracts. In answer to the common objections of "free love" and
"easy divorce," in the <i>Evening Post</i> of January 17, 1871, Mr.
Hooker said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The persons who advocate easy divorce would advocate it just as
strongly if there was no woman suffrage movement. The two have no
necessary connection. Indeed one of the strongest arguments in
favor of woman suffrage is, that the marriage relation will be
safer with women to vote and legislate upon it than where the
voting and legislation are left wholly to the men. Women will
always be wives and mothers, above all things else. This law of
nature cannot be changed, and I know of nobody<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_328" id="Page_328">[Pg 328]</a></span> who desires to
change it. The marriage relation will therefore always be more to
woman than to man, and we, who would give her the right to vote,
have no fear to trust to her the sanctity and purity of that
relation. It is the opponents of woman suffrage who distrust the
fidelity of woman to her divine instincts and dare not let her
vote. Our little State has been two hundred years under male
legislation, and yet a long memorial from hundreds of clergymen
and other Christian men went up to our legislature two years ago,
representing our legislation on divorce as demoralizing and as
fatal to the best interests of the marriage relation. It really
seems as if the incompetency for the management of public affairs
which by mere assumption is charged in advance upon women, has
been proved with regard to men by an actual experience of many
years. The true idea is for man and woman to share together the
responsibilities and duties of legislation, and until this is
done I have no hope for any real progress towards purity in the
administration of our public affairs. We who favor woman suffrage
speak confidently on this subject because the reform works so
well wherever it has been tried, in England, Sweden, Austria and
Wyoming Territory.</p>

<p>No rational man can suppose for a moment that with woman suffrage
established in England and on the continent of Europe, we in this
country, which so specially stands on equal representation, are
going to refuse it. It must be set down as one of the certain
things of the future. And when it has come, and women vote, it
will excite no more attention or comment than the voting of our
colored people.</p>

<p>Now if woman suffrage is to come, is it worth while to be making
the impression that the women of our country are not to be
trusted with it, and that the marriage relation is to be
imperiled by it? Above all, is it manly or just to be charging
corrupt motives on nine-tenths of those who advocate the reform?
The notoriety which to some extent its advocates must get is
almost universally painful to the women who are the subjects of
it. One noble woman, whose whole soul is in this cause, and the
purity of whose motives in this, as in everything else, I have
had good opportunity to learn, said to me, on reading Dr.
Bushnell's remark in his book on woman suffrage, that these women
were only trying to make themselves men: "Cruel, cruel words! If
so noble a man as Dr. Bushnell so utterly fails to comprehend a
woman's nature, shall not she be allowed to speak for herself,
and no testimony be taken but hers?"<a name="FNanchor_166_166" id="FNanchor_166_166"></a><a href="#Footnote_166_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>Much might be said in regard to the most famous women of
Connecticut, the historic "Maids of Glastonbury," celebrated for
their resistance to taxation. After the death of Abby, July 23,
1878, Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes Smith, in a beautiful tribute to the
sisters, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Many years ago they took a stand akin to that of the illustrious
Hampden, which has made his name a synonym for patriotism as well
as just and manly opposition to unconstitutional revenue
exaction. "The tax may be a small matter for an English gentleman
to pay, but it is too much<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_329" id="Page_329">[Pg 329]</a></span> for a British freeman to pay," was
the ground of his noble resistance, and this view precipitated
that great Revolution which more than all other modern movements
consolidated and strengthened the rights of the British subject.
These two women deserve to stand upon a platform side by side
with the great Hampden. Other women have paid their taxes under
protest, but Abby and Julia Smith have done more than protest;
they have suffered loss as well as inconvenience, their property
having been seized and sold again and again because of their
honest conviction that taxation without representation was as
unjust to women as to men. Their steadfastness has been the more
remarkable because, by their social position, their learning and
their wealth, they might be supposed to be indifferent to the
ballot-box, as so many thus situated claim to be. Abby and her
sister were no ordinary women. The family originally consisted of
five sisters, all more or less accomplished. The father was a man
of learning, a graduate of Yale and a clergyman. The mother was
familiar with French and Italian, and no mean astronomer. Thus
parented, it is not surprising that the Glastonbury sisters were
of marked individualism as well as superior scholarship. They
were more or less acquainted with Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and
have made a translation of the Bible from these sources, giving
its original meaning.</p>

<p>The maids of Glastonbury planted themselves upon the right of the
sex to suffrage, from purely philosophic and statesman-like
grounds. They had no other disabilities of which to complain&mdash;no
other grievance&mdash;no social ostracism, as is so often charged, and
most unjustly, against other advocates of the doctrine. They were
unmarried, studious, upright, simple-minded gentlewomen, and were
much esteemed and honored in the community in which they lived.
They occupied the old homestead, doing their own work, their
interests well cared for in the person of Mr. Kellogg, an
intelligent tenant of theirs, as well as friend and neighbor.</p>

<p><i>The Hartford Post</i>, in a tender mention of the life and death of
Abby, with a brief sketch of the family, thus bears honorable
testimony to her worthiness:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the death of Miss Smith the cause of woman suffrage has met
with a severe loss, as her firm resistance to what she believed
to be the unjust treatment of women greatly encouraged her
companions in the contest; her sister has lost her chief support,
and the community in which she lived a faithful friend and a
worthy exponent of the virtues of truthfulness, firmness, and
adherence to the right as she understood it. </p></blockquote>

<p><i>The Hartford Times</i> said:</p>

<blockquote><p>A notable woman who died last week was Miss Abigail H. Smith, of
Glastonbury, Conn., one of the two sisters who resisted the
collection of their taxes on the ground that they had no voice in
the levy. It will be remembered that their cows were seized and
some of their personal property sold two years ago. Of course
there were friends who were willing and anxious to pay the taxes,
but the plucky old ladies were fighting for a principle, and they
would allow no one to stand in the way. The notoriety, which they
neither sought nor avoided, undoubtedly did a great deal to call
public attention to the anomalous condition of woman under the
law. It would be very hard for any man to argue successfully that
he possessed any stronger natural claim to the suffrage than was
possessed by these shrewd, honest, energetic old ladies. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_330" id="Page_330">[Pg 330]</a></span></p>

<p>Many encouraging letters were written the sisters during their many
trials, of which the following is a fair specimen:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">Near <span class="smcap">Boston</span>, January 14, 1874.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Madam</span>: The account of your hardships is interesting, and
your action will be highly beneficial in bringing the subject to
public notice, and in leading to the correction of a great
injustice. The taxation of the property of women, without
allowing them any representation, even in town affairs, is so
unfair that it seems only necessary to bring it to public view to
make it odious and to bring about a change. Therefore you deserve
the greater honor, not only because you have suffered in a good
cause, but because you have set an example that will be followed,
and that will lead to happy results.</p>

<p>Your case has its parallel in every township of New England. In
the town where this is written a widow pays into the treasury
$7,830 a year, while 600 men, a number equal to half the whole
number of voters, pay $1,200 in all. Another lady pays $5,042.
Yet neither has a single vote, not even by proxy. That is, each
one of 600 men who have no property, who pay only a poll-tax, and
many of whom cannot read or write, has the power of voting away
the property of the town, while the female <i>owners</i> have no power
at all. We have lately spent a day in celebrating the heroism of
those who threw overboard the tea; but how trifling was the
tea-tax, and how small the injustice to individuals compared with
this one of our day! The principle, however, was the same&mdash;that
there should be no taxation where there is no representation. And
this is what we ought to stand by. Please to accept the sympathy
and respect of one of your fellow citizens. No doubt you will
have the same from all in due time; or, at any rate, from all who
love to see fair play.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Amos A. Lawrence</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very truly yours,</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Miss Abby H. Smith, Glastonbury, Conn.</i></p>
</blockquote>


<p>A marked evidence of the advance of public sentiment was manifested
by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1882, by which the women of
Connecticut were held to have the right to practice law. The
opinion of Chief-Justice Park concerning the legality of the
admission of Miss Mary Hall of Hartford to the bar, giving her the
right to practice in the courts of the State, is as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>This is an application by a woman for admission to the bar of
Hartford county. After having completed the prescribed term of
study she has passed the examination required and has been
recommended by the bar of the county to the Superior Court for
admission, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question
whether, as a woman, she can legally be admitted. The Superior
Court has reserved the case for our advice.</p>

<p>The statute with regard to the admission of attorneys by the
court is the 29th section of chapter 3, title 4, of the General
Statutes, and is in the following words: "The Superior Court may
admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are
qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established by the
judges of said court; and no other person than an attorney so
admitted shall plead at the bar of any court of this State,
except in his own cause."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_331" id="Page_331">[Pg 331]</a></span></p>

<p>It is not contended, in opposition to the application, that the
language of this statute is not comprehensive enough to include
women, but the claim is that at the time it was passed its
application to women was not thought of, while the fact that
women have never been admitted as attorneys, either by the
English courts or by any of the courts of this country, had
established a common-law disability, which could be removed only
by a statute intended to have that effect.</p>

<p>It is hardly necessary to consider how far the fact that women
have never pursued a particular profession or occupied a
particular official position, to the pursuit or occupancy of
which some governmental license or authority was necessary,
constitutes a common-law disability for receiving such license or
authority, because here the statute is ample for removing that
disability if we can construe it as applying to women; so that we
come back to the question whether we are by construction to limit
the application of the statute to men alone, by reason of the
fact that in its original enactment its application to women was
not intended by the legislators that enacted it. And upon this
point we remark, in the first place, that an inquiry of this sort
involves very serious difficulties. No one would doubt that a
statute passed at this time in the same words would be sufficient
to authorize the admission of women to the bar, because it is now
a common fact and presumably in the minds of legislators, that
women in different parts of the country are, and for some time
have been, following the profession of law. But if we hold that
the construction of the statute is to be determined by the
admitted fact that its application to women was not in the minds
of the legislators when it was passed, where shall we draw the
line? All progress in social matters is gradual. We pass almost
imperceptibly from a state of public opinion that utterly
condemns some course of action to one that strongly approves it.
At what point, in the history of this change, shall we regard a
statute, the construction of which is to be affected by it, as
passed in contemplation of it? When the statute we are now
considering was passed, it probably never entered the mind of a
single member of the legislature that black men would ever be
seeking for admission under it. Shall we now hold that it cannot
apply to black men? We know of no distinction in respect to this
rule between the case of a statute and that of a constitutional
provision. When our State constitution was adopted in 1818 it was
provided in it that every elector should be "eligible to any
office in the State," except where otherwise provided in the
constitution. It is clear that the convention that framed, and
probably all the people who voted to adopt the constitution, had
no idea that black men would ever be electors, and contemplated
only white men as within any possible application of the
provision, for the same constitution provided that only white men
should be electors. But now that black men are made electors,
will it do to say that they are not entitled to the full rights
of electors in respect to holding office, because an application
of the provision to them was never thought of when it was
adopted? Events that gave rise to enactments may always be
considered in construing them. This is little more than the
familiar rule that in construing a statute we always inquire what
particular mischief it was designed to remedy. Thus, the Supreme
Court of the United States has held that in construing the recent
amendments of the federal constitution, although they are general
in their terms, it is to be considered that they were passed with
reference to the exigencies growing out of the emancipation of
the slaves, and for the purpose of benefiting the blacks
(<i>Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall., 67</i>; <i>Strauder vs. West
Virginia, 100 U. S. Reps., 306</i>). But this statute was not passed
for the purpose of benefiting men as distinguished from women. It
grew out of no exigency caused by the relation of the sexes. Its
object was wholly to secure the orderly trial of causes and the
better administration of justice. Indeed, the preamble to the
first statute providing for the admission of attorneys, states
its object to be "for the well-ordering of proceedings and pleas
at the bar."</p>

<p>The statute on this subject was not originally passed in its
present form. The first act with regard to the admission of
attorneys was that of 1708, which was as follows: "That no
person, except in his own cause, shall be admitted to make any
plea at the bar without being first approved by the court before
whom the plea is to be made, nor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_332" id="Page_332">[Pg 332]</a></span> until he shall take in the said
court the following oath," etc. (Col. Records, 1706 to 1716, page
48). This act seems to have contemplated an approval by the court
in each particular case in which an attorney appeared before it.
The first act with regard to the general admission of attorneys
appears in the revision of 1750, and is as follows: "That the
county courts of the respective counties in this colony shall
appoint, and they are hereby empowered to approve, nominate and
appoint attorneys in their respective counties, as there shall be
occasion, to plead at the bar; * * and that no person, except in
his own case, shall make any plea at the bar in any court but
such as are allowed and qualified attorneys, as aforesaid." Thus
the statute stood until the revision of 1821; when, for the first
time, it took essentially its present form. Up to this time the
word "person" had been used in this statute only in the clause
that "no person" should be allowed to practice before the courts
except where formally admitted by the court, a use of the word
which, of course, could not be regarded as limited to the male
sex, as women would undoubtedly have been held to be included in
the term. The language of the statute as now adopted was as
follows: "The county courts may make such rules and regulations
as to them shall seem proper relative to the admission and
practice of attorneys; and may approve of, admit and cause to be
sworn as attorneys, such persons as are qualified therefor
agreeably to the rules established; * * and no person not thus
admitted, except in his own cause, shall be admitted or allowed
to plead at the bar of any court." The statute in this form
passed through the compilations of 1835 and 1838, the revision of
1849 and the compilation of 1854, and appears, with a slight
modification, in the revision of 1866. The county courts had now
been abolished, and the power to admit attorneys, as well as to
make rules on the subject, had been given to the Superior Court;
the expression, "such persons," being preserved, and the
provision that "no person" not thus admitted should be allowed to
plead, being omitted.</p>

<p>The statute finally took its present form in the revision of
1875. It retains the provision that the Superior Court may make
rules for the admission of attorneys, and provides that the court
"may admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are
qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established," and
restores the provision, dropt in the revision of 1866, that "no
person other than an attorney so admitted shall plead at the bar
of any court in this State, except in his own cause."</p>

<p>These changes, though not such as to affect the meaning of the
statute at any point of importance to the present question, are
yet not wholly without importance. The adoption by the
legislature of the revision of the statutes becomes, both in law
and in fact, a reënactment of the whole body of statutes; and
though in determining the meaning of a statute, we are not to
regard it as then enacted for the first time, especially if there
be no change in its phraseology, yet, where there is such a
change, it follows that the attention of the revisers had been
particularly directed to that statute, as of course also that of
the legislature, and that with the changes made it expresses the
present intent of both. Thus, in this case, it is clear that the
revisers gave particular thought to the phraseology of the
statute we are considering, and put it in a form that seemed to
them best with reference to the present state of things, and
decided to leave the words "such persons" to stand with full
knowledge that they were sufficient to include women, and that
women were already following the profession of law in different
parts of the country. The legislators must be presumed to have
acted with the same consideration and knowledge. It would have
been perfectly easy, if either had thought best, to insert some
words of limitation or exclusion, but it was not done. Not only
so, but a clause omitted in the revision of 1866 was restored,
providing that no "person" not regularly admitted should act as
an attorney&mdash;a term which necessarily included women, and the
insertion of which made it necessary, if the word "persons" as
used in the first part of the statute should be held not to
include women, to give two entirely different meanings to the
same word where occurring twice in the same statute and with
regard to the same subject matter.</p>

<p>The object of a revision of statutes is, that there may be such
changes made in them as the changes in political and social
matters may demand, and where no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_333" id="Page_333">[Pg 333]</a></span> changes are made it is to be
presumed that the legislature is satisfied with it in its present
form. And where some changes are made in a particular statute,
and other parts of it are left unchanged, there is the more
reason for the inference from this evidence that the matter of
changing the statute was especially considered, that the parts
unchanged express the legislative will of to-day, rather than
that of perhaps a hundred years ago, when it was originally
enacted.</p>

<p>But this statute, in the revision of 1875, is placed immediately
after another with regard to the appointment of commissioners of
the Superior Court, the necessary construction of which, we
think, throws light upon the construction of the statute in
question. That act was passed in 1855, after women had begun,
with general acceptance, to occupy a greatly enlarged field of
industry and some professional and even public positions; and it
has been held by the Superior Court, very properly we think, as
applying to women, a woman having three years ago been appointed
commissioner under it. Its language is as follows: "The Superior
Court in any county may appoint any number of persons in such
county to be commissioners of the Superior Court, who, when
sworn, may sign writs and subpoenas, take recognizances,
administer oaths and take depositions and the acknowledgement of
deeds, and shall hold office for two years from their
appointment." Here the very language is used which is used in the
statute with regard to attorneys. In one it is, "any number of
persons," in the other, "such persons as are qualified." These
two statutes are placed in immediate juxtaposition in the
revision of 1875 and deal with kindred subjects, and it is
reasonable to presume that the revisers and legislature intended
both to receive the same construction. It would seem strange to
any common-sense observer that an entirely different meaning
should be given to the same word in the two statutes, especially
when in giving the narrower meaning to the word in the statute
with regard to attorneys, we are compelled to give it a different
meaning from that which the same word requires in the next line
of the same statute.</p>

<p>We are not to forget that all statutes are to be construed, as
far as possible, in favor of equality of rights. All restrictions
upon human liberty, all claims for special privileges, are to be
regarded as having the presumption of law against them, and as
standing upon their defense, and can be sustained if at all by
valid legislation, only by the clear expression or clear
implication of the law.</p>

<p>We have some noteworthy illustrations of the recognition of women
as eligible or appointable to office under statutes of which the
language is merely general. Thus, women are appointed in all
parts of the country as postmasters. The act of congress of 1825
was the first one conferring upon the postmaster-general the
power of appointing postmasters, and it has remained essentially
unchanged to the present time. The language of the act is, that
"the postmaster-general shall establish post-offices and appoint
postmasters." Here women are not included, except in the general
term "postmasters," a term which seems to imply a male person;
and no legislation from 1825 down to the present time authorizes
the appointment of women, nor is there any reference in terms to
women until the revision of 1874, which recognizes the fact that
women had already been appointed, in providing that "the bond of
any married woman who may be appointed postmaster shall be
binding on her and her sureties." Some of the higher grades of
postmasters are appointed by the president, subject to
confirmation by the Senate, and such appointments and
confirmations have repeatedly been made. The same may be said of
pension agents. The acts of congress on the subject have simply
authorized "the President, by and with the advice and consent of
the Senate, to appoint all pension agents, who shall hold their
offices for the term of four years, and shall give bond," etc. At
the last session of congress a married woman in Chicago was
appointed for a third term pension agent for the State of
Illinois, and the public papers stated that there was not a
single vote against her confirmation in the Senate. Public
opinion is everywhere approving of such appointments. They
promote the public interest, which is benefitted by every
legitimate use of individual ability, while mere justice, which
is of interest to all, requires that all have the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_334" id="Page_334">[Pg 334]</a></span> fullest
opportunity for the exercise of their abilities. These cases are
the more noteworthy as being cases of public offices, to which
the incumbent is appointed for a term of years, upon a
compensation provided by law, and in which he is required to give
bond. If an attorney is to be regarded as an officer, it is in a
lower sense.</p>

<p>We have had pressed upon us by the counsel opposed to the
applicant, the decisions of the courts of Massachusetts,
Wisconsin and Illinois, and the United States Court of Claims,
adverse to such an application. While not prepared to accede to
all the general views expressed in those decisions, we do not
think it necessary to go into a discussion of them, as we regard
our statute, in view of all the considerations affecting its
construction, as too clear to admit of any reasonable question as
to the interpretation and effect which we ought to give it.</p>

<p>In this opinion Carpenter and Loomis, Js., concurred; Pardee, J.,
dissented. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1884, the State society held a spirited and successful
convention.<a name="FNanchor_167_167" id="FNanchor_167_167"></a><a href="#Footnote_167_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> Julia Smith gave an extemporaneous talk to the
great delight of the audience, who applauded continually; Mrs.
Crane, a fine elocutionist, gave a reading from Carlyle; Mrs.
Hooker closed with a brief résumé of the work the society had
accomplished.</p>

<p>We are also indebted to Frances Ellen Burr for many facts, as the
following letter will show:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Hartford</span>, September 17, 1885.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony</span>: I have received your letter of inquiry. As
to that petition in 1867, I was one of the signers, and, probably
had something to do with getting the other signatures, though I
have nothing but my memory to depend on as to that; but I was
pretty much alone here in those days, on the woman suffrage
question. Who the other signers were I made an attempt to find
out in the secretary of state's office the other day, but found
that it would take days, instead of the few hours I had at my
command. I find in my journal a reference to Lucy Stone and Mr.
Blackwell addressing the committee in the House of
Representatives, and that was the committee that made the report
afterwards published in <i>The Revolution</i>. Mr. Croffut made the
opening address on the day of the hearing. He was always ready to
aid us in whatever way he could, and I felt grateful to him, for
a helping hand was doubly appreciated in those days. I find by
the journal of the House for that year that the vote on the
question was 93 yeas to 111 nays. The name of Miss Susie
Hutchinson heads one petition, with 70 others. How many other
petitions there were that year I do not know, but I believe there
have been several every year since, besides a number of
individual petitions. Since that time the House has voted
favorably on the question twice, at least, but I believe we have
never had a majority in the Senate.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_335" id="Page_335">[Pg 335]</a></span></p>

<p>You ask when I first wrote or spoke for the ballot. My first
venture in that line was in 1853. I was then at the age of
twenty-two, living with my sister in Cleveland, O., and had never
given any attention to the subject of woman suffrage, and cared
nothing about it any further than the spirit of rebellion&mdash;born
with me&mdash;against everything unjust, might be said to have made me
a radical by nature. In the fall of that year a woman's rights
convention met in Cleveland, and I attended it alone, none of the
rest of the family caring to go. In my old journal I find this
entry:</p>

<blockquote><p>October 7, 1853. Attended a woman's rights convention which has
met here. Never saw anything of the kind before. A Mr. Barker
spent most of the morning trying to prove that woman's rights and
the Bible cannot agree. The Rev. Antoinette L. Brown replied in
the afternoon in defense of the Bible. She says the Bible favors
woman's rights. Miss Brown is the best-looking woman in the
convention. They appear to have a number of original and pleasing
characters upon their platform, among them Miss Lucy Stone&mdash;hair
short and rolled under like a man's; a tight-fitting velvet waist
and linen collar at the throat; bombazine skirt just reaching the
knees, and trousers of the same. She is independent in manner and
advocates woman's rights in the strongest terms:&mdash;scorns the idea
of woman <i>asking</i> rights of man, but says she must boldly assert
her own rights, and <i>take</i> them in her own strength. Mrs.
Ernestine L. Rose, a Polish lady with black eyes and curls, and
rosy cheeks, manifests the independent spirit also. She is
graceful and witty, and is ready with sharp replies on all
occasions. Mrs. Lucretia Mott, a Philadelphia Quaker, is meek in
dress but not in spirit. She gets up and hammers away at woman's
rights, politics and the Bible, with much vigor, then quietly
resumes her knitting, to which she industriously applies herself
when not speaking to the audience. She wears the plain Quaker
dress and close-fitting white cap. Mrs. Frances D. Gage, the
president, is a woman of sound sense and a good writer of prose
and poetry. Mrs. Caroline Severance has an easy, pleasing way of
speaking. Mr. Charles Burleigh, a Quaker, appears to be an
original character. He has long hair, parted in the middle like a
woman's, and hanging down his back. He and Miss Stone seem to
reverse the usual order of things. </p></blockquote>

<p>My first speech in public, I find by my old journal&mdash;which serves
me better than I thought it would&mdash;was given in Music Hall in this
city in November, 1870. This meeting was held under the auspices of
the State association, and was presided over by the Rev. Olympia
Brown. I find that in the winter of 1871 I made addresses in
various parts of the State. The journal also tells of a good deal
of trotting about to get signatures to petitions, for I had more
time to do that thing then than I have now.</p>

<p>The first woman suffrage meeting ever held in Hartford, and the
first, probably, in Connecticut, was the one you and Mrs. Stanton
held in Allyn Hall in December, 1867. Our State Suffrage
Association was organized in October, 1869. The signers<a name="FNanchor_168_168" id="FNanchor_168_168"></a><a href="#Footnote_168_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a> to the
call for that convention were quite influential persons.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_336" id="Page_336">[Pg 336]</a></span></p>

<p>In my hunt through the journals of the two legislative houses I
found in the House journal for 1878 that Mr. Pratt of Meriden had
presented the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Isaac C. Lewis. Mr. Clark of
Enfield, presented the petition of Lucy A. Allen; Mr. Gallagher of
New Haven presented several petitions that year, one of them being
headed by Mr. Henry A. Stillman of Wethersfield, followed by 532
names, and another by Mrs. D. F. Connor, M. D. Mr. Broadhead of
Glastonbury presented the petition of the Smith sisters. This
unique petition Miss Mary Hall, who was with me in the secretary's
office, chanced to light upon, and she copied it. It is a document
well worth handing down on the page of history, and runs as
follows:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>The Petition of Julia E. Smith and Abby H. Smith, of
Glastonbury, to the Senate of the State of Connecticut:</i></p>

<p>This is the first time we have petitioned your honorable body,
having twice come before the House of Assembly, which the last
time gave a majority that we should vote in town affairs; but it
was negatived in the Senate.</p>

<p>We now pray the highest court in our native State that we may be
relieved from the stigma of birth. For forty years since the
death of our father have we suffered intensely for being born
women. We cannot even stand up for the principles of our
forefathers (who fought and bled for them) without having our
property seized and sold at the sign-post, which we have suffered
four times; and have also seen eleven acres of our meadow-land
sold to an ugly neighbor for a tax of fifty dollars&mdash;land worth
more than $2,000. And a threat is given out that our house shall
be ransacked and despoiled of articles most dear to us, the work
of lamented members of our family who have gone before us, and
all this is done without the least excuse of right or justice. We
are told that it is the law of the land made by the legislature
and done to us, two defenceless women, who have never broken
these laws, made by not half the citizens of this State. And it
was said in our Declaration of Independence that "Governments
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."</p>

<p>For being born women we are obliged to help support those who
have earned nothing, and who, by gambling, drinking, and the
like, have come to poverty, and these same can vote away what we
have earned with our own hands. And when men meet to take off the
dollar poll-tax, the bill for the dinner comes in for the women
to pay. Neither have we husband, or brother, or son, or even
nephew, or cousin, to help us. All men will acknowledge that it
is as wrong to take a woman's property without her consent as to
take a man's without his consent; and such wrong we suffer wholly
for being born women, which we are in no wise to blame for. To be
sure, for our consolation, we are upheld by the learned, the wise
and the good, from all parts of the country, having received
communications from thirty-two of our States, as well as from
over the seas, that we are in the right, and from many of the
best men in our own State. But they have no power to help us. We
therefore now pray your honorable body, who have power, with the
House of Assembly, to relieve us of this stigma of birth, and
grant that we may have the same privileges before the law as
though we were born men. And this, as in duty bound, we will ever
pray.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">Julia</span> and <span class="smcap">Abby Smith</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><i>Glastonbury, Conn., January 29, 1878.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p class="ltr-clear">The story of the Smith sisters, from 1873 and on, will be handed
down as one of the most original and unique chapters in the history
of woman suffrage. Abby Smith, with my friend Mrs. Buckingham,
attended with me the first meeting of the Woman's Congress, in New
York, in October, 1873. While there, she said she should, on her
return, address her town's people on woman suffrage and taxation,
as they had not been treated fairly in the matter of their taxes.
She did so on the fifth of November,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_337" id="Page_337">[Pg 337]</a></span> addressing the Glastonbury
town meeting in the little red-brick town-house of that place&mdash;a
building that will always hereafter be connected with the names of
Abby and Julia Smith. Several years after, wishing to address them
again, she was refused entrance there, so she and Julia addressed
the people from an ox-cart that stood in front. This was after
their continued warfare against "taxation without representation"
had aroused the opposition of their townsmen, but that first speech
in 1873 was the beginning of their fame. Abby sent it to me for
publication in the <i>Times</i> of this city, but the editor not having
room for it sent it to the <i>Courant</i>, which gave it a place in its
columns, thus (unwittingly) setting a ball in motion that ran all
round the country, and even over the ocean. The simplicity and
uniqueness of the story of "Abby Smith and her cows," gave a boom
to the cause of woman suffrage as welcome as it was unexpected. The
Glastonbury mails were more heavily laden than ever before in the
history of this hitherto unknown town, for letters came pouring in
from all quarters to the sisters. The fame did not rest entirely on
Abby and her cows; Julia and her Bible came in for an important
share, and the newspaper articles in regard to them were a
remarkable blending of cows and Biblical lore, dairy products and
Greek and Hebrew. Many of the articles were wide of the facts,
being written with a view to make a bright and readable column. For
instance, a Chicago paper got up a highly colored article in which
it said that Abby Smith's mother&mdash;Hannah Hickok&mdash;was such an
intense student that her father had a glass cage made for her to
study in. The only vestage of truth in this story was that, lacking
our modern facilities for heating, Mr. Hickok had an extra amount
of glass put into the south side of his daughter's room that the
sun might give it a little more heat in cold weather. Hannah Hickok
seems to have had a mental equipment much above that of the average
woman of that day; she had a taste for literature, and was
something of a linguist, and wrote, moreover, at different times,
quite an amount of readable verse. She had a taste for mathematics,
and also for astronomy, and made for her own use an almanac, for
these were not so plenty then as now; she could, on awakening, tell
any hour of the night by the position of the stars. Evidently
Hannah Hickok Smith was not an ordinary woman; and it is quite as
evident that her daughters were equally original, though in a
different direction. Women who have translated the Bible are not to
be met with every day&mdash;nor men either, for that matter, but Julia
Smith not only did this, but translated it five times,&mdash;twice from
the Hebrew, twice from the Greek, and once from the Latin; and
thirty years later, or after the age of eighty, published the
translation; and then, to crown the list of marvels, married at the
age of eighty-five.</p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 385px;">
<a name="v3_337" id="v3_337">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_337.jpg" width="385" height="500" alt="Phebe A. Hanaford" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>One point more, and the one nearest my heart. You ask me about my
"dear friend Mrs. Buckingham." I can give no details of her
suffrage work, but her heart was in it, and her name should be
handed down in your History. She was at one time chairman of the
executive committee of our State association, and she would, if she
had thought it necessary, have spent of her little income to the
last cent to help along the cause. She made public addresses and
wrote many suffrage articles and letters that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_338" id="Page_338">[Pg 338]</a></span> were published in
different papers, but she made no noise about it; her work was all
done with her own characteristic gentleness. Generous to a fault,
winning and beautiful as the flowers she scattered on the pathway
of her friends, she passed on her way; and one memorable Easter
morning she left us so gently that none knew when the sleep of life
passed into the sleep of death; we only knew that the glorious
light of her eyes&mdash;a light like that which "never shone on sea or
land"&mdash;had gone out forever.</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"She died in beauty like the dew<br /></span>
<span class="i1">Of flowers dissolved away;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">She died in beauty like a star<br /></span>
<span class="i1">Lost on the brow of day."<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>The Hartford Equal Rights Club<a name="FNanchor_169_169" id="FNanchor_169_169"></a><a href="#Footnote_169_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a> was organized in March, 1885,
and holds semi-monthly meetings. Its membership is not large, but
what it lacks in numbers it makes up in earnestness. Its
proceedings are reported pretty fully and published in the
<i>Hartford Times</i>, which has a large circulation, thus gaining an
audience of many thousands and making its proceedings much more
important than they would otherwise be. It is managed as simply as
possible, and is not encumbered with a long list of officers. There
are simply a president, Mrs. Emily P. Collins;<a name="FNanchor_170_170" id="FNanchor_170_170"></a><a href="#Footnote_170_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> a
vice-president, Miss Mary Hall; and a secretary, Frances Ellen
Burr, who is also the treasurer. Debate is free to all, the
platform being perfectly independent, as far as a platform can be
independent within the limits of reason. Essays are read and
debated, and many interesting off-hand speeches are made. It is an
entirely separate organization from the Connecticut State Suffrage
Association, founded in 1869. But its membership is not confined to
the city; it invites people throughout the State, or in other
States, to become members&mdash;people of all classes and of all
beliefs. Opponents of woman suffrage are always welcome, for these
furnish the spice of debate. Among the topics discussed has been
that of woman and the church, and upon this subject Mrs. Stanton
has written the club several letters.</p>

<p>Last spring (1885) a number of the members of the club were given
hearings before the Committee on Woman Suffrage in the legislature
in reference to a bill then under consideration, which was
exceedingly limited in its provisions. The House of Representatives
improved it and then passed it, but it was afterwards defeated in
the Senate. Some of the meetings of the club have been held in
Hartford's handsome capitol, a room having been allowed for its
use, and a number of members of the House of Representatives have
taken part in the discussions. Mrs. Collins, president of the club,
is always to be depended upon for good work, and Miss Hall, its
vice-president, is active and efficient. She is in herself an
illustration of what women can become if they only have sufficient
confidence and force of will. She is a practicing lawyer, and a
successful one. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_158_158" id="Footnote_158_158"></a><a href="#FNanchor_158_158"><span class="label">[158]</span></a> The life of William Lloyd Garrison, Vol. 1.: The
Century Company, New York.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_159_159" id="Footnote_159_159"></a><a href="#FNanchor_159_159"><span class="label">[159]</span></a> She was soon followed by Mrs. Middlebrook and Mrs.
Lucy R. Elms, with warm benedictions. The latter called some
meetings in her neighborhood in the autumn of 1868, and entertained
us most hospitably at her beautiful home.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_160_160" id="Footnote_160_160"></a><a href="#FNanchor_160_160"><span class="label">[160]</span></a> Those who leave the tangled problem of life to God
for solution find, sooner or later, that God leaves it to them to
settle in their own way.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_161_161" id="Footnote_161_161"></a><a href="#FNanchor_161_161"><span class="label">[161]</span></a> Among them were Paulina Wright Davis, Dr. Clemence
Lozier, Mary A. Livermore, Julia Ward Howe, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Susan B. Anthony, Celia Burleigh, Caroline M. Severance, Rev.
Olympia Brown, Frances Ellen Burr, Charlotte B. Wilbour, William
Lloyd Garrison, Henry Ward Beecher, Nathaniel I. Burton, John
Hooker, the Hutchinsons, with Sister Abby and her husband, Ludlow
Patton.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_162_162" id="Footnote_162_162"></a><a href="#FNanchor_162_162"><span class="label">[162]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Rev. N. J. Burton, Hartford.
<i>Vice-presidents</i>, Brigadier-general B. S. Roberts, U. S. A., New
Haven; Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, Hartford; Rev. Dr. Joseph
Cummings, Middletown; Rev. William L. Gage, Hartford; Rev. Olympia
Brown, Bridgeport. <i>Secretary</i>, Miss Frances Ellen Burr. <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Mrs. Isabella B. Hooker, Mrs. Lucy Elmes, Derby; Mrs.
J. G. Parsons and Miss Emily Manning, M. D., Hartford. <i>Treasurer</i>,
John Hooker.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_163_163" id="Footnote_163_163"></a><a href="#FNanchor_163_163"><span class="label">[163]</span></a> On her departure for St. Petersburg, where her
husband was minister plenipotentiary, Mrs. Jewell left a check of
$200 for the State society. She was an honored officer of the
National Suffrage Association until the time of her death, in
1883.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_164_164" id="Footnote_164_164"></a><a href="#FNanchor_164_164"><span class="label">[164]</span></a> Mrs. Hooker writes us that the act passed upon
Governor Hubbard's recommendation was prepared at his request by
Mr. Hooker, and was essentially the same that had been
unsuccessfully urged by him upon the legislature eight years
before. She then goes on to say: "What part our society had in our
bringing about so beneficent a change in legislation, cannot be
better set forth than in two private letters from Samuel Bowles of
the <i>Springfield Republican</i>, and Governor Hubbard. While these
gentlemen were friends of Mr. Hooker and myself, yet, as
politically opposed to each other, their united testimony is
exceedingly valuable, and since they have both passed on to a world
of more perfect adjustments, I feel that nothing would give them
greater satisfaction than to be put upon record here as among the
earliest defenders of the rights of women.
</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
"<span class="smcap">Springfield</span>, Mass., March 28, 1877.</p>
<p>
"<span class="smcap">My Dear Mrs. Hooker</span>:&mdash;I return your letters and paper as you
desired. It is an interesting story, and a most gratifying
movement forward. I am more happy over the bill passed, than I am
sorry over the bill that failed. We shall move fast enough. The
first great step is this successful measure in Connecticut&mdash;the
establishment in practice of the principle of equal, mutual,
legal rights, and equal, mutual, legal responsibilities, for
which I have been preaching and praying these twenty years. We
owe the success this year, <i>first</i> to the right of the matter;
<i>second</i>, to the agitation of the whole question which has
disseminated the perception of that right; <i>third</i>, to you and
your husband in particular; and <i>fourth</i>, to the fact that you
had in Connecticut this year a governor who was recognized as the
leading lawyer of the State, a genuine natural conservative who
yet said the measure was right and ought to go. It is this last
element that has given Connecticut its chief leadership. It is a
bigger thing than it seems at first to have an eminent
conservative lawyer on the side of such legislative reform. I
hate very much to take your husband's side against you, and yet
now that I am over fifty years old, I find I more and more
sympathize with his patience and philosophy with the slow-going
march of reform. But with such things going forward in national
politics, and such a sign in the heavens as this in Connecticut,
we ought all to be very happy&mdash;and I believe I am, in spite of
debts, hard work, fatigue and more or less chronic invalidism. At
any rate I salute you both with honor and with affection."
</p>
<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Samuel Bowles</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">"Very faithfully yours,</p>
<p>
"This letter I enclosed to Governor Hubbard and received the
following reply:
</p>
<p class="ltr-date">"<span class="smcap">Easter</span>, April 1, 1877.</p>
<p>
"<span class="smcap">My Good Friend</span>:&mdash;It was a 'Good Friday' indeed that brought your
friendly missive. And what a dainty and gracious epistle Sam.
Bowles does know how to write! He is a good fellow, upon my word,
full of generous instincts and ideas. He ought to be at the head
of the <i>London Times</i> and master of all the wealth it brings. Add
to this, that the Good Physician should heal him of his 'chronic
invalidism' and then&mdash;well what's the use of dreaming? Thank
<i>yourself</i>, and such as you for what there is of progress in
respect of woman's rights amongst us. I do believe our bill is a
'great leap forward' as Bowles says in his editorial. 'Alas!'
says my friend &mdash;&mdash;, 'it has destroyed the divine conception of
the unity of husband and wife.' As divine, upon my soul, as the
unity of the lamb and the devouring wolf. * * * But enough of
this. I salute you my good friend, with a thousand salutations of
respect and admiration. I do not agree with you in all things,
but I cannot tell you how much I glorify you for your courage and
devotion to womanhood. I am a pretty poor stick for anything like
good work in the world, but I am not without respect for it in
others. And so I present myself to yourself and to your good and
noble husband whom I take to be one of the best, with every
assurance of affection and esteem. Thanking you for your kind
letter, I remain, dear madam,
</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">R. D. Hubbard</span>."</p>
<p class="ltr-left">"Yours very truly,</p>
</blockquote>
</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_165_165" id="Footnote_165_165"></a><a href="#FNanchor_165_165"><span class="label">[165]</span></a> At the various hearings Mrs. Anna Middlebrook, Mr.
and Mrs. Joseph Sheldon, Julia and Abby Smith, Rev. Olympia Brown,
Mr. and Mrs. Hooker were the speakers.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_166_166" id="Footnote_166_166"></a><a href="#FNanchor_166_166"><span class="label">[166]</span></a> See Appendix for Mr. Hooker's article, "Is the
Family the Basis of the State?"</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_167_167" id="Footnote_167_167"></a><a href="#FNanchor_167_167"><span class="label">[167]</span></a> At the convention of March 17 and 18, 1884, the
speakers were Mrs. Hooker, Susan B. Anthony, the Rev. Charles
Stowe, Julia Smith Parker, Mrs. Emily Collins, Abigail Scott
Duniway, Miss Leonard, Mrs. C. G. Rogers, the Rev. Dr. A. J. Sage,
Mrs. Ellis, Miss Gage, the Rev. J. C. Kimball, the Rev. Mr. Everts
of Hartford, Mary Hall and F. E. Burr. The officers elected at this
meeting were: Isabella B. Hooker, <i>President</i>: F. Ellen Burr,
<i>Secretary</i>; Mary Hall, <i>Assistant-secretary</i>; John Hooker,
<i>Treasurer</i>. <i>Executive Committee</i>; Mrs. Ellen Burr McManus, Mrs.
Emily P. Collins, Mrs. Amy A. Ellis, Mrs. J. G. Parsons Hartford;
Mrs. Susan J. Cheney, South Manchester; Mrs. John S. Dobson, Vernon
Depot; Judge Joseph Sheldon, Charles Atwater, James Gallagher, New
Haven.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_168_168" id="Footnote_168_168"></a><a href="#FNanchor_168_168"><span class="label">[168]</span></a> John Hooker, Isabella B. Hooker, the Rev. N. J.
Burton, Rachel C. Burton, Franklin Chamberlin, Francis Gillette,
Eliza D. Gillette, Frances Ellen Burr, Catharine E. Beecher, Esther
E. Jewell, Calvin E. Stowe, Harriet Beecher Stowe and others,
Hartford; Joseph Cummings, Middletown, President of Wesleyan
University; Thomas Elmes, Lucy R. Elmes, Derby; Charles Atwater,
New Haven; Thomas T. Stone, Laura Stone, Brooklyn. The officers
elected for the Association were: <i>President</i>, the Rev. N. J.
Burton, Hartford; <i>Secretary</i>, Frances Ellen Burr; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Isabella B. Hooker; Mrs. Lucy R. Elmes, Derby; Mrs. J.
G. Parsons, Miss Emily Manning, M. C., Hartford; Mr. Charles
Atwater, New Haven; Mr. Ward Cheney, Mrs. Susan J. Cheney, South
Manchester; Mrs. Virginia Smith, Hartford. <i>Treasurer</i>, William B.
Smith, Hartford. There was a long list of vice-presidents, which I
presume you do not care for, nor for the other names that were
added as changes had to be made in the years that followed.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_169_169" id="Footnote_169_169"></a><a href="#FNanchor_169_169"><span class="label">[169]</span></a> A member of the club says: "We receive more of our
life and enthusiasm from Frances Ellen Burr than all other members
combined; indeed, the chief part of the work rests on her
shoulders."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_170_170" id="Footnote_170_170"></a><a href="#FNanchor_170_170"><span class="label">[170]</span></a> See Mrs. Collins's Reminiscences, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_88">chapter V., Vol. I.</a>,</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_339" id="Page_339">[Pg 339]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXIII" id="CHAPTER_XXXIII"></a>CHAPTER XXXIII.</h2>

<h3>RHODE ISLAND.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Senator Anthony in <i>North American Review</i>&mdash;Convention in
Providence&mdash;Work of State Association&mdash;Report of Elizabeth B.
Chace&mdash;Miss Ida Lewis&mdash;Letter of Frederick A. Hinckley&mdash;Last
Words from Senator Anthony. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">Rhode Island</span>, though one of the smallest, is, in proportion to the
number of its inhabitants, one of the wealthiest states in the
Union. In political organization Rhode Island, in colonial times,
contrasted favorably with the other colonies, nearly all of which
required a larger property qualification, and some a religious test
for the suffrage. The home of Roger Williams knew nothing of such
narrowness, but was an asylum for those who suffered persecution
elsewhere. Nevertheless this is now, in many respects, the most
conservative of all the States.</p>

<p>In the November number of the <i>North American Review</i> for 1883,
Senator Anthony, in an article on the restricted suffrage in Rhode
Island, stoutly maintains that suffrage is not a natural right, and
that in adhering to her property qualification for foreigners his
State has wisely protected the best interests of the people. In his
whole argument on the question, he ignores the idea of women being
a part of the people, and ranks together qualifications of sex,
age, and residence. He quite unfairly attributes much of Rhode
Island's prosperity&mdash;the result of many causes&mdash;to her restricted
suffrage. His position in this article, written so late in life, is
the more remarkable as he had always spoken and voted in his place
in the United States Senate (where he had served nearly thirty
years) strongly in favor of woman's enfranchisement. And the
<i>Providence Journal</i>, which he owned and controlled, was invariably
respectful and complimentary towards the movement.</p>

<p>While such a man as Senator Anthony, one of the political leaders
in his State, regarded suffrage as a privilege which society may
concede or withhold at pleasure, we need not wonder that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_340" id="Page_340">[Pg 340]</a></span> so little
has been accomplished there in the way of legislative enactments
and supreme-court decisions. Nevertheless that State has shared in
the general agitation and can boast many noble men and women who
have taken part in the discussion of this subject.</p>

<p>The first woman suffrage association was formed in Rhode Island in
December, 1868. In describing the initiative steps, Elizabeth B.
Chace in a letter to a friend, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>In October 1868, while in Boston attending the convention that
formed the New England society, Paulina Wright Davis<a name="FNanchor_171_171" id="FNanchor_171_171"></a><a href="#Footnote_171_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a>
conceived the idea that the time had come to organize the friends
of suffrage in Rhode Island. After consultation with a few of the
most prominent friends of the cause, a call was issued for a
convention, to be held in Roger Williams Hall, Providence,
December 11th, signed by many leading names. No sooner did the
call appear than, as usual, some clergyman publicly declared
himself in opposition. The Rev. Mark Trafton, a Methodist
minister, gave a lecture in his vestry on "The Coming Woman," who
was to be a good housekeeper, dress simply, and not to vote. This
was published in the <i>Providence Journal</i>, and called out a
gracefull vindication of woman's modern demands from the pen of
Mrs. Sarah Helen Whitman, the poet, and Miss Norah Perry, a
popular writer of both prose and verse. The convention was all
that its most ardent friends could have desired, and resulted in
forming an association.<a name="FNanchor_172_172" id="FNanchor_172_172"></a><a href="#Footnote_172_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> The audience numbered over a
thousand, at the different sessions, and among the speakers were
some of the ablest men in the State. Though the friends were
comparatively few in the early days, yet there was no lack of
enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Weekly meetings were held, tracts
and petitions circulated; conventions<a name="FNanchor_173_173" id="FNanchor_173_173"></a><a href="#Footnote_173_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> and legislative
hearings were as regular as the changing seasons, now in
Providence, and now in Newport, following the migratory
government. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Davis was president of the association for several successive
years in which her labors were indefatigable. Finally failing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_341" id="Page_341">[Pg 341]</a></span>
health compelled her to resign her position as president of the
association.<a name="FNanchor_174_174" id="FNanchor_174_174"></a><a href="#Footnote_174_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a> Since then her able coadjutor Elizabeth B. Chace,
has been president of the Rhode Island Suffrage Association, and
with equal faithfulness and persistence, carried on the work. She
steadily keeps up the annual conventions and makes her appeals to
the legislature. Among the names<a name="FNanchor_175_175" id="FNanchor_175_175"></a><a href="#Footnote_175_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a> of those who have appeared
from year to year before the Rhode Island legislature we find many
able men and women from other States as well as many of their own
distinguished citizens.</p>

<p>In this State an effort was made early to get women on the board of
managers for schools, prisons and charitable institutions. In a
letter to Mrs. Davis, John Stuart Mill says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I am very glad to hear of the step in advance made by Rhode
Island in creating a board of women for some very important
administrative purpose. Your proposal that women should be
empanneled on every jury where women are to be tried seems to me
very good, and calculated to place the injustice to which women
are subjected at present by the entire legal system in a very
striking light. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1873 an effort was made to place women on the Providence School
Board, with what success the following extracts from the daily
papers show. The <i>Providence Press</i> of April 25, 1873, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>A shabby trick was perpetrated by the friends of John W. Angell,
which was certainly anything but "angelic," and which ought to
consign the parties who committed it to political infamy.</p>

<p>Yesterday, for the first time in the history of this city, women
were candidates for political honors&mdash;in the fifth ward, Mrs.
Sarah E. H. Doyle, and in the fourth ward, Mrs. Rhoda A. F.
Peckham, were candidates for positions on the school committee;
both, however, failed of an election. Mrs. Doyle received the
unanimous nomination of the large primary meeting of the National
Union Republican party, and Mrs. Peckham was run as an outside
candidate against the regular nominee. These ladies would
undoubtedly have made excellent members of the committee, and
unlike a great portion of that body, would have been found in
their places at the meetings, and we should have been glad to
have seen the experiment tried of women in the position for which
their names were presented. When the polls opened in the fifth
ward, instead of Mrs. Doyle's name being on the ballots for the
place to which she had been nominated there appeared the name of
John W. Angell, esq., and until about 11<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_342" id="Page_342">[Pg 342]</a></span> o'clock <span class="smcap">a. m.</span> he had
the field to himself. At that hour, however, Mrs. Doyle's friends
appeared with the "<i>regular</i>" nomination, and from that time to
the close of the polls she received 145 votes; Mr. Angell,
notwithstanding his several hours' start in the race, only
winning by a majority of 38. From this fact it is clear that had
Mrs. Doyle's name been in its proper place at the opening of the
polls she would have beaten her opponent handsomely. Mrs.
Peckham's opponent obtained but 23 majority in a poll of 349. It
is evident from the vote yesterday, that if they have but a fair
show, women will at the next election be successful as candidates
for the school committee. Had the intelligent ladies of the fifth
ward been allowed to vote, Mrs. Doyle would have led even the
gubernatorial vote of that ward. </p></blockquote>

<p>The <i>Providence Journal</i> makes the following comment:</p>

<blockquote><p>We are sorry to observe that the two estimable and admirably
qualified ladies whose names were presented for school committee
in this city, failed of success. Their influence in official
connection with the schools could not have been other than
salutary. The treatment accorded Mrs. Doyle in the fifth ward was
wofully shabby. Without her solicitation, the Republican caucus
unanimously nominated her for a member of the school committee.
Being a novice in political proceedings, she naturally enough
supposed that the party that desired her services so much as to
place her in nomination, would make provision for electing their
candidate. There was not gallantry enough in the ward, however,
for that duty, and it was not until 11 o'clock on election day
that any tickets bearing the name of Mrs. Doyle were to be found
in the ward-room; but a ticket with the names of two men was on
hand at sunrise, and the time lost in procuring tickets for the
regular nominee proved fatal to her success. Mrs. Doyle has now
learned something of the ways of politicians, and is not likely
to put her trust again in the faithfulness of ward committees. </p></blockquote>

<p>At a meeting of the State association, held in Providence, on
Thursday, May 18, 1871, the following preamble and resolutions
were, after a full and earnest discussion, unanimously adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, It is claimed, in opposition to the demand that the
elective franchise shall be given to women, that they are
represented in the government by men, so that they do not need
the ballot for their protection, inasmuch as all their rights are
secured to them by the interest of these men in their welfare;
and, whereas, in February last, in view of the appalling facts
frequently coming to our notice, consequent upon the
mismanagement of poor-houses and asylums for the insane, this
association did earnestly petition our State legislature to enact
a law providing for the appointment of women in all the towns in
our State to act as joint commissioners with men in the care and
control of these institutions; and, whereas, in utter disregard
of our request, the Committee on State Charities, to whom it was
referred, in reporting back our petition to the House of
Representatives, did recommend that the petitioners be given
leave to withdraw, and the House, without (so far as we could
learn) one word of protest from any member thereof, did so
dispose of our petition; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That this association do most solemnly declare, that
so far from being represented in our legislature, the rights of
the women of this State were in this instance trampled under foot
therein, and the best interests of humanity, in the persons<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_343" id="Page_343">[Pg 343]</a></span> of
the poorest and most unfortunate classes, were not sufficiently
regarded, under this system of class legislation.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That, despairing of obtaining for women even the
privileges which would enable them to look after the welfare of
the destitute and the suffering, with any power or authority to
improve their condition, until equal rights in the government
itself are guaranteed to all without regard to sex, we will
henceforth make use of this treatment we have received as a new
argument in favor of the emancipation of women from the legal
status of idiots and criminals, and, with this weapon in our
hands, we will endeavor to arouse the women of our State to a
keener sense of their degraded condition, and we will never abate
our demand until an amendment to the constitution is submitted to
the people granting suffrage to the women of Rhode Island.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That this preamble and these resolutions be offered
for publication to the daily papers of this city.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Elizabeth B. Chace</span>, <i>President</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><span class="smcap">Susan B. P. Martin</span>, <i>Secretary</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>For several years the philanthropic women of Rhode Island made many
determined efforts to secure some official positions in the
charitable institutions of the State, with what success the
following report by Elizabeth B. Chace, at the annual meeting of
the American Association, in Philadelphia, in 1876, will show:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Rhode Island Woman Suffrage Association, while holding its
monthly meetings through the year, circulating petitions to the
legislature, and, in other ways, constantly endeavoring to
revolutionize the entire sentiment of the State on the question
of woman suffrage, still has less progress to report than its
friends would have desired. Our last annual meeting, as usual,
drew together a large audience. Among our speakers from abroad
was William Lloyd Garrison, who, in a speech of almost
anti-slavery force and fervor, appeared to send conviction into
many minds. Our home speakers included a clergyman of Providence
and one of our ablest lawyers, and an ex-legislator who had never
stood on our platform before.</p>

<p>As usual, our petitions went into the legislature. They were
referred to the Judiciary Committee, before whom we had a
hearing, at which three Providence lawyers gave us their
unqualified support and earnest advocacy. One of these men set
forth in the strongest light the injustice of our laws in regard
to the property of married women and their non-ownership of their
minor children. The committee made no report to the legislature,
and so our petitions lie over until the next session, when we
hope for some evidence of progress. In the meantime we intend to
very much increase their number. For many years we have been
begging of our law-makers to permit women to share in the
management of the penal, correctional and charitable institutions
of the State; we have, however, only succeeded in obtaining an
advisory board of women, which has been in operation for the last
six years.</p>

<p>Last spring a majority of these women, having become weary of the
service in which they had no power to decide that any improvement
should be made in the management of these institutions, resigned
their positions on this board, some of them giving through the
press their reasons therefor. When the time came for making the
new appointments<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_344" id="Page_344">[Pg 344]</a></span> for the year, the governor earnestly urged
these women to permit him to appoint them, voluntarily pledging
himself to recommend at the opening of the next session of the
legislature, that a bill should be passed providing for the
appointment of women on the boards of management of all these
prisons and reformatories, with the same power and authority with
which the men are invested, who now alone decide all questions
concerning them. On this condition these women consented to serve
on the advisory board a few months longer, with the understanding
that, if the legislature fails to make this important provision,
their advice will be withdrawn, and the men will be left to take
care of thieves, criminals and paupers until they are ready to
ask for our help on terms of equality and justice. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the <i>Providence Journal</i> appeared the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Doyle seems to have learned by experience that the board, as
now constituted under the law, can have no real efficiency. The
ladies are responsible for the management of no part of any of
the institutions which they are permitted officially to visit.
Their reports are not made to the boards which are charged with
the responsibility of managing these institutions, and, in the
case of the reform school, are not made to the body which elects
and controls the board of management. The State ought not to
place ladies in such an anomalous position. The women's board
should have positive duties and direct responsibilities in its
appropriate sphere, or it should be abolished. The following is
Mrs. Doyle's letter of resignation:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To His Excellency Henry Lippitt, Governor of the State:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>: Please accept my resignation as member of the Board of Lady
Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State.
The recent action of a part of the board, in regard to the annual
report made to the General Assembly, makes it impossible for me
to continue longer as a member. Before the report was submitted,
it was carefully examined by the members signing it, and was
acquiesced in by them, as their signatures testify. Still
further, I am confirmed in the opinion that so important a trust
as this should be coupled with some power for action; without
this we are necessarily confined to suggestions only to the male
boards, which suggestions receive only the attention they may
consider proper. Believing that this board, as now empowered, can
have no efficiency except where its suggestions or criticisms
meet the entire approval of the male boards, and failing to see
any good which can result from our inspections under such
conditions, or any honor to the board thus examining, I
respectfully tender my resignation.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Sarah E. H. Doyle,</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Providence, R. I.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Three more ladies of the Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal and
Correctional Institutions of the State attest the correctness of
the repeated suggestions that the board, as organized under the
existing laws, must be comparatively powerless for good. The
question now comes, will the Rhode Island General Assembly enact a
law which shall give to women certain definite duties and
responsibilities in connection with the care and correction of
female offenders? We propose to refer to this matter further. We
are requested to publish the following communications to his
excellency, the governor: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_345" id="Page_345">[Pg 345]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><i>To Henry Lippitt, Governor of Rhode Island:</i></p>

<p>My appointment on the Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal and
Correctional Institutions of the State, which I received from
your hands for this year, I am now compelled respectfully to
resign. My experience in this board for nearly six years has
convinced me that this office, which confers on its holders no
power to decide that any improvement shall be made in the
government or workings of these institutions, is so nearly
useless that I am forced to the conclusion that, for myself, the
time spent in the performance of its duties can be more
effectively employed elsewhere. That the influence of women is
indispensable to the proper management of these institutions I
was never more sure than I am at this moment; but to make it
effectual, that influence must be obtained by placing women on
the boards of direct control, where their judgment shall be
expressed by argument and by vote.</p>

<p>A board of women, whose only duties, as defined by the law, are
to visit the penal and correctional institutions, elect its own
officers and report annually to the legislature, bears within
itself the elements of weakness and insufficiency. And if the
annual reports contain any exposure of abuses, they are sure to
give offense to the managers, to be followed by timidity and
vacillation in the board of women itself. Our late report,
written with great care and conscientious adherence to the truth,
which called the attention of the legislature to certain abuses
in one of our institutions, and to some defect in the systems
established in the others, has, thus far, elicited no official
action, has brought censure upon us from the press, while great
dissatisfaction has been created in our own body by the failure
of a portion of its members to sustain the allegations to which
the entire board, with the exception of one absentee, had affixed
their names.</p>

<p>When the State of Rhode Island shall call its best women to an
equal participation with men in the direction of its penal and
reformatory institutions, I have no doubt they will gladly assume
the duties and responsibilities of such positions; and I am also
sure that the beneficent results of such coöperation will soon be
manifest, both in benefit to individuals and in safety to the
State. But under present circumstances I most respectfully
decline to serve any longer on the advisory board of women.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Elizabeth B. Chace.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Valley Falls, R. I.</i></p>


<p><span class="smcap">Governor Lippitt</span>: <i>Dear Sir</i>: When I accepted an appointment on
the Ladies' Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional
Institutions of the State, I did so with the hope that much good
might be accomplished, especially toward the young girls at the
reform school, in whose welfare I felt a deep interest. To that
institution my attention has been chiefly devoted during my brief
experience in this office. This experience, however, has
convinced me that a board of officers constituted and limited
like this can have very little influence toward improvement in an
institution whose methods are fixed, and which is under the
exclusive control of another set of officers, who see no
necessity for change. Those causes render this women's board so
weak in itself that I cannot consent to retain my position
therein. I therefore respectfully tender to you my resignation.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Abby D. Weaver.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Providence, R. I.</i></p>


<p><span class="smcap">Governor Lippitt</span>: Please accept the resignation of my commission
as a member of the Ladies' Board of Visitors to the Penal and
Correctional Institutions of the State, conferred by you in June,
1875.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF">Eliza C. Weeden.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours respectfully,</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Westerly, R. I.</i></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>Early in the year 1880 the State association issued the following
address:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the friends of Woman Suffrage throughout the State of Rhode
Island:</i></p>

<p>In behalf of the Rhode Island Woman Suffrage Association, we beg
leave to call your attention to the result of our last year's
work, and to our plans for future effort. We went before the
General Assembly with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_346" id="Page_346">[Pg 346]</a></span> petitions for suffrage for women on all
subjects, and also with petitions asking only for school
suffrage. The former, bearing nearly 2,500 names, was presented
in the Senate and finally referred, with other unfinished
business, to the next legislature; they will thus be subject to
attention the coming year. The latter, bearing nearly 3,500
names, was presented in the House and referred to the Committee
on Education. This committee reported unanimously:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the following amendment to the constitution of
the State is hereby proposed: Article &mdash;&mdash;. Women otherwise
qualified are entitled to vote in the election of school
committees and in all legally organized school-district meetings. </p></blockquote>

<p>This resolution was adopted in the House by 48 to 11, but rejected
in the Senate by 20 to 13.<a name="FNanchor_176_176" id="FNanchor_176_176"></a><a href="#Footnote_176_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> Nineteen members being required to
make a majority of a full Senate, the amendment failed by six
votes. Had the ballots in the two branches been upon a proposition
to extend general suffrage to women, they would have been the most
encouraging, and, as it is, they show signs of progress; but a
resolve to submit the question of school suffrage to the voters of
Rhode Island, ought to have been successful this year. Why was it
defeated? Simply for the lack of political power behind it. To gain
this, our cause needs a foothold in every part of the State. We
need some person or persons in each town, to whom we can look for
hearty coöperation. If our work is to be effective, it must not
only continue as heretofore&mdash;one of petitioning&mdash;but must include
also a constant vigilance in securing senators and representatives
in the General Assembly, favorable to woman suffrage. We propose
the coming year:</p>

<p><i>First</i>&mdash;To petition congress in behalf of the following amendment
to our national constitution, viz.:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article XVI.</span> Section 1&mdash;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. Section 2&mdash;Congress
shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation. </p></blockquote>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;To secure a hearing and action upon the petitions
referred from the last Assembly, for such amendment to our State
constitution as shall extend general suffrage to women.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_347" id="Page_347">[Pg 347]</a></span></p>

<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;To petition the General Assembly for the necessary
legislation to secure school suffrage to women.<a name="FNanchor_177_177" id="FNanchor_177_177"></a><a href="#Footnote_177_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>The arguments in the various hearings before the legislature with
the majority and minority reports, are the same as many already
published, in fact nothing new can be said on the question. As none
of the women in this State, by trying to vote, or resisting
taxation, have tested the justice of their laws, they have no
supreme-court decisions to record.</p>

<p>Honorable mention should be made of Dr. William F. Channing, who
has stood for many years in Providence the noblest representative
of liberal thought. He is a worthy son of that great leader of
reform in New England, Rev. William Ellery Channing. In him the
advocates of woman's rights have always found a steadfast friend.
He sees that this is the fundamental reform; that it is the key to
the problems of labor, temperance, social purity and the
coöperative home. Those who have had the good fortune of a personal
acquaintance with Dr. Channing have felt the sense of dignity and
self-respect that the delicate courtesy and sincere reference of a
noble man must always give to woman.</p>

<p>Though Mrs. Channing has not been an active participant in the
popular reforms, having led a rather retired life, yet her
sympathies have been with her husband in all his endeavors to
benefit mankind. She has given the influence of her name to the
suffrage movement, and extended the most generous hospitalities to
the speakers at the annual conventions. Their charming daughters,
Mary and Grace, fully respond to the humanitarian sentiments of
their parents, constituting a happy family united in life's
purposes and ambitions.</p>

<p>The New York <i>Evening Post</i> of September, 1875, gives the following
of one of Rhode Island's brave women, but the State has not as yet,
thought it worth while to honor her in any fitting manner:</p>

<blockquote><p>Yesterday noon Miss Ida Lewis again distinguished herself by
rescuing a man who was in danger of drowning in the lower Newport
harbor. Miss Lewis first came into prominence in 1866, when she
saved the life of a soldier who had set out for a sail in a light
skiff. It was one of the coldest and most blustering days ever
known in this latitude, yet a girl but 25 years old, impelled by
the noblest spirit of humanity, ventured to the assistance of a
man who had brought himself into a sorry plight through sheer
fool-hardiness. One day, during the autumn<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_348" id="Page_348">[Pg 348]</a></span> of the next year,
while a terrible gale was raging, two men sat out to cross the
harbor with several sheep. One of the animals fell overboard
while the boat was rocked by the heavy sea, and its keepers, in
trying to save it, were in imminent peril of swamping their
craft. Ida Lewis saw them from the window of her father's
lighthouse on Lime Rock, and in a few minutes was rowing them in
safety toward the shore. After landing the men, she went back
again and rescued the sheep.</p>

<p>These brave deeds, with others of a less striking character, made
Miss Lewis' name famous throughout the world, and won for her the
title of "the Grace Darling of America"; but in 1869 the
newspapers were filled with the story of what was perhaps her
greatest exploit. On March 29 two young soldiers set sail from
Newport for Fort Adams in a small boat, under the guidance of a
boy who pretended to understand the simple rules of navigation.
Mrs. Lewis chanced to be looking out of the lighthouse window,
and saw a squall strike the boat and overturn it. She called to
her daughter, telling her of the casualty. Ida, though ill at the
time, rushed out of the house, launched her life-boat and sprang
in, with neither hat on her head nor shoes on her feet. By the
time she reached the scene of the disaster the boy had perished,
and the two soldiers were clinging desperately to the wreck,
almost ready to loose their hold from exhaustion. They were
dragged into the life-boat, and carried to Lime Rock, and, with
careful nursing, were soon sufficiently restored to proceed to
Fort Adams.</p>

<p>Miss Lewis' repeated acts of philanthropy have been recognized by
gifts at various times, but no national testimonial, so far as we
are aware, has yet been offered to her. True generosity, like
true virtue, is its own reward, and we of the world are not often
disposed to meddle with its quiet enjoyment by its possessor. It
seems eminently fitting, however, that among the first to receive
the new decoration to be bestowed by congress for heroic deeds in
saving life, should be the heroine of Newport harbor. </p></blockquote>

<p>Writing from Valley Falls September 9, 1885, Elizabeth B. Chace,
president of the Rhode Island Association, in summing up the steps
of progress, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>On December 4, 1884, by unanimous consent of our General Assembly
the state-house was granted to us for the first time, for a woman
suffrage convention. A large number of our best men and women,
and some of our ablest speakers<a name="FNanchor_178_178" id="FNanchor_178_178"></a><a href="#Footnote_178_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> were present. An immense
audience greeted them and listened with eager interest
throughout. The occasion was one of the most pleasant and
profitable we have enjoyed in a long time. At the following
session of our Legislature, 1885, an amendment to our State
constitution was proposed giving the franchise to women, on equal
terms with men. It passed both Houses by a large majority vote,
but by some technicality,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_349" id="Page_349">[Pg 349]</a></span> for which no one seemed to blame, it
was not legally started on its round to the vote of the people.
Hence the proposition to submit the amendment will be again
passed upon this year, and with every promise of success. We have
strong hopes of making our little commonwealth the banner State
in this grand step of progress. </p></blockquote>

<p>The following letter from Frederick A. Hinckley, makes a fitting
mention of some of the noble women who have represented this
movement in his State:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Providence</span>, R. I., Sept. 14, 1885.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Friends</span>: You ask for a few words from me concerning salient
points in the history of the woman suffrage movement in Rhode
Island. As you know, ours is a very small State&mdash;the smallest in
the Union&mdash;and has a very closely compacted population. With us
the manufacturing interest overshadows everything else,
representing large investments of capital. On the one hand we
have great accumulations of wealth by the few; on the other hand,
a large percentage of unskilled foreign labor. For good or for
ill we feel all those conservative influences which naturally
grow out of this two-fold condition. This accounts in the main,
for the Rhode Islander's extreme and exceptionally tenacious
regard for the institutions of his ancestors. This is why we have
the most limited suffrage of any State, many <i>men</i> being debarred
from voting by reason of the property qualification still
required here of foreign-born citizens. Such a social atmosphere
is not favorable to the extension of the franchise, either to men
or women, and makes peculiarly necessary with us, the educational
process of a very large amount of moral agitation before much can
be expected in the way of political changes.</p>

<p>My own residence here dates back only to 1878, though before that
from my Massachusetts home I was somewhat familiar with
Rhode-Island people and laws. Our work has consisted of monthly
meetings, made up usually of an afternoon session for address and
discussion, followed by a social tea; of an annual State
convention in the city of Providence; and of petitioning the
legislature each year, with the appointment of the customary
committees and hearings. For many years the centre of the woman
movement with us has been the State association, and since my own
connection with that, the leader about whom we have all rallied,
has been your beloved friend and mine, Elizabeth B. Chace. Hers
is that clear conception of, and untiring devotion to principles,
which make invincible leadership, tide over all disaster, and
overcome all doubt. By her constant appearance before legislative
committees, her model newspaper articles which never fail to
command general attention even among those who would not think of
agreeing with her, and by her persistent fidelity to her sense of
duty in social life, she is the recognized head of our agitation
in Rhode Island. But she has not stood alone. She has been the
centre of a group of women whose names will always be associated
with our cause in this locality. Elizabeth K. Churchill lived and
died a faithful and successful worker. The Woman's Club in this
city was her child; temperance, suffrage, and the interests of
working-women were dear to her heart. She was independent in her
convictions, and true to herself,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_350" id="Page_350">[Pg 350]</a></span> even when it compelled dissent
from the attitude of trusted leaders and friends, but her work on
the platform, in the press, and in society, made her life a tower
of strength to the woman's rights cause and her death a
lamentable loss. Another active leader in the work here, though
not a speaker, who has passed on since my residence in
Providence, was Susan B. P. Martin. I think those of us
accustomed to act with her always respected Mrs. Martin's
judgment and felt sure of her fidelity. What more can be said of
any one than that?</p>

<p>It is difficult to speak publicly of one's friends while living.
But no history of woman suffrage agitation in Rhode Island would
be complete which did not place among those ever to be relied on,
the names of Anna Garlin Spencer, Sarah E. H. Doyle, Anna E.
Aldrich and Fanny P. Palmer. Mrs. Spencer moved from the State
just as I came into it, but the influence of her logical mind was
left behind her and the loss of her quick womanly tact has been
keenly felt. Mrs. Doyle has long been chairman of the executive
committee of the association, Mrs. Aldrich a safe and trusted
counsellor, and Mrs. Palmer as member of the Providence school
committee, and more recently as president of the Woman's Club,
has rendered the cause eminent service.</p>

<p>If final victory seems farther off here than in some of the newer
States, as it certainly does, that is only the greater reason for
earnest, and ceaseless work. We know we are right, and be it
short or long I am sure we have all enlisted for the war.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Frederic A. Hinckley</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Always sincerely yours,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Below is the last utterance of Senator Anthony on this question. In
writing to Susan B. Anthony, he said:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">United States Senate Chamber, Washington,</span> March 4, 1884.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Cousin</span>: I am honored by your invitation to address the
National Woman Suffrage Association at the convention to be held
in this city. I regret that it is not in my power to comply with
your complimentary request. The enfranchisement of woman is one
of those great reforms which will come with the progress of
civilization, and when it comes those who witness it will wonder
that it has been so long delayed. The main argument against it is
that the women themselves do not desire it. Many men do not
desire it, as is evidenced by their omission to exercise it, but
they are not therefore deprived of it. I do not understand that
you propose compulsory suffrage, although I am not sure that that
would not be for the public advantage as applied to both sexes. A
woman has a right to vote in a corporation of which she is a
stockholder, and that she does not generally exercise that right
is not an argument against the right itself. The progress that is
making in the direction of your efforts is satisfactory and
encouraging.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">H. B. Anthony</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Faithfully yours,</p>

</blockquote>


<p>Senator Anthony was one of the ever-to-be-remembered nine senators
who voted for woman suffrage on the floor of the United States
Senate in 1866. He also made a most logical speech on our behalf
and has ever since been true to our demands.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_171_171" id="Footnote_171_171"></a><a href="#FNanchor_171_171"><span class="label">[171]</span></a> To Mrs. Davis, a native of the State of New York,
belongs the honor of inaugurating this movement in New England, as
she called and managed the first convention held in Massachusetts
in 1850, and helped to arouse all these States to action in 1868.
With New England reformers slavery was always the preëminently
pressing question, even after the emancipation of the slaves, while
in New York woman's civil and political rights were considered the
more vital question.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_172_172" id="Footnote_172_172"></a><a href="#FNanchor_172_172"><span class="label">[172]</span></a> <i>The Revolution</i> of December 17, 1868, says: The
meeting last week in Providence, was, in numbers and ability,
eminently successful. Mrs. Elizabeth B. Chace, of Valley Falls,
presided, and addresses were made by Colonel Higginson, Paulina
Wright Davis, Lucy Stone, Frederick Douglass, Mrs. O. Shepard, Rev.
John Boyden, Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, Stephen S. and Abbey Kelly
Foster. The officers of the association were: <i>President</i>, Paulina
Wright Davis. <i>Vice-presidents</i>, Elizabeth B. Chace of Valley
Falls, Col. T. W. Higginson of Newport, Mrs. George Cushing, J. W.
Stillman, Mrs. Buffum of Woonsocket and P. W. Aldrich. <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Martha W. Chase. <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Rhoda
Fairbanks. <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Susan B. Harris. <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Mrs. James Bucklin, Catharine W. Hunt, Mrs. Lewis
Doyle, Anna Aldrich, Mrs. S. B. G. Martin, Dr. Perry, Mrs.
Churchill, Arnold B. Chace.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_173_173" id="Footnote_173_173"></a><a href="#FNanchor_173_173"><span class="label">[173]</span></a> Among the speakers at these annual conventions we
find Rowland G. Hazard, Rev. John Boyden, Rev. Charles Howard
Malcolm, the brilliant John Neal, Portland, Maine, Hon. James M.
Stillman Gen. F. G. Lippett, Theodore Tilton, Rev. Olympia Brown,
Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Elizabeth K. Churchill. For a report of the
convention held at Newport during the fashionable season, August
25, 26, 1869, see vol. II., page 403, also <i>The Revolution</i>,
September 2, 1869.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_174_174" id="Footnote_174_174"></a><a href="#FNanchor_174_174"><span class="label">[174]</span></a> Mrs. Chace says in a letter, speaking of Mrs. Davis:
"After several years absence in Europe she returned, a helpless
invalid, unable to resume her labors. But her devotion in early
years will long remain fresh in the memory of those associated with
her, who were inspired by her self-sacrifice and enthusiasm." For
farther details of Mrs. Davis' earlier labors, see vol. I, pages
215, 283.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_175_175" id="Footnote_175_175"></a><a href="#FNanchor_175_175"><span class="label">[175]</span></a> Julia Ward Howe, Celia Burleigh, William Lloyd
Garrison, Aaron M. Powell, Caroline H. Dall, Mrs. Ednah D. Cheney,
Miss Mary F. Eastman, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Rev. Augustus
Woodbury Hon. Amasa M. Eaton, Mr. Stillman, Hon. Thomas Davis, Hon
George L. Clarke, Rev. Frederick Hinckley, Thomas Wentworth
Higginson, Hon. A. Payne.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_176_176" id="Footnote_176_176"></a><a href="#FNanchor_176_176"><span class="label">[176]</span></a> <span class="smcap">In the House</span>. <i>For the Amendment.</i>&mdash;Davis Aldrich,
North Smithfield; Thomas Arnold, Warwick; Clark Barber, Richmond;
Thos. P. Barnefield, Pawtucket; Frank M. Bates, Pawtucket; John
Beattie, Cranston; Amos M. Bowen, Providence; Issac B. Briggs,
Jamestown; Albert Buffum, Burillville; John C. Barrington,
Barrington; Chas. Capwell, West Greenwich; Geo. B. Carpenter,
Hopkinton; Obadiah Chase, Warren; Albert I. Chester, Westerly;
Chas. E. Chickering, Pawtucket; John F. Clark, Cumberland; LeBaron
B. Colt, Bristol; James Davis, Pawtucket; Benjamin T. Eames,
Providence; Henry H. Fay, Newport; Edward L. Freeman, Lincoln; Z.
Herbert Gardner, Exeter; John P. Gregory, Lincoln; Henry D. Heydon,
Warwick; Edwin Jenckes, Pawtucket; Thos. E. Kenyon, East Greenwich;
Israel B. Mason, Providence; B. B. Mitchell, jr., New Shoreham;
Francis L. O'Reilly, Woonsocket; Joseph Osborn, Tiverton; Abraham
Payne, Providence; James M. Pendleton, Westerly; Wm. A. Pirce,
Johnston; Clinton Puffer, Woonsocket; Olney W. Randall, No.
Providence; John P. Sanborn, Newport; Wm. P. Sheffield, Newport;
Israel R. Sheldon, Warwick; Martin S. Smith, Scituate; Wm. H.
Spooner, Bristol; Henry A. Stearns, Lincoln; Simon S. Steere,
Smithfield; Joseph Tillinghast, Coventry; Wm. C. Townsend, Newport;
Stephen A. Watson, Portsmouth; Stillman White, Providence; Benj. F.
Wilbor, Little Compton; Andrew Winsor, Providence&mdash;48.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">In the Senate.</span> <i>For the Amendment.</i>&mdash;Lieut.-Gov. Howard, E.
Providence; Ariel Ballou, Woonsocket; Cyrus F. Cooke, Foster;
Edward T. DeBlois, Portsmouth; Rodney F. Dyer, Johnston; Anson
Greene, Exeter; Daniel W. Lyman, No. Providence; Jabez W. Mowry,
Smithfield; Dexter B. Potter, Coventry; Stafford W. Razee,
Cumberland; T. Mumford Seabury, Newport; Lewis B. Smith,
Barrington; John F. Tobey, Providence&mdash;13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_177_177" id="Footnote_177_177"></a><a href="#FNanchor_177_177"><span class="label">[177]</span></a> [Signed:] <i>President</i>, Elizabeth B. Chace;
<i>Secretaries</i>, Fanny P. Palmer, Elizabeth C. Hinckley; <i>Treasurer</i>,
Susan B. P. Martin; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Sarah E. H. Doyle, Susan
Sisson, William Barker, Francis C. Frost, Anna E. Aldrich,
Frederick A. Hinckley, Susan G. Kenyon, Rachael E. Fry, A. A. Tyng,
Arnold B. Chace.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_178_178" id="Footnote_178_178"></a><a href="#FNanchor_178_178"><span class="label">[178]</span></a> The speakers were Abraham Payne, John Wyman, Matilda
Hindman, Frederick A. Hinckley, Rev. Mr. Wendt, Elizabeth B. Chace,
William I. Bowditch, Mary F. Eastman, William Lloyd Garrison, jr.,
Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, Henry B.
Blackwell.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_351" id="Page_351">[Pg 351]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXIV" id="CHAPTER_XXXIV"></a>CHAPTER XXXIV.</h2>


<h3>MAINE.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Women on School Committees&mdash;Elvira C. Thorndyke&mdash;Suffrage
Society, 1868&mdash;Rockland&mdash;The Snow Sisters&mdash;Portland Meeting,
1870&mdash;John Neal&mdash;Judge Goddard&mdash;Colby University Open to Girls,
August 12, 1871&mdash;Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash Admitted to the Bar,
October 26, 1872&mdash;Tax-payers Protest&mdash;Ann F. Greeley,
1872&mdash;March, 1872, Bill for Woman Suffrage Lost in the House,
Passed in the Senate by Seven Votes&mdash;Miss Frank Charles, Register
of Deeds&mdash;Judge Reddington&mdash;Mr. Randall's Motion&mdash;Moral Eminence
of Maine&mdash;Convention in Granite Hall, Augusta, January, 1873,
Hon. Joshua Nye, President&mdash;Delia A. Curtis&mdash;Opinions of the
Supreme Court in Regard to Women Holding Offices&mdash;Governor
Dingley's Message, 1875&mdash;Convention, Representatives Hall,
Portland, Judge Kingsbury, President, February 12, 1876. </p>
</div>

<p><span class="sc">The</span> first movement in Maine, in 1868, turned on the question of
women being eligible on school committees. Here, as in Vermont, the
men inaugurated the movement. The following letter, from the
<i>Portland Press</i>, gives the initiative steps:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Hiram</span>, March 15, 1868.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Mr. Editor</span>: A statement is going the rounds of the press that the
Democrats of Hiram supported a lady for a member of the school
committee. I am unwilling that any person or party shall be
ridiculed or censured for an act of which I was the instigator,
and for which I am chiefly responsible. I am in favor of electing
ladies to that office, and accordingly voted for one, without her
knowledge or consent; several Democrats as well as Republicans
voted with me. I have reason to believe that scores of Democrats
voted for the able and popular candidate of the Republicans (Dr.
William H. Smith), and but for my peculiar notion I should have
voted for him myself, as I always vote with the Republican party.
I am in favor, however, of laying aside politics in voting for
school committees, and the question of capability should outweigh
the question of sex. A few years ago we had a large number of boy
schoolmasters, but agents are learning to appreciate teachers of
tact, experience and natural qualifications, as well as
book-knowledge. Of eleven schools under the care of the writer
the past year, but one had a male teacher, and by turning to the
reports I find that of forty-nine schools in Hiram during the
past two years, forty-two were taught by ladies. Four of these
teachers of the past year have taught respectively twenty,
twenty-one, twenty-three and thirty schools. I put the question,
why should a lady who has taught thirty schools be considered
less suitable<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_352" id="Page_352">[Pg 352]</a></span> for the office of school committee than the
undersigned, who has taught but two, or scores of men who never
taught school at all? Slowly and with hesitation over the ice of
prejudice comes that unreasonable reason&mdash;"<i>O, 'cause.</i>" But
regardless of pants or crinoline, the question remains unanswered
and unanswerable. It is not deemed improper for the ladies of
Hiram to go with their husbands to the town-house to a cattle
show and fair, and serve as committees on butter and cheese, but
it is considered unreasonable for ladies to serve as
superintendents of school committees.</p>

<p>General Washington gave a lieutenant's commission to a woman for
her skill and bravery in manning a battery at the battle of
Monmouth. He also granted her half-pay during life. It is stated
in "Lincoln's Lives of the Presidents" that "she wore an
epaulette, and everybody called her Captain Molly." And yet I do
not read in history that General Washington was ever impeached.
Females have more and better influence than males, and under
their instruction our schools have been improving for some years.
There is less kicking and cudgeling, and more attention is given
to that best of all rules, "The Golden Rule." If they are more
efficient as teachers is it not fair to presume that they would
excel as committees?</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Llewellyn A. Wadsworth</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully yours,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The editor of the <i>Press</i> adds to the above his own endorsement, in
these words:</p>

<blockquote><p>We are pleased to have Mr. Wadsworth's explanation of the reform
movement in Hiram, which we had been misled into crediting to the
Democrats. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> Go on, Mr. Wadsworth, you have our best wishes.
There is nothing in the way of the general adoption of your ideas
but a lot of antiquated and obsolete notions, sustained by the
laughter of fools. </p></blockquote>

<p>The same year we have the report of the first suffrage society in
that State, which seems to place Maine in the van of her New
England sisters, notwithstanding the great darkness our
correspondent deplores:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Dear Revolution</span>: A society has just been organized here called
the Equal Rights Association of Rockland. It bids fair to live,
although it requires all the courage of heroic souls to contend
against the darkness that envelopes the people. But the
foundation is laid, and many noble women are catching the
inspiration of the hour. When we are fully under way, we shall
send you a copy of our preamble and resolutions.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Elvira C. Thorndyke</span>, <i>Cor. Sec'y</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Hon. John Neal, who was foremost in all good work in Maine, in
a letter to <i>The Revolution</i>, describes the first meeting called in
Portland, in May, 1870, to consider the subject of suffrage for
woman. He says:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Dear Revolution</span>: According to my promise, I sent an advertisement
to all three of our daily papers last Saturday, in substance like
the following, though somewhat varied in language: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_353" id="Page_353">[Pg 353]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Elevation of Woman</span>.&mdash;All who favor Woman Suffrage, the Sixteenth
Amendment, and the restoration of woman to her "natural and
inalienable rights," are wanted for consultation at the audience
room of the Portland Institute and Public Library, on Wednesday
evening next, at half-past seven o'clock. Per order</p>

<p class="ltr-from">John Neal.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The weather was unfavorable; nevertheless, the small room, holding
from sixty to seventy-five, to which the well-disposed were invited
for consultation and organization, was crowded so that near the
close not a seat could be had; and crowded, too, with educated and
intelligent women, and brave, thoughtful men, so far as one might
judge by appearances, and about in equal proportions. Among the
latter were Mr. Talbot, United States district-attorney, a good
lawyer and a self-convinced fellow laborer, so far as suffrage is
concerned; but rather unwilling to go further at present, lest if a
woman should be sent to the legislature (against her will, of
course!) she might neglect her family, or be obliged to take her
husband with her, to keep her out of mischief; just as if Portland,
with 35,000 inhabitants and four representatives, would not be
likely to find <i>two</i> unmarried women or widows, or married women
not disqualified by matrimonial incumbrances or liabilities, to
represent the sex; or lest, if she should get into the post-office,
being by nature so curious and inquisitive, she might be found
peeping&mdash;as if the chief distinction between superior and inferior
minds was not this very disposition to inquire and investigate; as
if, indeed, that which distinguishes the barbarous from the
civilized, were not this very inquisitiveness and curiosity; the
savage being satisfied with himself and averse to inquiry; the
civilized ever on the alert, in proportion to his intelligence,
and, like the Athenians, always on the look-out for some "new
thing."</p>

<p>And then, too, we had Judge Goddard, of the Superior Court, one of
our boldest and clearest thinkers, who could not be persuaded to
take a part in the discussion, though declaring himself entirely
opposed to the movement. And yet, he is the very man who, at a
Republican convention several years ago, offered a resolution in
favor of impartial suffrage, only to find himself in a minority of
two; but persevered nevertheless, year after year, until the very
same resolution, word for word, was unanimously adopted by another
Republican convention! Of course, Judge Goddard will not be likely
to shrink from giving his reasons hereafter, if the movement should
propagate itself, as it certainly will.</p>

<p>We had also for consideration a synopsis of what deserves to be
called most emphatically "The Maine Law," in relation to married
women, prepared by Mr. Drummond, our late speaker and formerly
attorney-general, and one of our best lawyers, where it was
demonstrated, both by enactments and adjudications, running from
March, 1844, to February, 1866, that a married woman&mdash;to say
nothing of widows and spinsters&mdash;has little to complain of in our
State, her legal rights being far ahead of the age, and not only
acknowledged, but enforced; she being mistress of herself and of
her earnings, and allowed to trade for herself, while "her
contracts for any lawful purpose are made valid and binding, and to
be enforced, as if she were sole agent of her property, but she
cannot be arrested."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_354" id="Page_354">[Pg 354]</a></span></p>

<p>Then followed Mr. S. B. Beckett, just returned from a trip to the
Holy Land, who testified, among other things, that he had seen
women both in London and Ireland who knew "how to keep a hotel,"
which is reckoned among men as the highest earthly
qualification&mdash;and proved it by managing some of the largest and
best in the world.</p>

<p>And then Mr. Charles Jose, late one of our aldermen, who, half in
earnest and half in jest, took t'other side of the question,
urging, first, that this was a political movement&mdash;as if that were
any objection, supposing it true; our whole system of government
being a political movement, and that, by which we trampled out the
last great rebellion, another, both parties and all parties
coöperating in the work; next, that women did not ask for
suffrage&mdash;it was the men who asked for it, in their names; that
there were no complaints and no petitions from women! As if
petitions had not gone up and complaints, too, by thousands, from
all parts of the country, from school-teachers and office clerks
and others, as well as from the women at large, both over sea and
here.</p>

<p>But enough. The meeting stands adjourned for a week. Probably no
organization will be attempted, lest it might serve to check free
discussion.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">J. N.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>May 5, 1870.</i></p>
</blockquote>


<p>Mr. W. W. McCann wrote to the <i>Woman's Journal</i> of this suffrage
meeting in Portland, in 1870:</p>

<blockquote><p>Judge Howe's voice, when he addressed the jury of Wyoming as
"Ladies and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury," fell upon the ears of
that crowded court-room as a strange and unusual sound. Equally
strange and impracticable seemed the call for a "woman suffrage
meeting," at the city building, to the conservative citizens of
Portland. However, notwithstanding the suspicion and prejudice
with which this movement is regarded, quite a large and highly
respectable audience assembled at an early hour to witness the
new and wonderful phenomenon of a meeting to aid in giving the
ballot to woman.</p>

<p>Hon. John Neal, who issued the call for the meeting, was the
first to speak. He reviewed the history of this movement, both in
this country and in England. He gave some entertaining
reminiscences of his acquaintance with John Stuart Mill forty
years ago. Mr. Mill was not then in favor of universal suffrage;
he advocated the enfranchisement of the male sex only. Mr. Neal
claimed the right for women also. He was happy to learn that
since then Mr. Mill has thrown all the weight of his influence
and his masterly intellect in favor of universal suffrage. He
then entered into an elaborate discussion of some of the
objections brought against woman suffrage, and, much to the
surprise of many present, showed that the rights which women
demand are just and reasonable, and ought to be granted. John M.
Todd remarked that he was not so much impressed by the logical
arguments in favor of suffrage as by the shallow and baseless
arguments of the opposition. The friends of woman suffrage are
becoming active and earnest in their efforts, and discussion is
freely going on through the daily papers.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_355" id="Page_355">[Pg 355]</a></span></p>

<p>To-day, the <i>Eastern Argus</i>, a leading Democratic organ of this
city, denounces this movement as the most "damnable heresy of
this generation." We venture the prediction that its friends, if
true to the progressive tendencies of the day, will realize the
consummation of their cherished heresy in the proposed sixteenth
amendment, which will abolish all distinction of class and sex. </p></blockquote>

<p>On August 12, 1871, the announcement that Colby University would be
opened to girls gave general satisfaction to the women of Maine. A
correspondent says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Hereafter young women will be admitted to this institution on
"precisely the same terms as young men." They may take the
regular course, or such a course as they may select, taking at
least two studies each term. They will room and board in families
in the village, and simply attend the required exercises at the
college. The next examination for entrance will be on Wednesday,
August 30. One young lady has already signified her purpose to
enter the regular course. Four New England colleges are now open
to women&mdash;Bates, at Lewiston; Colby, at Waterville, Me.; Vermont
University, at Burlington, Vt., and Wesleyan, at Middletown,
Conn. Let's have no more women's colleges established, for the
next decade will make them unnecessary, as by that time all the
colleges of the country will be opened to them. </p></blockquote>

<p>October 26, 1872, another advance step was heralded abroad:</p>

<blockquote><p>On motion of the Hon. James S. Milliken, Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash,
of Columbia Falls, was formally admitted to the bar as an
attorney-at-law. During the session of the court in the forenoon,
Mrs. Nash had presented herself before the examining committee,
Messrs. Granger, Milliken and Walker, and had passed a more than
commonly creditable examination. After the opening of the court
in the afternoon, Mr. Milliken arose and said: "May it please the
court, I hold in my hand papers showing that Mrs. Hapgood Nash,
of Columbia Falls, has passed the committee appointed by the
court to examine candidates for admission to the bar as
attorneys-at-law and has paid to the county treasurer the duty
required by the statute; and I now move the court that she be
admitted to this bar as an attorney-at-law. In making the motion
I am not unaware that this is a novel and unusual proceeding. It
is the first instance in this county and this State, and, so far
as I am aware, the first instance in New England, of the
application of a woman to be formally admitted to the bar as a
practitioner. But knowing Mrs. Nash to be a modest and refined
lady, of literary and legal attainments, I feel safe in assuring
Your Honor that by a course of honorable practice, and by her
courteous intercourse with the members of the profession, she
will do her full part to conquer any prejudice that may now exist
against the idea of women being admitted as attorneys at law."
Judge Barrows, after examining the papers handed to him, said: "I
am not aware of anything in the constitution or laws of this
State prohibiting the admission of a woman, possessing the proper
qualifications, to the practice of the law. I have no sympathy
with that feeling or prejudice which would exclude women<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_356" id="Page_356">[Pg 356]</a></span> from
any of the occupations of life for which they may be qualified.
The papers put into my hands show that Mrs. Nash has received the
unanimous approval of the examining committee, as possessing the
qualifications requisite for an acceptable attorney, and that she
has paid the legal duty to the county treasurer, and I direct
that she be admitted." </p></blockquote>

<p>On May 10, 1873, the trustees of the Industrial School for Girls
issued the following appeal to the people of the State:</p>

<blockquote><p>The undersigned, trustees of the Maine Industrial School for
Girls, hereby earnestly appeal to the generosity of the State, to
the rich and poor alike, for aid to this important movement. Our
call is to mothers and fathers blessed with virtuous and obedient
children; to those who have suffered by the waywardness of some
beloved daughter; and to all who would gladly see the neglected,
exposed and erring girls in our midst reclaimed. For six years
has this subject been agitated in the State and presented to the
consideration of several legislatures; and during that time the
objects, plans and practical workings of such an institution,
have become familiar to the public mind. The project is now so
near consummation that by prompt and liberal response to this
appeal, the school can be in active operation by the first of
July next.</p>

<p>By the terms of the resolution of the legislature granting State
aid of five thousand dollars, the sum of twenty thousand dollars
must first be secured from other sources. Of this, five thousand
at least has been contributed by two generous ladies in
Hallowell. For the balance the trustees confidentially look to
the citizens of the whole State as equally to be benefited. Let
them send their contributions, whether large or small, freely and
at once, to either of the undersigned and the receipt of the same
shall be duly acknowledged.<a name="FNanchor_179_179" id="FNanchor_179_179"></a><a href="#Footnote_179_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>Some of the women tax-payers<a name="FNanchor_180_180" id="FNanchor_180_180"></a><a href="#Footnote_180_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> in Ellsworth, Maine, sent the
following protest to the assessors of that city:</p>

<blockquote><p>We the undersigned residents of the city of Ellsworth, believing
in the declaration of our forefathers, that "governments derive
their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that
"taxation without representation is tyranny," beg leave to
protest against being taxed for support of laws that we have no
voice in making. By taxing us you class us with aliens and
minors, the only males who are taxed and not allowed to vote, you
make us the political inferiors of the most ignorant foreigners,
negroes, and men who have not intellect enough to learn to write
their names, or to read the vote given them. Our property is at
the disposal of men who have not the ability to accumulate a
dollar's worth and who pay only a poll-tax. We therefore protest
against being taxed until we are allowed the rights of citizens. </p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_357" id="Page_357">[Pg 357]</a></span></p>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Augusta</span>, March 1, 1872.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Editors Woman's Journal</span>: I have never seen a letter in the <i>Woman's
Journal</i> written from Augusta, the capital of Maine, and as some
things have transpired lately which might interest your readers, I
take the liberty of writing a few lines. The bill for woman
suffrage was defeated in the House, fifty-two to forty-one. In the
Senate the vote was fifteen in favor to eight against. I think the
smallness of the vote was owing to the indifference of some of the
members and the determination of a few to kill the bill. Some
politicians are afraid of this innovation just now, lest the
Republican party be more disrupted than it already is. Day after
day, when the session was drawing to a close, women went to the
state-house expecting to hear the question debated. Wednesday every
available place was filled with educated women. The day was
spent&mdash;if I should say how, my criticism might be too severe.
Gentlemen from Thomaston, Biddeford, Burlington and Waldoborough
had the floor most of the time during the afternoon. In the
evening, while those same women and some of the members of the
legislature were attending a concert, the bill was taken up and
voted upon, <i>without any discussion whatever</i>. Now, I submit to any
fair-minded person if this was right. I have listened to
discussions upon that floor this winter for which I should have
hung my head in shame had they been conducted by women. The whole
country, from Maine to California, calls loudly for better
legislation&mdash;for morality in politics.</p>

<p>A member of the House said to me yesterday, that he thought that
some of the members from the rural districts were not sufficiently
enlightened upon the question of woman suffrage, and the bill ought
to have been thoroughly discussed. Yes, and perhaps treated with
respect by its friends. I saw the member from Calais while a vote
was being taken. Standing in his seat, with his hand stretched
toward the rear of the House, where it is generally supposed that
members sit who are a little slow in voting at the beck of
politicians, he said: "<i>Yes</i> is the way to vote, gentlemen! Yes!
Yes!" When women have such politicians for champions equal suffrage
is secured. But do we want such men? The member from Calais voted
against woman's right of suffrage. He is said to be an ambitious
aspirant in the fifth congressional district. See to it, women of
the fifth district, that you do not have him as an opponent of
equal rights in congress. There is a throne behind a throne. Let
woman be <i>regal</i> in the background, where she must stand for the
present, in Maine.</p>

<p>But I am happy and proud to state that some very high-minded men,
and some of the best legislators in the House, did vote for the
bill, viz.: Brown of Bangor, Judge Titcomb of Augusta, General
Perry of Oxford, Porter of Burlington, Labroke of Foxcroft, and
many others; in the Senate, the president and fourteen others, the
real bone and marrow of the Senate, voted for the bill. The signs
of the times are good. The watchman of the night discerns the
morning light in the broad eastern horizon.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Patience Commonsense</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">[Signed:]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The <i>Portland Press</i>, in a summary of progress in Maine for 1873,
says:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_358" id="Page_358">[Pg 358]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>Women certainly have no reason to complain of the year's dealings
with them, for they have been recognized in many ways which
indicate the gradual breaking down of the prejudices that have
hitherto given them a position of <i>quasi</i> subjection. Mrs. Mary
D. Welcome has been licensed to preach by the Methodists; Mrs.
Fannie U. Roberts of Kittery has been commissioned by the
governor to solemnize marriages; Clara H. Nash, of the famous law
firm of F. C. &amp; C. H. Nash, of Columbia Falls, has argued a case
before a jury in the Supreme Court; Miss Mary C. Lowe of Colby
University has taken a college prize for declamation. They are
the first Maine women who have ever enjoyed honors of the kind.
Miss Cameron spoke, too, at the last Congregational conference,
and Miss Frank Charles was appointed register of deeds in Oxford
county.</p>

<p>It is further to be noted that the legislature voted as follows
on the question of giving the ballot to women: Senate&mdash;14 yeas,
14 nays; House&mdash;62 yeas, 69 nays. Women are rapidly obtaining a
recognized position in our colleges. There are now five young
women at Colby, three at Bates, and three at the Agricultural
College&mdash;eleven in all. Bates has already graduated two. In the
latter college a scholarship for the benefit of women has been
endowed by Judge Reddington. Finally, the first Woman Suffrage
Association ever formed in Maine held its first meeting at
Augusta last January, and was a great success. Carmel, Monroe,
Etna and some other towns have elected women superintendents of
schools, but this has been done in other years. For a little
movement in the right direction we must credit Messrs. Amos,
Abbott &amp; Co., woolen manufacturers of Dexter, who divide ten per
cent. of their profits with their operatives. </p></blockquote>

<p>Clara H. Nash, the lady who, in partnership with her husband, has
recently entered upon the practice of law in Maine, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Scarcely a day passes but something occurs in our office to rouse
my indignation afresh by reminding me of the utter insignificance
with which the law, in its every department, regards woman, and
its utter disregard of her rights as an individual. Would that
women might feel this truth; then, indeed, would their
enfranchisement be speedy. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the <i>Woman's Journal</i> of January 1, 1873, we find the following
call:</p>

<blockquote><p>The people of Maine who believe in the extension of the elective
franchise to women as a beneficent power for the promotion of the
virtues and the correction of the evils of society, and all who
believe in the principles of equal justice, equal liberty and
equal opportunity, upon which republican institutions are
founded, and have faith in the triumph of intelligence and reason
over custom and prejudice, are invited to meet at Granite Hall,
in the city of Augusta, on Wednesday, January 29, 1873, for the
purpose of organizing a State Woman Suffrage Association, and
inaugurating such measures for the advancement of the cause as
the wisdom of the convention may suggest.<a name="FNanchor_181_181" id="FNanchor_181_181"></a><a href="#Footnote_181_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a> </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_359" id="Page_359">[Pg 359]</a></span></p>

<p>The <i>Portland Press</i>, in a leading editorial on the "Moral Eminence
of Maine," says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Maine has been first in many things. She has taught the world how
to struggle with intemperance, and pilgrims come hither from all
quarters of the earth to learn the theory and practice of
prohibition. She was among the first to practically abolish
capital punishment and to give married women their rights in
respect to property. She is, perhaps, nearer giving them
political rights, also, than any of her sister commonwealths. If
Maine should be first among the States to give suffrage to women,
she would do more for temperance than a hundred prohibitory laws,
and more for civilization and progress than Massachusetts did
when she threw the tea into Boston harbor in 1773, or when she
sent the first regiment to the relief of Washington in 1861.</p>

<p>The leaders of the temperance reform in Maine are fully alive to
the necessity of woman suffrage as a means to that end. At the
meeting of the State Temperance Association of Maine, in Augusta,
recently, Mr. Randall said that "as the woman suffrage convention
has adjourned over this afternoon in order to attend the
temperance meeting, he would move that when we adjourn it be to
Thursday morning, as the work at both conventions is intimately
connected. If the women of Maine went to the ballot-box, we
should have officers to enforce the law." Mr. Randall's motion
was carried, and the temperance convention adjourned. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Woman Suffrage Association assembled Wednesday, January 29, in
Granite Hall, Augusta. There was a very large attendance, a
considerable number of those present being members of the
legislature. Hon. Joshua Nye presided. He made a few remarks
relating to the removal of political disabilities from women, and
introduced Mrs. Agnes A. Houghton of Bath, who spoke on the
"Turning of the Tide," contending that woman should be elevated
socially, politically and morally, enjoying the same rights as man.
She was followed by Judge Benjamin Kingsbury, jr., of Portland, who
declared himself unequivocally in favor of giving woman the right
to vote, and who trusted that she would be accorded this right by
the present legislature. More than 1,000 persons were in the
audience, and great enthusiasm<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_360" id="Page_360">[Pg 360]</a></span> prevailed. The morning session was
devoted to business and the election of officers.<a name="FNanchor_182_182" id="FNanchor_182_182"></a><a href="#Footnote_182_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> In order not
to conflict with a meeting of the State Temperance Association, no
afternoon session was held, and, in return, the State Temperance
Society gave up its evening meeting to enable its members to attend
the suffrage convention.</p>

<p>Speeches were made by Henry B. Blackwell of Boston, Rev. Ellen
Gustin of Mansfield, Mary Eastman of Lowell, and others.
Resolutions were passed pledging the association not to cease its
efforts until the unjust discrimination with regard to voting is
swept away; that in the election of president, and of all officers
where the qualifications of voters are not prescribed by the State
constitution, the experiment should be tried of allowing women to
vote; that in view of the large amount of money which has been
expended in Maine for the exclusive benefit of the Boys' Industrial
School during the past twenty years, it is the prayer of the ladies
of Maine that the present legislature vote the sum asked for the
establishment of an Industrial School for girls.</p>

<p>In 1874 we find notices of other onward steps:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Editors Journal</span>: Woman's cause works slowly here, though in one
respect we have been successful. Our county school-superintendent
is a lady. She had a large majority over our other candidate, and
over two gentlemen, and she is decidedly "the right person in the
right place." She is a graduate from the normal school, the
mother of four children, a widow for some six years past, and a
lady. What more can we ask, unless, indeed, it be for a very
conscientious idea of duty? That, too, she has, and also energy,
with which she carries it out. The sterner sex admit that women
are competent to hold office. But some say we are not intelligent
enough to vote. What an appalling amount of wisdom they show in
this idea! It would be "unwomanly" in us to suggest such a word
as inconsistency.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF">M. J. M.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Fraternally,</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Cairo, Me., April, 1874.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In Searsport a woman was elected one of the two
school-superintendents of the town. The following advertisement
appears in the local newspaper:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Searsport School Notice.</span>&mdash;The superintending school-committee of
Searsport will meet to examine teachers at the town library,
April 17 and May 1, 1874, at 1 o'clock <span class="smcap">p. m.</span></p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Delia A. Curtis</span>,<br />
<span class="smcap">John Nichols</span>,<br />
<i>S. S. Com. of Searsport.</i></p>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_361" id="Page_361">[Pg 361]</a></span></p>

<p>Teachers will be expected to discountenance the use of tobacco
and intoxicating liquors, and to use their best endeavors to
impress on the minds of the children and youth committed to their
care and instruction a proper understanding of the evil tendency
of such habits; and no teacher need apply for a certificate to
teach in this town, the ensuing year, who uses either.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Delia A. Curtis.</p>


<p class="ltr-break"><span class="smcap">Dear Journal</span>: Aroostook, though occupying the extreme northeastern
portion of our good State of Maine, and still in the blush of
youth, is not behind her sister counties in recognition of woman's
fitness for office. The returns of town elections, so far as I have
yet seen, give three towns in the county which have elected
ladies<a name="FNanchor_183_183" id="FNanchor_183_183"></a><a href="#Footnote_183_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> to serve as members of the school committee.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">L. J. Y. W.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Houlton, Maine.</i></p>

</blockquote>

<p>In the autumn of 1874 the governor and council requested the
opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court on the following questions:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>First</i>&mdash;Under the constitution and laws of this State, can a
woman, if duly appointed and qualified as a justice of the peace,
legally perform all acts pertaining to that office?</p>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;Would it be competent for the legislature to authorize
the appointment of a married woman to the office of justice of
the peace; or to administer oaths, take acknowledgment of deeds
or solemnize marriages, so that the same may be legal and valid? </p></blockquote>

<p>The following responses to these inquiries were received by the
governor: the opinion of the court, drawn by Chief-justice
Appleton, and concurred in by Justices Cutting, Peters, Danforth
and Virgin; a dissenting opinion from Justices Walton and Barrows
and one from Justice Dickerson. The opinion of the court is given
below:</p>

<blockquote><p>To the questions proposed we have the honor to answer as follows:</p>

<p>Whether it is expedient that women should hold the office of
justice of the peace is not an inquiry proposed for our
consideration. It is whether, under the existing constitution,
they can be appointed to such office, and can legally discharge
its duties.</p>

<p>By the constitution of Massachusetts, of which we formerly
constituted a portion, the entire political power of that
commonwealth was vested under certain conditions, in its male
inhabitants of a prescribed age. They alone, and in the exclusion
of the other sex, as determined by its highest court of law,
could exercise the judicial function as existing and established
by that instrument.</p>

<p>By the act relating to the separation of the district of Maine
from Massachusetts, the authority to determine upon the question
of separation, and to elect delegates to meet and form a
constitution was conferred upon the "inhabitants of the several
towns, districts and plantations in the district of Maine
qualified to vote for governor or senators," thus excluding the
female sex from all participation in the formation of the
constitution, and in the organization of the government under it.
Whether the constitution should or should not be adopted, was
especially, by the organic law of its existence, submitted to the
vote of the male inhabitants of the State.</p>

<p>It thus appears that the constitution of the State was the work
of its male citizens. It was ordained, established, and ratified
by them, and by them alone; but by the power of government was
divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive
and judicial. By article VI., section 4, justices of the peace
are recognized as judicial officers.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_362" id="Page_362">[Pg 362]</a></span></p>

<p>By the constitution, the whole political power of the State is
vested in its male citizens. Whenever in any of its provisions,
reference is made to sex, it is to duties to be done and
performed by male members of the community. Nothing in the
language of the constitution or in the debates of the convention
by which it was formed, indicates any purpose whatever of any
surrender of political power by those who had previously enjoyed
it or a transfer of the same to those who had never possessed it.
Had any such design then existed, we cannot doubt that it would
have been made manifest in appropriate language. But such
intention is nowhere disclosed. Having regard then, to the rules
of the common law as to the rights of women, married and
unmarried, as then existing&mdash;to the history of the past&mdash;to the
universal and unbroken practical construction given to the
constitution of this State and to that of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts upon which that of this State was modeled, we are
led to the inevitable conclusion that it was never in the
contemplation or intention of those framing our constitution that
the offices thereby created should be filled by those who could
take no part in its original formation, and to whom no political
power was intrusted for the organization of the government then
about to be established under its provisions, or for its
continued existence and preservation when established.</p>

<p>The same process of reasoning which would sanction the conferring
judicial power on women under the constitution would authorize
the giving them executive power by making them sheriffs and
major-generals. But while the offices enacted by the constitution
are to be filled exclusively by the male members of the State, we
have no doubt that the legislature may create new ministerial
offices not enumerated therein, and if it deem expedient, may
authorize the performance of the duties of the offices so created
by persons of either sex.</p>

<p>To the <i>first</i> question proposed, we answer in the negative.</p>

<p>To the <i>second</i>, we answer that it is competent for the
legislature to authorize the appointment of married or unmarried
women to administer oaths, take acknowledgment of deeds or
solemnize marriages, so that the same shall be legal and valid.</p>



<div class="center">
<table width="80%" summary="Authors">
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">John Appleton</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">John A. Peters</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Jonas Cutting</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Wm. Wirt Virgin</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">Charles Danforth.</span></td></tr>
</table></div>

</blockquote>


<p>The dissenting opinion was as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>We, the undersigned, Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court,
concur in so much of the foregoing opinion as holds that it is
competent for the legislature to authorize the appointment of
women to administer oaths, take the acknowledgment of deeds and
solemnize marriages. But we do not concur in the conclusion that
it is not equally competent for the legislature to authorize the
appointment of women to act as justices of the peace.</p>

<p>The legislature is authorized to enact any law which it deems
reasonable and proper, provided it is not repugnant to the
constitution of this State, nor to that of the United States. A
law authorizing the appointment of women to act as justices of
the peace would not, in our judgment, be repugnant to either. We
fail to find a single word, or sentence, or clause of a sentence,
which, fairly construed, either expressly or impliedly forbids
the passage of such a law. So far as the office of justice of the
peace is concerned, there is not so much as a masculine pronoun
to hang an objection upon.</p>

<p>It is true that the right to vote is limited to males. But the
right to vote and the right to hold office are distinct matters.
Either may exist without the other. And it may be true that the
framers of the constitution did not contemplate&mdash;did not
affirmatively intend&mdash;that women should hold office. But it by no
means follows that they intended the contrary. The truth probably
is that they had no intention one way or the other; that the
matter was not even thought of. And it will be noticed that the
unconstitutionality of such a law is made to rest, not on any
expressed intention of the framers of the constitution that women
should not hold office, but upon a presumed absence of intention
that they should.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_363" id="Page_363">[Pg 363]</a></span></p>

<p>This seems to us a dangerous doctrine. It is nothing less than
holding that the legislature cannot enact a law unless it appears
affirmatively that the framers of the constitution intended that
such a law should be enacted. We cannot concur in such a
doctrine. It would put a stop to all progress. We understand the
correct rule to be the reverse of that; namely, that the
legislature may enact any law they may think proper, unless it
appears affirmatively that the framers of the constitution
intended that such a law should not be passed. And the best and
only safe rule for ascertaining the intention of the makers of
any written law, is to abide by the language which they have
used. And this is especially true of written constitutions; for
in preparing such instruments it is but reasonable to presume
that every word has been carefully weighed, and that none is
inserted and none omitted without a design for so doing. Taking
this rule for our guide we can find nothing in the constitution
of the United States, or of this State, forbidding the passage of
a law authorizing the appointment of women to act as justices of
the peace. We think such a law would be valid.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">
C. W. Walton,<br />
Wm. G. Barrows.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The right of women to hold office was affirmed in the message of
Governor Dingley, January, 1875:</p>

<blockquote><p>In response to the questions propounded by the governor and
council, a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court have
given an opinion that, under the constitution of Maine, women
cannot act as justices of the peace, nor hold any other office
mentioned in that instrument; but that it is competent for the
legislature to authorize persons of either sex to hold any
ministerial office created by statute. As there can be no valid
objection to, but on the contrary great convenience in, having
women who may be acting as clerks in public or private offices
authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgment of deeds,
I recommend the passage of an act providing for the appointment
of persons of either sex, to perform such official duties.
Indeed, if further legislation be necessary to establish that
principle, I suggest the justice and expediency of an enabling
act recognizing the eligibility of women to office in the same
manner as men; for I know of no sufficient reason why a woman,
otherwise qualified, should be excluded from any position adapted
to her tastes and acquirements, which the people may desire she
should fill. </p></blockquote>

<p>The legislature passed the bill recommended by the governor.</p>

<p>In 1875 the Constitutional Committee, by a vote of six to two,
defeated the proposition to so amend the constitution as to make
women electors under the same regulations and restrictions as men.</p>

<blockquote><p>The Maine Woman Suffrage Association held its third annual
meeting at Augusta on January 12, 1876, in the hall of the House
of Representatives, the use of which had been courteously
extended to the association. The hall and galleries were crowded
in every part with an intelligent audience, whose close attention
through all the sessions showed an earnest interest in the cause.</p>

<p>The meeting was called to order by Judge Kingsbury of Portland,
president of the association.<a name="FNanchor_184_184" id="FNanchor_184_184"></a><a href="#Footnote_184_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> Prayer was offered by Miss
Angell of Canton,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_364" id="Page_364">[Pg 364]</a></span> N. Y. Judge Kingsbury made the introductory
address. Addresses were also made by H. B. Blackwell, Miss
Eastman and Lucy Stone, showing the right and need of women in
politics, and the duty of law-makers to establish justice for
them. It was especially urged that the centennial celebration
would be only a mockery if the Fourth of July, 1876, finds this
government still doing to women what the British government did
to the colonists a hundred years ago. Rev. Mr. Gage of Lewiston
urged the right of women to vote in the interest of civilization
itself. In the perilous times upon which we have fallen in the
great experiment of self-government, some new force is needed to
check growing evils. The influence in the home is that which is
needed in legislation, and it can only be had by the ballot in
the hand of woman. Mrs. Quinby, from the Business Committee,
reported a series of resolutions. After their adoption Mrs. Abba
G. Woolson, in an earnest and forcible speech, claimed the right
of women to vote, as the final application of the theory of the
consent of the governed. She had personally noticed the good
effects of the ballot conferred upon the women in Wyoming, and
should be glad to have her native State of Maine lead in this
matter, and give an illustration of the true republic. Miss
Lorenza Haynes, who had been the day before ordained over the
Universalist Church in Hallowell, followed with a speech of
remarkable wit and brilliancy, to which no report can do justice. </p></blockquote>

<p>A writer in the <i>Woman's Journal</i> about this time said:</p>

<blockquote><p>During the early part of the session of our late legislature
woman suffrage petitions were numerously signed by the leading
men and women throughout the State receiving an earnest and
respectful consideration from the people generally, even from
those who were not quite ready to sign petitions. Consequently,
it seemed an easy matter to get a bill before the legislature,
and we were almost certain of a majority in one branch of the
House, at least, especially as it was generally understood that
our new governor favored the cause; and it is believed yet that
Governor Dingley does sympathize with it, even though he failed
to mention it in his otherwise admirable message. The petitions
were duly presented and referred to a joint committee, where the
matter was allowed to quietly drop.</p>

<p>It is neither riches, knowledge, nor culture that constitutes the
electoral qualifications, but gender and a certain implied brute
force. By this standard legislative bodies have been wont to
judge the exigency of this mighty question. More influential than
woman, though unacknowledged as such by the average legislator of
States and nations, even the insignificant lobster finds earnest
champions where woman's claims fail of recognition; which
assertion the following incident will substantiate: Being present
in the Representatives Hall in Augusta when the "lobster
question" came up for discussion (the suffrage question was then
struggling before the committee), I was struck by the air of
earnestness that pervaded the entire House on that memorable
occasion. And why not? It was a question that appealed directly
to man's appetite, and there he is always interested. After the
morning hour a dozen ready debators sprang to their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_365" id="Page_365">[Pg 365]</a></span> feet,
eloquent in advocating the rights of this important member of the
crustacean family. The discussion waxed into something like
enthusiasm, when finally an old tar exclaimed with terrific
violence: "Mr. Speaker, I insist upon it, this question must be
considered. It is a great question; one before which all others
will sink into insignificance; one of vastly more importance than
any other that will come before this honorable body during this
session!"</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Dirigo.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In closing this chapter it is fitting to mention some of our
faithful friends in Maine, whose names have not appeared in
societies and conventions as leaders or speakers, but whose
services in other ways have been highly appreciated.</p>

<p>Rockland is the home of Lucy and Lavinia Snow, who, from the
organization of the first society in 1868, have never failed to
send good words of cheer and liberal contributions to all our
National conventions. Another branch of the worthy Snow family,
from the town of Hamlin, has given us equally generous coädjutors
in Mrs. Spofford and her noble sisters in Washington.</p>

<p>As early as 1857, Mrs. Anna Greeley and Miss Charlotte Hill of
Ellsworth constituted themselves a committee to inaugurate a course
of lyceum lectures in that town, taking the entire financial
responsibility. Miss Hill was an excellent violinist and taught a
large class of boys and girls, and also played at balls and
parties, thus gaining a livelihood. Some of her patrons threatened
that if she persisted in bringing such people<a name="FNanchor_185_185" id="FNanchor_185_185"></a><a href="#Footnote_185_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a> to that town and
affiliated with them, they would no longer patronize her. "Very
well" she replied, "I shall maintain my principles, and if you
break up my classes I can go back to the sea-shore and dig clams
for a living as I have done before." Tradition says the lecture
course was a success. She continued her classes and the neighbors
danced as ever to her music.</p>

<p>Gail Hamilton, who resides in Maine at least half her time, is one
of the most brilliant and pungent American writers. In denouncing
the follies and failures of her sex, her critical pen has
indirectly aided the suffrage movement by arousing thought upon all
phases of the question as to what are the rights and duties of
woman, though she stoutly maintains that she is opposed to woman's
enfranchisement.</p>

<p>In Portland there has always been a circle of noble men and women,
steadfast friends alike of the anti-slavery, temperance and woman
suffrage movements. The names of Mr. and Mrs. Oliver Dennett, Miss.
Charlotte A. Thomas and Mrs. Ellen French<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_366" id="Page_366">[Pg 366]</a></span> Foster are worthy of
mention. That untiring reformer, the Hon. Neal Dow, has clearly
seen and declared in the later years of his labors, that suffrage
for women is the short path to the advancement of prohibition.</p>

<p>The Hon. Thomas B. Reed has done us great service in congress as
leader of the Republican party in the House, and member of the
Judiciary Committee. His report,<a name="FNanchor_186_186" id="FNanchor_186_186"></a><a href="#Footnote_186_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a> in 1884, on the submission of
the sixteenth amendment has had an extended influence. It is an
able argument, and as a keen piece of irony it is worthy the pen of
a Dean Swift. In the Senate we have a fast friend in William P.
Frye, who has always voted favorably in both houses on all
questions regarding the interests of woman. In 1878, in presenting
Miss Willard's petition of 30,000 for woman's right to vote on the
temperance question, he made an able speech recommending the
measure.<a name="FNanchor_187_187" id="FNanchor_187_187"></a><a href="#Footnote_187_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a></p>

<p>And in closing, the name of Maine's venerable statesman, Hannibal
Hamlin, so long honored by his State in a succession of official
positions from year to year, must not be forgotten. As chairman of
the Committee on the District of Columbia in 1870 he presided at
the first hearing of the National Woman Suffrage Association,
listened with respect and courtesy, and at the close introduced the
ladies to each member of the committee, and said "he had been
deeply impressed by the arguments, and was almost persuaded to
accept the new gospel of woman's equality." Mr. Hamlin's vote has
always been favorable and we have no words of his recorded in the
opposition.</p>

<p>Hon. James G. Blaine has generally maintained a dignified silence
on the question. Thus far in his History, a reviewer says, "he has
ignored the existence of woman"; but perhaps in his researches he
has not yet reached the garden of Eden, nor taken cognizance of the
part the daughters of Eve have played in the rise and fall of
mighty nations.</p>

<p>Nevertheless in our prolonged struggle of half a century for equal
rights for woman, we have found in every State the traditional ten
righteous men necessary to save its people from destruction.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_179_179" id="Footnote_179_179"></a><a href="#FNanchor_179_179"><span class="label">[179]</span></a> Signed: <i>President</i>, Benj. Kingsbury, Portland;
<i>Secretary</i>, E. R. French, S. Chesterville; <i>Treasurer</i>, William
Deering Portland; <i>ex officio</i>, Gov. Sidney Perham, Secretary of
State Geo. G. Stacy, Superintendent of Schools Warren Johnson; John
B. Nealley, S. Berwick; Nelson Dingley, jr., Lewiston; J. S.
Wheelright, Bangor; H. K. Baker, Hallowell; Mrs. C. A. L. Sampson,
Bath; Mrs. James Fernald, Portland.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_180_180" id="Footnote_180_180"></a><a href="#FNanchor_180_180"><span class="label">[180]</span></a> Ann F. Greely, Sarah Jarvis, C. B. Grant, E. E.
Tinker, A. D. Hight, M. J. Brooks, C. W. Jarvis, E. B. Jarvis,
Rebecca M. Avery.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_181_181" id="Footnote_181_181"></a><a href="#FNanchor_181_181"><span class="label">[181]</span></a> Signed by John Neal, S. T. Pickard, Mrs. Oliver
Dennet, Mrs. Eleanor Neal, Portland; J. J. Eveleth, mayor, Joshua
Nye, Chandler Beal, William H. Libbey, George W. Quinby, William P.
Whitehouse, General Selden Conner. H. H. Hamlen, H. S. Osgood, Mrs.
C. A. Quinby, Mrs. W. K. Lancey, Mrs. D. M. Waitt, Mrs. William B.
Lapham, Mrs. S. M. Barton, Augusta; Mary A. Ross and fifty others;
Rev. W. L. Brown, Mrs. E. A. Dickerson, Mrs. W. H. Burrill, Mrs. N.
Abbott, Mrs. Thomas N. Marshall, Miss A. A. Hicks, Belfast; John D.
Hopkins, Rev. William H. Savary, C. J. Peck, mayor, A. E.
Drinkwater, Mrs. Ann F. Greely, Ellsworth; Mrs. A. H. Savary and
twenty others; Mrs. M. C. Crossman, Mrs. S. D. Morison, Mrs. J.
Tillson, Mrs. Sarah J. Prentiss, Mrs. Amos Pickard, Bangor; Miss M.
Phillips and twelve others; Rev. John W. Hinds, Lewiston; Rev. T.
P. Adams, Bowdoinham; A. H. Sweetser and twenty others, Rockland;
Rev. W. H. Bolster, Wiscasset; W. T. C. Runnels, Searsport; Rev. M.
V. B. Stinson, Kittery; John U. Hubbard, Alfred Winslow, West
Waterville; Mrs. M. S. Philbrick, Skowhegan; Mrs. Simeon Conner,
Fairfield; George Gifford, Mrs. Mary W. Southwick, H. M. N. Bush,
M. A. Bush, A. E. Prescott, Vassalboro; A. R. Dunham and fourteen
others; R. C. Caldwell and eight others, Gardiner; Albert Crosby,
Mrs. S. G. Crosby, Albion; Noah F. Norton, Mercy G. Norton,
Penobscot.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_182_182" id="Footnote_182_182"></a><a href="#FNanchor_182_182"><span class="label">[182]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Benjamin Kingsbury of Portland;
<i>Secretary</i>, Miss Addie Quimby of Augusta; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. W. K.
Lancey of Augusta. Among the vice-presidents are the Hon. S. F.
Hersey of Bangor, and John Neal of Portland. An Executive Committee
was elected, which included John P. Whitehouse, Hon. Joshua Nye,
Neal Dow, jr., and other leading citizens.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_183_183" id="Footnote_183_183"></a><a href="#FNanchor_183_183"><span class="label">[183]</span></a> Miss Louisa Coffin, Dalton; Miss Annie Lincoln,
Mapleton; Miss Ada DeLaite, Littleton.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_184_184" id="Footnote_184_184"></a><a href="#FNanchor_184_184"><span class="label">[184]</span></a> The following officers were elected: <i>President</i>,
Hon. Benjamin Kingsbury of Portland; <i>Chairman Executive
Committee</i>, Hon. Joshua Nye; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mr. C. A.
Quinby, Augusta; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. W. D. Eaton, Dexter;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. W. K. Lancey, Pittsfield.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_185_185" id="Footnote_185_185"></a><a href="#FNanchor_185_185"><span class="label">[185]</span></a> Those invited were Wendell Philips, Harriet K. Hunt,
Caroline H. Dall and Susan B. Anthony.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_186_186" id="Footnote_186_186"></a><a href="#FNanchor_186_186"><span class="label">[186]</span></a> Mr. Reed's report is published in full in our annual
report, of 1884, which can be obtained of Susan B. Anthony,
Rochester, N. Y.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_187_187" id="Footnote_187_187"></a><a href="#FNanchor_187_187"><span class="label">[187]</span></a> See page <a href="#Page_104">104</a>.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_367" id="Page_367">[Pg 367]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXV" id="CHAPTER_XXXV"></a>CHAPTER XXXV.</h2>

<h3>NEW HAMPSHIRE.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Nathaniel P. Rogers&mdash;First Organized Action, 1868&mdash;Concord
Convention&mdash;William Lloyd Garrison's Letter&mdash;Rev. S. L. Blake
Opposed&mdash;Rev. Mr. Sanborn in Favor&mdash;<i>Concord Monitor</i>&mdash;Armenia S.
White&mdash;A Bill to Protect the Rights of Married Men&mdash;Minority and
Majority Reports&mdash;Women too Ignorant to Vote&mdash;Republican State
Convention&mdash;Women on School Committees&mdash;Voting at School-District
Meetings&mdash;Mrs. White's Address&mdash;Mrs. Ricker on Prison
Reform&mdash;Judicial Decision in Regard to Married Women,
1882&mdash;Letter from Senator Blair. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">A State</span> that could boast four such remarkable families as the
Rogers, the Hutchinsons, the Fosters, and the Pillsburys, all
radical, outspoken reformers, furnishes abundant reason for its
prolonged battles with the natural conservatism of ordinary
communities. Every inch of its soil except its mountain tops, where
no man could raise a school-house for a meeting, has been overrun
by the apostles of peace, temperance, anti-slavery, and woman's
rights in succession.</p>

<p>To the early influence of Nathaniel P. Rogers and his revolutionary
journal, <i>The Herald of Freedom</i>, we may trace the general
awakening of the true men and women of that State to new ideas of
individual liberty. But while some gladly accepted his words as
harbingers of a new and better civilization, others resisted all
innovations of their time-honored customs and opinions. And when
the clarion voices of Foster and Pillsbury arraigned that State for
its compromises with slavery, howling mobs answered their arguments
with brickbats and curses; mobs that nothing could quell but the
sweet voices of the Hutchinson family. Their peans of liberty, so
readily accepted when set to music, were obstinately resisted when
uttered by others, though in most eloquent speech. Thus with music,
meetings and mobs, New Hampshire was at least awake and watching,
and when the distant echoes of woman's uprising reverberated
through her mountains she gave a ready response.</p>

<p>In 1868, simultaneously with other New England States, she felt the
time had come to organize for action on the question of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_368" id="Page_368">[Pg 368]</a></span> suffrage
for women. A call for a convention was issued to be held in
Concord, December 22, 23, and signed by one hundred and twenty men
and women,<a name="FNanchor_188_188" id="FNanchor_188_188"></a><a href="#Footnote_188_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a> some of the most honored and influential classes of
all callings and professions. Nathaniel P. White, always ready to
aid genuine reformatory movements, was the first to sign the call.
As a member of the legislature he had helped to coin into law many
of the liberal ideas sown broadcast in the early days<a name="FNanchor_189_189" id="FNanchor_189_189"></a><a href="#Footnote_189_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a> by the
anti-slavery apostles. Galen Foster, a brother of Stephen, used his
influence also as a member of the legislature, to vindicate the
rights of women to civil and political equality. This first
convention was held in Eagle Hall, Concord, with large and
enthusiastic audiences. A long and interesting letter was read from
William Lloyd Garrison:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, December 21, 1868.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Mrs. White</span>: I must lose the gratification of being present
at the Woman Suffrage Convention at Concord and substitute an
epistolary testimony for a speech from the platform.</p>

<p>The two conventions recently held in furtherance of the movement
for universal and impartial suffrage&mdash;one in Boston, the other in
Providence&mdash;were eminently successful in respect to numbers,
intellectual ability, moral strength and unity of action; and
their proceedings such as to challenge attention and elicit
wide-spread commendation. I have no doubt that the convention in
Concord will exhibit the same features, be animated by the same
hopeful spirit and produce as cheering results.</p>

<p>The only criticism seemingly of a disparaging tone, I have seen,
of the speeches made at the conventions alluded to, is, that
there was nothing new advanced on the occasion; as though novelty
were the main thing, and the reiteration of time-honored truths,
with their latest application to the duties of the hour, were
simply tedious! For one, I ask no more light upon the subject;
nor am I so vain as to assume to be capable of throwing any
additional light upon it. One drop of water is very like another,
but it is the perpetual dropping that wears away the stone. The
importunate widow had nothing fresh or new to present to the
unjust judge,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_369" id="Page_369">[Pg 369]</a></span> but by her persistent coming she wearied him into
compliance with her petition. The end of the constant assertion
of a right withheld is restitution and victory. The whole
anti-slavery controversy was expressed and included in the Golden
Rule, morally, and in the Declaration of Independence,
politically; nor could anything new be added to these by the
wisest, the most ingenious, or the most eloquent. "Line upon
line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little";
that is the essential method of reform. If there is nothing new
to be said in favor of suffrage for women, is there anything new
to be urged against it? But though the objections are exceedingly
trite and shallow, it is still necessary to examine and refute
them by arguments and illustrations none the less forcible
because exhausted at an earlier period.</p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 366px;">
<a name="v3_369" id="v3_369">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_369.jpg" width="366" height="500" alt="Armenia S. White" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>The first objection is positively one of the most urgent reasons
for granting suffrage to women; for it is predicated on the
concession of the superiority of woman over man in purity of
purpose and excellence of character. Hence the cry is, that it
will not only be descending, but degrading for her to appear at
the polls. But, if government is absolutely necessary, and voting
not wrong in practice, it is surely desirable that the admittedly
purest and best in the nation should find no obstacle to their
reaching the ballot-box. Nay, the way should be opened at once,
by every consideration pertaining to the public welfare, the
justice of legislation, the preservation of popular liberty. It
is impossible for a portion of the people, to be wiser and more
trustworthy than the whole people, or better qualified to decide
what shall be the laws for the government of all. The more minds
consulted, the more souls included, the more interests at stake,
in determining the form and administration of government, the
more of justice and humanity, of security and repose, will be the
result. The exclusion of half the population from the polls, is
not merely a gross injustice, but an immense loss of brain and
conscience, in making up the public judgment. As a nation we have
discarded absolutism, monarchy, and hereditary aristocracy; but
we have not fully attained even to manhood suffrage. Men are
proscribed on account of their complexion, women because of their
sex. The entire body politic suffers from this proscription.</p>

<p>The second objection refutes the first; it is based on the
alleged natural inferiority of woman to man, and the transition
is thus quickly made for her, from a semi-angelic state, to that
of a menial, having no rights that men are bound to respect
beyond what they choose to allow. In the scale of political
power, therefore, one male voter, however ignorant or depraved,
outweighs all the women in America! For, no matter how
intelligent, cultured, refined, wealthy, intellectually vigorous,
or morally great, any of their number may be,&mdash;no matter what
rank in literature, art, science, or medical knowledge and skill
they may reach,&mdash;they are political non-entities, unrepresented,
discarded, and left to such protection under the laws, as brute
force and absolute usurpation may graciously condescend to give.
Yet they are as freely taxed and held amendable to penal law as
strictly as though they had their full share of representation in
the legislative hall, on the bench, in the jury-box, and at the
polls. This<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_370" id="Page_370">[Pg 370]</a></span> cry of inferiority is not peculiar in the case of
woman. It was the subterfuge and defiance of negro slavery. It
has been raised in all ages by tyrants and usurpers against the
toiling, over-burdened millions, seeking redress for their
wrongs, and protection for their rights. It always indicates
intense self-conceit, and supreme selfishness. It is at war with
reason and common-sense, and is a bold denial of the oneness of
the human race.</p>

<p>The third objection is, that women do not wish to vote. If this
were true, it would not follow that they should not be
enfranchised, and left free to determine the matter for
themselves. It was confidently declared that the slaves at the
south neither wished to be free, nor would they take their
liberty if offered them by their masters. Had that assertion been
true, it would have furnished no justification whatever, for
making man the property of his fellow-man, or for leaving the
slaves in their fetters. But it was not true. Nor is it true that
women do not wish to vote. Tens of thousands are ready to go to
the polls and assume their share of political responsibility, as
soon as they shall be legally permitted to do so; and they are
not the ignorant and degraded of their sex, but women remarkable
for their intelligence and moral worth. The great mass will, ere
long, be sufficiently enlightened to claim what belongs to them
of right. I hope to be permitted to live to see the day when
neither complexion nor sex shall be made a badge of degradation,
but men and women shall enjoy the same rights and privileges, and
possess the same means for their protection and defense.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Wm. Lloyd Garrison.</span></p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very faithfully yours,</p>
<p class="ltr-to">Mrs. <span class="smcap">A. S. White</span>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>At the close of this convention a State association was formed with
Mrs. Armenia S. White president.<a name="FNanchor_190_190" id="FNanchor_190_190"></a><a href="#Footnote_190_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> This society has been
unremitting in its efforts to rouse popular thought, holding annual
conventions, scattering tracts, rolling up petitions, and
addressing legislatures. Many of the best speakers, from time to
time, from other States<a name="FNanchor_191_191" id="FNanchor_191_191"></a><a href="#Footnote_191_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> have rendered valuable aid in keeping
up the agitation.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_371" id="Page_371">[Pg 371]</a></span></p>

<p>The opposition of a clergyman produced a sensation in Concord.</p>

<blockquote><p>On last fast-day, 1871, Rev. S.L. Blake of the Congregational
church in Concord, preached a sermon in which he came out against
the woman's rights convention held there last January, bringing
the stale charge of "free-love" against its advocates&mdash;a charge
that always leaps to the lips of men of prurient
imagination&mdash;with much similar clap-trap of the Fulton type. Rev.
Mr. Sanborn of the Universalist church replied to him the next
Sunday evening, an immense audience being in attendance, and
completely disproved the baseless allegations of the reverend
maligner, to the satisfaction of all. Rev. Mr. Blake has
published his discourse in pamphlet form, repeating his disproved
charges, whereupon Rev. J.F. Lovering of the Unitarian church
came out with a reply, in which he characterized Mr. Blake's
charges as "unmitigated falsehoods" and "an insult to every
member of the convention," and demanded of the author to "unsay
his words." </p></blockquote>

<p>Brainard Cogswell, in his journal, the <i>Concord Monitor</i>, of July
2, 1870, published the following letter:</p>

<blockquote><p>Petitions for woman's enfranchisement have been pouring into the
New Hampshire legislature, until at last they have been referred
to a special committee. On Thursday week this committee gave the
petitioners a hearing; and on their invitation, Mrs. Julia Ward
Howe, Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill and ourself went to Concord to
give "the reasons why" women should have the ballot. The members
of the legislature came out in force to hear, and our good, tried
friends, Nathaniel and Armenia White, learning their intention in
advance, opened the spacious Eagle Hall for their convenience,
and that of the towns-people who wished to see and to hear. Warm
as the evening was, the thermometer up in the nineties, the hall
was packed, and great numbers went away that could not gain
admittance. Rev. Mr. Blake, a Congregationalist minister of
Concord, has done the cause good service by vilifying and abusing
it, until he roused quite an interest. It was partly owing to his
efforts that we had so grand an audience.</p>

<p>General Wilson, who twenty years ago was famed throughout New
Hampshire for his eloquence and oratory, was chairman of the
committee, and presided at the meeting, and very handsomely
introduced the speakers. Mrs. Howe spoke with more pointed and
pungent power than usual, dwelling on the deterioration of
American womanhood, showing the cause, and suggesting the remedy.
We have never been so impressed by her as on this occasion. Mrs.
Churchill read a letter from Rev. Mr. Savage, a Congregationalist
clergyman of the State, who advocates woman suffrage, and who, in
a late ministerial gathering, took up the gauntlet thrown down by
Mr. Blake, and defended the woman's cause and its advocates from
the slanders of his brother minister. </p></blockquote>

<p>The president of the New Hampshire association, in writing from
Concord to the <i>Woman's Journal</i>, January 30, 1871, says:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_372" id="Page_372">[Pg 372]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>Our second annual meeting was a grand success, if we count by
money and numbers. The intense cold on Wednesday and Thursday
made our audiences thinner than heretofore, but they were large
in spite of the elements, Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Emma Coe Still,
who had never presented the subject here before, were well
received. Rev. Dr. Savage of Franklin made an excellent address,
and encouraged us by timely suggestions. Stephen S. Foster
aroused us, as he always does, with his bold declarations. The
resolutions adopted look toward future work, and embody the
principles which move us to act. </p></blockquote>

<p>Lucy Stone, in the <i>Woman's Journal</i> of June 14, 1871, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Select Committee, Harry Bingham, chairman, to whom was
referred a bill for the further protection of the rights of
married men, reported the bill in a new draft as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>Marriages shall not hereafter render the husband liable for the
debts contracted by his wife prior to their marriage: <i>Second
section</i>&mdash;No marriage shall hereafter discharge the wife from
liability to pay the debts contracted by her before such
marriage, but she, and all property which she may hold in her own
right, shall be held liable for the payment of all debts, whether
contracted before or after marriage; in the same manner as if she
continued sole and unmarried. </p></blockquote>

<p>This report was signed by eight of the ten members of the
committee. The minority, through Mr. Sprague of Swanzey, made a
report recommending that the whole subject be postponed to the time
when women in New Hampshire have the right to vote. Mr. Sprague
moved that the minority report be substituted for the majority, but
the motion was lost by an almost unanimous vote. The majority
report was sustained in remarks by Messrs. Wadleigh of Milford and
Cogswell of Gilman. The latter, hard pushed by an interrogatory
concerning his social status, admitted that he was not married, but
intended to be soon. The bill reported by the majority was then
ordered to a second reading.</p>

<p>If this action should be sustained by the legislature, we can
imagine some future suitor for a lady's hand telling her that he
shall expect her duly to keep his house and his wardrobe in order,
to prepare his meals, to entertain his visitors, to bear his
children, and that she will be required by law to pay her own
bills; that for this inestimable privilege she shall be called Mrs.
John Snooks, and may, perhaps, have the honor of being written in
the newspapers, and on her tombstone, as the relic of Mr. John
Snooks. Could any woman withstand that? </p></blockquote>

<p>The following statistics have been used by speakers in the
opposition, to show that women are too ignorant to vote:</p>

<blockquote><p>A decided sensation has been produced throughout the country by
the publication in the third number of the "Transactions of the
American Social Science Association" of statistics concerning the
illiteracy of women in the United States. The subject has
received very general discussion, and these are the conclusions
reached:</p>

<blockquote><p>1. That there is a large excess of female illiteracy. 2. That
from 1850 to 1860 there was an increase of illiterate women to
the extent of 53 per cent. in New Hampshire, 27 in Vermont, 24 in
Massachusetts, 33 in Rhode Island, 16 in Connecticut, 37<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_373" id="Page_373">[Pg 373]</a></span> in the
District of Columbia, 33 in Wisconsin and 32 in Minnesota. 3.
That this state of things is alarming, and ought to be remedied. </p></blockquote>

<p>When the London <i>Saturday Review</i> raised the cry of alcoholic
drunkenness among women, the conservative journals all over the
world swelled the sound and confirmed the charges. Now that that
story has run itself to death, a new assault is projected, and a
general clamor concerning their illiteracy follows. If the charges
are true, there is nothing very astonishing about them. The
education of women has been considered a matter of secondary
importance until very recently, and with our foreign population the
education of girls has been almost wholly neglected. When the
customs and usages of the world have made ignorance largely
compulsory in women, it is somewhat inconsistent in men to go into
spasms about the results. </p></blockquote>

<p>January 17, 1874, at the Republican State convention, Mayor Briggs
of Manchester, on taking the chair, made a speech, rehearsing the
history of the party and laying out its programme for the future,
closing as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Republican party has future duties. Its mission cannot end
and its work should not, so long as any radical reform shall yet
urge its demands in behalf of humanity. The civil service reform
is eminent and important. In this regard the movement of the
present administration is in the right direction, and yet it is
only a first step of many which must ultimately be taken. To the
people, not to a part of the people, belongs the sovereignty of
this nation. Let them keep it. To this end great care should be
taken to guard against the caucus system. Nothing should be more
scrupulously avoided in the management of political parties.
Anti-republican in spirit, it is sometimes exclusive in practice.
The people have the same right to nominate that they have to
elect their own officers. Why not? Ultimately, too, they will
take that right, and for its own sake no party can afford to make
itself the nursery of caucus power. The political machinery
should be simplified, that nothing which mere politicians can
desire shall stand between the people and their government. In a
genuine republic, every act of the government should be but a
practical expression of its subjects. All the subjects, too,
should share equally the power of such expression. There should
be no exclusion among intelligent, qualified classes. Involved in
this principle is the idea of woman suffrage, the next great
moral issue, in my judgment, which this country must meet, and a
reform which no party can afford to despise. Indubitably right,
as I believe it to be, I regard its success as inevitable, and
that whatever party opposes it is as surely destined to defeat,
as was the party which arrayed itself in opposition to the
anti-slavery cause. </p></blockquote>

<p>The following letter in the <i>Woman's Journal</i> shows that something
of the spirit of the Connecticut Smith-sisters has been found in
New Hampshire:</p>

<blockquote><p>I have long felt a deep interest in the subject of woman's
rights, and some fifteen years ago I resisted taxation two
successive years. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_374" id="Page_374">[Pg 374]</a></span> second year I worked out my highway tax,
for which crime I brought down upon my guilty head a severe
persecution from both men and women, from clergymen and lawyers,
as well as other classes of my fellow townsmen. The
tax-collectors came into my house and attached furniture and sold
it at auction in order to collect my tax, one of whom made me all
the cost the laws would allow. The most incensed town officers
threatened that if I resisted taxation the next year, they would
take my house from me and sell it at auction. One of the
tax-gatherers asked me what I thought I could do alone in
resisting taxation. He said he did not believe there was another
woman in the State of New Hampshire who possessed the hardihood
to take such a stand against the laws. The editor of one of our
weekly journals, who professed to be an advocate of woman's
rights, and who was a candidate for representative in the State
legislature, condemned me through the columns of his paper, in
order to secure the votes of his fellow townsmen who were opposed
to woman's rights. He had nothing to fear from me, knowing that I
was only a disfranchised slave. Such unjust treatment seemed so
cruel that I sometimes felt I could willingly lay down my life,
if it would deliver my sex from such degrading oppression. I
have, every year since, submissively paid my taxes, humbly hoping
and praying that I may live to see the day that women will not be
compelled to pay taxes without representation.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Mary L. Harrington.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Claremont, N. H., January 17, 1874.</i></p>
</blockquote>


<p>In 1870 a law was passed allowing women to be members of school
committees; and eight years later a law was enacted permitting
women to vote at school meetings. On the evening of August 7, 1878,
the House Special Committee granted a hearing to the friends<a name="FNanchor_192_192" id="FNanchor_192_192"></a><a href="#Footnote_192_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a>
of the School-suffrage bill, which had already passed the Senate by
a unanimous vote; and the next day, when the bill came up for final
action in the House, the following debate occurred:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Batchelder</span> of Littleton said: This bill is one of the
greatest importance, and before we vote upon it let us have the
views of the committee.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Galen Foster</span> of Canterbury called upon Mr. Blodgett to give
his opinion as to the power of the legislature upon the question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Blodgett</span> of Franklin said he had no doubt of the
constitutionality of the bill. School districts were created by
statute and not by the constitution; hence the legislature had a
perfect right to say who should vote in controlling their
affairs.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Foster</span> said: The mothers of our children should have a voice
in their education. We have allowed women to hold certain offices
in connection with schools, but we have never given them a voice
in the control of the money expended upon them. The mothers take
ten times<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_375" id="Page_375">[Pg 375]</a></span> more interest in the education of the young than the
fathers do, and should have an equal voice in the affairs of the
school districts. This is a matter of right and justice.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sinclair</span> of Bethlehem said: There ought not to be any
objection to this bill. If there is any class that ought to have
a voice in the education of children, it is the mothers.
[Applause.] Some of the best school committees in the State are
women. If they can be elected to that office, is it proper to say
they shall have no voice in the elections?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Whicher</span> of Strafford thought they would get a little mixed in
carrying out the provisions of this bill, in the face of the
statutes relating to school-district meetings. He would move to
indefinitely postpone the bill.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Mosher</span> of Dover said: There ought to be a new motion gotten
up; to "indefinitely postpone" is getting to be stereotyped. This
bill needs no further championing. Its justice is apparent.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Hobbs</span> of Ossippee said: If women are capable of holding
office they are also capable of saying who shall hold it.
[Applause.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Patten</span> of Manchester favored the bill and hoped the motion of
Mr. Whicher would be voted down.</p>

<p>The <span class="smcap">Speaker</span> [Mr. <span class="smcap">Woolson</span> of Lisbon] said: The bill had passed the
Senate unanimously, been reported unanimously by the committee,
and he hoped it would be passed promptly by the House.
[Applause.]</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Patterson</span> of Hanover said he would congratulate the gentleman
from Bethlehem on being orthodox on this question.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sinclair</span> congratulated his friend from Hanover on his display
of courage in waiting until the ice was broken all round before
making a forward step. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. Whicher withdrew his motion to postpone and then moved to lay
the bill upon the table. This being lost, the bill was passed,
August 8, 1878. Mrs. White, the president of the State association,
in a letter to a friend, wrote as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>To our surprise and delight the bill allowing women to vote at
school-district meetings passed the House yesterday amid much
cheering and clapping of hands, the ladies in the gallery joining
in the demonstration. Thus conservative New Hampshire leads New
England in this branch of reform for women. </p></blockquote>

<p>The governor, B. F. Prescott, signed the bill without delay and
words of cheer poured into the capital city from all quarters;
especially were Mr. and Mrs. White congratulated upon this good
result of their earnest and persistent labors. The following is
from the <i>Woman's Journal</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>At the first election at the State capital of New Hampshire under
the new law allowing women to vote on school questions, the
result was a wonderfully full vote, not less than 2,160 ballots
being cast, of which over half were deposited by women. The
Boston <i>Investigator</i>, from which we gather these facts, says: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_376" id="Page_376">[Pg 376]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>The balloting extended over three meetings and the number of
women who participated was almost exactly doubled on the second
and third evenings&mdash;150, 299, 662. Another interesting feature of
this election was the fact that the sexes did not rally to the
support of opposing tickets, but men and women divided their
votes very evenly. A ticket bearing the names of two men was
elected by a narrow majority over another which bore the names of
a man and woman. </p></blockquote>

<p>Of the first evening's election the telegraphic dispatch to the
<i>Boston Globe</i> was headed, "Crowds of Women Voting in New
Hampshire":</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Concord</span>, N. H., March 22.&mdash;The occasion of the annual meeting of
the Union-school district of this city, which comprises all of
the city proper, this evening, was one of unprecedented interest.
For months school matters have been sharply agitated and the
election has been looked forward to as an opportunity by all
parties. To the uncommon interest centered in the matter the
right of women to vote at school meetings, delegated by the last
session of the legislature, greatly added. The new condition of
affairs had been fully canvassed and the women had determined on
making the best of their first opportunity and winning a decisive
victory if possible. The night of the meeting proved
inauspicious, but notwithstanding the severe storm of snow and
sleet that was falling the newly constituted citizens were out in
force. At the hour of opening the meeting the City Hall was
packed to suffocation, 500 of the audience, at least, being
ladies. The first business was the choice of a moderator, and in
this the ladies may claim a victory, as the candidate a majority
of them supported was elected in the person of ex-mayor John
Kimball. After this came the reading of the report of the board
of education, which was strenuously objected to by the male
supporters of the ladies. In this they were beaten by a large
majority. The reading completed, the meeting commenced to ballot
for three members of the board. The scene then became one beyond
the power of the reportorial pen to describe. It was an
old-fashioned New Hampshire town-meeting, with the concomitant
boisterousness and profanity subdued by the presence of the
ladies. A line was formed to the polls and a struggling mass of
humanity in which male and female citizens were incongruously and
indecorously mixed, surged towards the ballot-box. The crowding,
squeezing and pushing were severe enough for the taste of the
masculine voter, and were harsh enough to make it extremely
unpleasant for the dear creatures who were undergoing so much to
cast their maiden vote. To add to the delay the Hon. Nathaniel
White had planted his somewhat corpulent form directly in front
of the ballot-box and stayed the surging tide to shake hands with
every woman that voted. Having voted, the men were only too glad
to leave the crowded hall and let the anxious crowd rush in. The
vote was at last all in, and the work of counting completed
shortly before 11 o'clock. It was found that there were some ten
different tickets in the field, and forty-two candidates voted
for; but from this mass of votes there was no choice, though the
regular candidates, the outgoing members of the board, who would
have been elected had it not been for the new element in the
election, were ahead, having a plurality. The meeting was then
adjourned till next Saturday evening, when the scenes of to-night
will be intensified by a larger attendance and still greater
interest. The meeting to-night obtains importance in New
Hampshire, as this is the center of female suffrage sentiment in
this State, and the women are determined to win here if possible. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>In the opening convention of November 5, 1879, Mrs. White, the
president, made the following address:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends of the N. H. Woman Suffrage
Association</i>: We hold the seventh meeting of this association
under circumstances that mark an epoch in the progress of equal
rights, irrespective of sex, in this State. After more than a
decade of agitation, and petitioning of our legislature, women
hold in their hand the ballot on one important<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_377" id="Page_377">[Pg 377]</a></span> matter. Let us
exchange congratulations on this occasion, that so much has been
gained toward the final triumph of our cause.</p>

<p>You will remember when this association was last in session,
July, 1878, that the bill giving the women of New Hampshire the
right to vote on the public-school questions, was pending in our
legislature. At our first hearing before that body, we hardly
dared anticipate the passage of the bill during that session. But
agitation, vigilance and perseverance ever bring their sure
reward in the end, therefore we continued to press our claim, and
soon learned to our great satisfaction that our allies in behalf
of this bill, were the very <i>cream</i> of our legislature. We at
once took courage, and as day after day we went up to the
state-house, with friends who plead for it before the committee,
who kindly gave us several hearings; we saw the gradual growth of
interest in behalf of this bill soon ripen into a final decision
causing it to pass; thereby enacting a law, to which our worthy
governor, B. F. Prescott, immediately gave his willing signature,
securing to the women of this State the high privilege many of
them gladly exercised last spring. Many feared this law would be
repealed; but to show with what favor it has been received, we
have only to refer to the legislature of the present year, which
passed an additional law, giving to women not only the right to
vote for and serve on school boards, but also the power to serve
as moderator or clerk in school meetings, for which the former
law did not provide. This, it would seem must remove all fears of
a repeal.</p>

<p>Petitions asking municipal suffrage for women, were sent to our
last legislature, and a bill to that effect, introduced in the
House, was referred to a special committee, who reported in its
favor: and after more or less discussion, although the bill did
not pass, about one hundred members voted for it, and their names
are registered, and with the committee, will be kindly remembered
by those women whose cause they did not desert. From past
experience we see the importance of continued labor and proper
measures for the accomplishment of our work. The present degree
of progress indicates the fact that we are not to obtain the full
recognition of our rights at one bound, but that they are coming
step by step. To note the growth of our principles in the various
reform movements, let us look at the temperance organizations
throughout the length and breadth of this country; we find nearly
all of them now discussing the ballot for women. Why, no sooner
had Massachusetts, following the example of New Hampshire,
obtained the school ballot for women, than the Woman's Christian
Temperance Unions all over the State were a unit for the
temperance ballot, and the past year have had their agents
canvassing the State in the interest of school suffrage and "home
protection."</p>

<p>All who read the reports last winter of Frances E. Willard's
labors in Illinois in behalf of her Home Protection bill (for it
originated with her), of the list of petitioners of both sexes
she secured and took to Springfield, of the delegation of women
who accompanied her there to advocate her bill, must acknowledge
the educating force of all such untiring devotion for the right
to vote. Although she was not victorious, she was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_378" id="Page_378">[Pg 378]</a></span> successful
beyond all expectation, for it is said, "Success is not always a
victory, nor is victory always a success in the end." Let me say
here, Miss Willard believes in the entire enfranchisement of her
sex, but in her earnest and faithful labors makes a specialty of
the temperance ballot.</p>

<p>At the annual meeting of the New Hampshire Woman's Christian
Temperance Union, held here one year ago, a resolution was
offered by a most worthy lady, indorsing suffrage for women on
all temperance questions. It was at once vigorously opposed by
some, while others, although believing in it, feared it would
divide their ranks if it passed, and felt too timid to give it
their support. The lady offering it, seeing it would be defeated,
withdrew it, at the same time giving notice that she should
present the same, or one similar, to that body every year as long
as she lived, or until it passed. Last month the same
organization held its annual meeting in Portsmouth, and that
lady, as good as her word, was there with her resolution on
temperance suffrage, and it passed unanimously, about 100
delegates being present and voting, many of whom acknowledged the
timidity they felt last year, but now earnestly gave it their
support. Such experiences give us some idea of the different
instrumentalities by which our cause is forced upon conservative
minds for consideration, ending in honest conviction.</p>

<p>In closing, I know you will all unite with me in tributes to Mr.
Garrison. Now that he has gone to join that innumerable host of
philanthropists in the higher life, let us rejoice that he was
one of the leaders of that reform which brings us here to-day.
And now, friends, in view of the present status of our cause,
have we not much to encourage us in our work? May we go forward
in that spirit of good-will that shall bring us a speedy victory. </p></blockquote>

<p>Resolutions of respect to the memory of Mrs. Abby P. Ela, William
Lloyd Garrison and Angelina Grimké Weld were adopted by a rising
vote.</p>

<p>In the <i>National Citizen</i> of December 14, 1879, we find the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Marilla M. Ricker of New Hampshire had an executive hearing
before the governor and council of that State, November 18, in
regard to the management of the State prison. Mrs. Ricker, who in
winter practices law in Washington, and is known as "the
prisoner's friend," referred to the cruel treatment of convicts
in various States, notably in New Hampshire, where prisoners are
not permitted to read the magazines or the weekly newspapers
which contain no record of crime, nor to receive words from their
friends, as in other States they are allowed at stated times to
do. When Mrs. Ricker desired to see a certain prisoner and let
him know he had friends who were yet mindful of his comfort, the
warden replied that he did not wish that man "to think he had a
friend in the world." Mrs. Ricker warmly protested against such
brutality. The attorney-general agreed with Mrs. Ricker,
remarking that the line between crimes punished and those not
punished, and the lines between those in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_379" id="Page_379">[Pg 379]</a></span> prison and those
outside who ought to be there, were so dim and shadowy that great
care should be exercised in order to secure just and humane
treatment for prisoners. Mrs. Ricker's remarks were earnest and
dignified, and were listened to with the closest attention by the
governor and his official advisers. At the close of the hearing
the governor referred the subject to the special prison committee
of the council, directing its members to procure all possible
information as to the management of penitentiaries in other
States, and report at the next meeting. Through Mrs. Ricker's
influence the last legislature passed an act providing that any
convict may send sealed letters to the governor or council
without their being read by the warden. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1882 a judicial decision in New Hampshire recognized the advance
legislation of that State in regard to the position of married
women. This decision shows that they are no longer under the shadow
of the old common law, but now hold equal dignity and power as
individuals and joint heads in family life. The "divinely ordained
head," with absolute control in the home, to rule according to his
will and pleasure, is at last ruled out of the courts altogether,
as the following case illustrates:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Harris and her husband sued Mrs. Webster and her husband for
slanders uttered by Mrs. Webster against Mrs. Harris. The suit
was brought on the old theory that the legal personality of the
wife is merged in that of her husband; that she is under his
control, his chattel, his ox, and therefore he is responsible for
her trespasses as for those of his other domestic cattle. The
Court held that the wife is no longer an "ox" or "chattel," but a
person responsible for her acts, and that her innocent husband
could not be held responsible for her wrong. In rendering the
decision in this case, Judge Foster further said: "It is no
longer possible to say that in New Hampshire a married woman is a
household slave or a chattel, or that in New Hampshire the
conjugal unity is represented solely by the husband. By custom
and by statute the wife is now joint master of the household, and
not a slave or a servant. The rule now is that her legal
existence is not suspended. So practically has the ancient unity
become dissevered and dissolved that the wife may not only have
her separate property, contracts, debts, wages, and causes of
separate action growing out of a violation of her personal
rights, but she may enter into legal contract with her husband
and enforce it by suit against him." </p></blockquote>

<p>The writer of the following letter is a successful farmer,
remarkable for her executive ability in all the practical affairs
of life, as well as for her broad philanthropy. One year she sent,
as a contribution to our Washington convention, a tub of butter
holding about sixty pounds, which was sold on the platform and the
proceeds put into the treasury of the National Association:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_380" id="Page_380">[Pg 380]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><i>Dear Friends assembled in the Washington Convention:</i></p>

<p>Last week our new town-house was dedicated. The women accompanied
their husbands. One man spoke in favor of woman suffrage&mdash;said it
was "surely coming." In this town, at the Corners, for several
years they tried to get a graded school, but the men voted it
down. After the women had the school-suffrage, one lady, who had
a large family and did not wish to send her children away from
home, rallied all the women of the Corners, carried the vote, and
they now have a good graded school. Our village is moving down,
that the boys and girls may have the benefit of the good school
there. I think the women who have been indifferent and not
availed themselves of their small voting privilege, by which we
might have established the same class of school in our village,
will now regret their negligence, at least every time they have
to send three miles for a doctor. Thus, stupid people, blind to
their own interest, punish themselves. I regret not being able to
send a fuller report of the good that woman's use of the ballot,
in a limited form, has done for us in this State. The voting in
the town-hall is the "infant school" for women in the use of the
ballot. Thanking the ladies all for meeting at the capital of the
nation, and regretting not to be counted among the number, I am,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Mary A. P. Filley</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours sincerely,</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>North Haverill, January 5, 1884.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p>In closing this chapter some mention should be made of the
invaluable services of Senator Blair,<a name="FNanchor_193_193" id="FNanchor_193_193"></a><a href="#Footnote_193_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a> who, in his place, has
always nobly defended the rights of women. He was a member of the
first special committee ever appointed to look after the interests
of women in the United States Senate. The leaders of the movement
in that State claim that they helped to place Senator Blair in his
present position by defeating his predecessor, Mr. Wadleigh, who
was hostile to the enfranchisement of women.</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">United States Senate, Washington, D. C.</span>, March 5, 1884.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony</span>: I had the honor duly to receive your
invitation to address the National Association during its
sessions in this city, for which I heartily thank you; but the
pressure of duties in the Senate, service upon committees being
just now specially exacting, makes it impossible for me to
accept.</p>

<p>I trust that I need not assure you of my full belief that woman
has the right and ought to have the privilege to vote. Whenever a
fundamental right exists both public and individual welfare are
promoted by its exercise and injured by its suppression. The
exercise of rights is only another name for the discharge of
duties, and the denial of the suffrage to an adult human being,
not deprived of it for mental or penal disability, is an
intolerable wrong. Such denial is not only a deprivation of right
to the individual, but it is an injury to the State, which is
only well governed when controlled by the conflicting opinions,
sentiments and interests of the whole, harmonized in the
ballot-box, and, by its fiat, elevated to the functions<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_381" id="Page_381">[Pg 381]</a></span> of law.
But you have no occasion for expression of theoretical views from
me.</p>

<p>If I may be pardoned a suggestion, it would be the specification
to the public mind of the practical uses and benefits which would
result from the exercise of the suffrage by women. Men are not
conscious that women lack the practical protection of the laws or
the comforts and conveniences of material and social relations
more than themselves. The possession of the ballot as a practical
means of securing happiness does not appear to the masses to be
necessary to women in our country. Men say: "We do the best we
can for our wives and children and relatives. They are as well
off as we." In a certain sense this appears to be true. The other
and higher truth is that woman suffrage is necessary in order
that society may advance. The natural conservatism of an existing
order of things will not give way to a new factor in the control
of affairs, until it has been shown in what way enlightened
selfishness may hope for good to society if the change be made.
Here it seems to me that the convention may now strike a blow
more powerful than for many years. Society has not so labored
with the great problems which concern its own salvation for
generations.</p>

<p>What would woman do with the ballot if she had it? What for
education? What for sobriety? What for social purity? What for
equalizing the conditions and the rewards of labor&mdash;the labor of
her own sex first&mdash;and towards a just division of production
among all members of the community? What for the removal, or for
the amelioration when removal is impossible, of hunger, cold,
disease and degradation, from the daily lives of human beings?
What could and what <i>would</i> woman do with the ballot which is not
now as well done by man alone, to improve the conditions which
envelope individual existence as with bands of iron? What good
things&mdash;state them <i>seriatim</i>, as the lawyers say&mdash;could woman do
in New Hampshire and in New York city, and ultimately among the
savage tribes of the earth, which she cannot do as well without
as with the suffrage? Would woman by her suffrage even <i>help</i> to
remove illiteracy from Louisiana, intemperance from New England,
and stop society from committing murder by the tenement-house
abuses of New York? Let the convention specify what practical
good woman will try to achieve with her God-given rights,
provided that men will permit her to enjoy them. Show us wherein
you will do <i>us</i> good if we will rob you no longer. It might
influence us greatly. Why should we do right for nothing? In
fact, unless you show that the exercise of your alleged right
will be useful, can you logically conclude that you have any? We
must have proof that the experiment will not fail before we will
even try it. You must connect the ballot with progress and reform
and convince men that they, as well as women, will be better off
for its possession by the whole of the adult community rather
than only by a part. Theories may be true, but they are seldom
reduced to practice by society unless it can be clearly seen that
their adoption will heal some hurt or introduce some broad and
general good.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_382" id="Page_382">[Pg 382]</a></span></p>

<p>The increasing discussion of industrial, educational, sanitary,
and social questions generally, indicates the domain of argument
and effort where victories for the advocates of enlarged suffrage
are most likely, and I think are sure to be won. Woman should
study specially what is called, for the want of a better term,
the labor problem&mdash;a problem which includes in its scope almost
everything important to everybody. I know this is an unnecessary
suggestion, for it is just what you are doing. I only write it
because repetition of the important is better than to recite
platitudes or even to quote the declaration. I believe in your
success because I believe in justice and in the advancement of
mankind.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Henry W. Blair</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully, your obedient servant,</p>

</blockquote>



<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_188_188" id="Footnote_188_188"></a><a href="#FNanchor_188_188"><span class="label">[188]</span></a> <i>Concord</i>, Nathaniel P. White, Mrs. Sarah Pillsbury,
Rev. J. F. Lovering, P. B. Cogswell, Mrs. Eliza Morrill, Mrs.
Louisa W. Wood, Col. James E. Larkin, Mrs. J. F. Lovering, Charles
S. Piper, Mrs. Armenia S. White, Mrs. M. M. Smith, Mrs. F. E.
Kittredge, Mrs. Sarah Piper, Mrs. Ira Abbott, Mrs. L. M. Bust, Dr.
A. Morrill, Mrs. P. Ladd, Mrs. R. A. Smith, George W. Brown, Mr.
and Mrs. J. V. Aldrich, Mr. and Mrs. M. B. Smith, Mrs. T. H. Brown,
Mrs. R. Hatch, Mrs. J. L. Crawford, Mrs. Anna Dumas, Miss Harriet
C. Edmunds, Miss Salina Stevens, Miss Mary A. Denning, Miss N. E.
Fessender, Miss M. L. Noyes, Miss Clara Noyes, James H. Chase,
Peter Sanborn; <i>Lancaster</i>, Rev. J. M. L. Babcock; <i>Rochester</i>,
Mrs. Abby P. Ela; <i>Bradford</i>, Mrs. L. A. T. Lane, Miss M. J.
Tappan; <i>Laconia</i>, Rev. J. L. Gorman, William M. Blair;
<i>Manchester</i>, Dr. M. O. A. Hunt; <i>Plymouth</i>, Hon. D. R. Burnham;
<i>Portsmouth</i>, Hon. A. W. Haven; <i>Canterbury</i>, Mr. and Mrs. D. M.
Clough; <i>Lebanon</i>, A. M. Shaw; <i>Keene</i>, Col. and Mrs. Wilson;
<i>Grafton</i>, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kimball; <i>Northfield</i>, Mrs. D. E.
Hill; <i>Franklin</i>, Rev. Wm. T. Savage; <i>Canaan</i>, William W. George;
<i>Littleton</i>, R. D. Runneville.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_189_189" id="Footnote_189_189"></a><a href="#FNanchor_189_189"><span class="label">[189]</span></a> They had their influence in the church as well as
the State, as the following item in <i>The Revolution</i>, July 16,
1868, shows: "The New Hampshire convention of Universalists, at
their late anniversary, adopted unanimously a resolution in favor
of woman's elevation to entire equality with man in every civil,
political and religious right."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_190_190" id="Footnote_190_190"></a><a href="#FNanchor_190_190"><span class="label">[190]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mrs. Armenia S. White.
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Rev. J.F. Lovering, Concord; Mrs. A.L. Thomas,
Laconia; Ossian Ray, Lancaster; Mrs. S. Pillsbury, Concord; J.V.
Aldrich, West Concord; Mrs. Mary Worcester, Nashua; Mrs. Mary
Barker, Alton; Peter Kimball, Grafton; E.J. Durant, Lebanon; Mrs.
Fannie V. Roberts, Dover; Miss A.C. Payson, Peterboro; Mrs. E.A.
Bartlett, Kingston; Mr. Springfield, South Wolfboro; Galen Foster,
Canterbury; Mrs. R.M. Miller, Manchester; Mrs. Nancy Gilman,
Tilton; C. Ballou, North Weare; D. Burnham, Plymouth. <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Nathaniel White, Mrs. E.C. Lovering, Col. J.E. Larkin,
Concord; Mrs. J. Abby Ela, Rochester; Rev. Wm. T. Savage, Franklin;
Mrs. Eliza Morrill, Mrs. Daniel Holden, West Concord; Miss Caroline
Foster, Canterbury; P.B. Cogswell, Mrs. Louisa Wood, Mrs. M.M.
Smith, Concord; Dr. M.V.A. Hunt, Manchester. <i>Recording Secretary</i>,
Mrs. E.C. Lovering, Concord. <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Dr. J.
Gallinger. <i>Treasurer</i>, Jas. H. Chase.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_191_191" id="Footnote_191_191"></a><a href="#FNanchor_191_191"><span class="label">[191]</span></a> Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Thomas
Wentworth Higginson, Frederick Hinckley, Lucy Stone, Frances Ellen
Harper, Dr. Sarah H. Hathaway, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Rev. Mr.
Connor, Rev. Ada C. Bowles, Emma Coe Still, Rev. Lorenza Haynes,
Mary Grew, Mary A. Livermore, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Margaret W.
Campbell, Anna Dickinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Joslyn
Gage, Rev. Olympia Brown, Lillie Devereux Blake, Elizabeth A.
Meriwether, Elizabeth Lisle Saxon, Susan B. Anthony.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_192_192" id="Footnote_192_192"></a><a href="#FNanchor_192_192"><span class="label">[192]</span></a> The speakers at this hearing were Mr. Galen Foster
of Canterbury, Senators Gallinger and Shaw, Mrs. Abby Goold
Woolson, H. P. Rolfe, S. B. Page, Rev. E. L. Conger and Mrs.
Armenia S. White.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_193_193" id="Footnote_193_193"></a><a href="#FNanchor_193_193"><span class="label">[193]</span></a> Reëlected to the Senate, June, 1885.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_383" id="Page_383">[Pg 383]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXVI" id="CHAPTER_XXXVI"></a>CHAPTER XXXVI.</h2>

<h3>VERMONT.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Clarina Howard Nichols&mdash;Council of Censors&mdash;Amending the
Constitution&mdash;St. Andrew's Letter&mdash;Mr. Reed's Report&mdash;Convention
Called&mdash;H. B. Blackwell on the <i>Vermont Watchman</i>&mdash;Mary A.
Livermore in the <i>Woman's Journal</i>&mdash;Sarah A. Gibbs' Reply to Rev.
Mr. Holmes&mdash;School Suffrage. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">After</span> the miseries growing out of the civil war were in a measure
mitigated, there was a general awakening in the New England States
on the question of suffrage for women, and in 1868 one after
another organized for action. What Nathaniel P. Rogers was to New
Hampshire in the anti-slavery struggle that was Clarina Howard
Nichols<a name="FNanchor_194_194" id="FNanchor_194_194"></a><a href="#Footnote_194_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> to Vermont in early calling attention to the unjust
laws for woman. From 1843 to 1853 she edited the <i>Windham County
Democrat</i>, in which she wrote a series of editorials on the
property rights of women, and from year to year made her appeals in
person to successive legislatures. Her patient labors for many
years prepared the way for the organized action of 1868. The women
of that State can never too highly appreciate all that it cost that
noble woman to stand alone, as she did, through such bitter
persecutions, vindicating for them the great principles of
republican government.</p>

<p>And now, after a quarter of a century, instead of that one solitary
voice in the district school-house and the State capitol, are heard
in all Vermont's towns and cities, echoing through her valleys and
mountains, the clarion voices of a whole band of distinguished men
and women from all the Eastern States. The revival of the woman
question in Vermont began with propositions to amend the
constitution. We are indebted to a series of letters, written by a
citizen of Burlington, signed "St. Andrew,"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_384" id="Page_384">[Pg 384]</a></span> for many of the
interesting incidents and substantial facts as to the initiative
steps taken in this campaign. He said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The only way of amending the constitution is for the people
(meaning the male voters) to elect, every seventh year, a board
called the Council of Censors, consisting of thirteen persons.
This council can, within a certain time, propose amendments to
the constitution, and call a convention of one delegate from each
town, elected by the freemen, to adopt or reject the articles of
amendment proposed by the council. The Council of Censors,
elected in March, 1869, proposed six amendments: (1) In relation
to the creation of corporations; (2) in relation to biënnial
sessions and elections; (3) in relation to filling vacancies in
the office of senators and town representatives; (4) in relation
to the appointment, terms, etc., of judges of the Supreme Court;
(5) providing that women shall be entitled to vote, and with no
other restrictions than the law shall impose on men; (6) in
relation to the manner of amending the constitution.</p>

<p>The election of delegates occurs on Tuesday, May 10, and the
convention meets on the first Wednesday in June. There is no
general excitement in the State in relation to any of the
proposed changes; and now, upon the eve of the election, it is
impossible for the most sagacious political observer to predict
the fate of any of the amendments. The fifth is the only one in
support of which public meetings have been held, and those took
place the early part of the spring at the larger places in the
State. The friends have never expected to obtain a majority, nor
even a considerable vote in the convention, and the meetings that
have been held were not expected to settle the question, but to
awaken the public mind upon the subject. These meetings have been
a decided success, attended by hundreds of intelligent citizens,
many of whom for the first time listened to an address upon the
subject. It is true that ladies were advised to remain away, but
such advice generally resulted in a larger attendance; and to-day
the measure has a firmer support than ever before, and its
advocates are more confident of final success. We may not have
more than "<i>ten righteous</i>" men elected to the convention, but
that number was enough to save the cities of the <i>plain</i>, and we
have full faith that as small a number can save the cities of the
<i>mountains</i>.</p>

<p>The press of the State is divided on the subject. We have two
dailies&mdash;one, the <i>Rutland Herald</i>, the oldest paper in the
State, in favor of the movement, and the <i>Free Press</i> of
Burlington, opposed to it. After the coming convention, no change
can be made in our constitution for seven years, at least, and if
the sixth amendment be adopted, not for ten years. But, in the
meantime, the question will assume more importance by a constant
agitation as to the equality of the sexes, the admission of women
to the State University, the professions, and other rights to
which men are entitled. Vermont can never emulate in wealth and
population the manufacturing States of the seaboard, or the
prairie States of the West; but she can win a nobler preëminence
in the quality of her institutions. She may be the first State,
as Wyoming<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_385" id="Page_385">[Pg 385]</a></span> already is the first territory, to give political
equality to woman, and to show the world the model of a true
republic.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">St. Andrew.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Burlington, Vt., May 1, 1870.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Reed of Washington county submitted the report in favor of the
woman suffrage amendment, from which we give the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>One-half of the people of our State are denied the right of
suffrage. Yet woman has all the qualifications&mdash;the capacity, the
desire for the public welfare, that man has. She is among the
governed. She pays taxes. Even-handed justice, a fair application
of the principles of the Declaration of Independence and of our
State constitution, give woman the ballot. There is no reason why
woman should not be allowed to do what she is so eminently fit to
do. We know no good reason why the most ignorant man should vote
and the intelligent woman be refused. Our present political
institutions were formed and shaped when men had their chief
interests and pursuits out of doors, and women remained the
humble slaves at home. The social change has been immense. Now
woman sits by the side of man, is his companion and associate in
his amusements, and in his labors, save the one of governing the
country. And it is time that she should be in this.</p>

<p>The position of woman in regard to the common schools of the
State is the most unjust. She must always be the chief instructor
of the young in point of time and influence. She is their best
teacher at home and in the school. And her share in this
ever-expanding work is becoming vaster every day. Woman as
mother, sister, teacher, has an intelligence, a comprehension of
the educational needs of our youth, and an interest in their
development, far in advance of the other sex. She can organize,
control and teach the most difficult school in the State; yet she
has no vote in the selection of teachers, the building,
arrangements and equipments of school-houses, nor in the method
and extent of instruction. She can pay her share of the expenses
of schools, but can have no legal voice in their management. She
can teach, but she can have no vote in determining what shall be
taught. She is the very corner-stone of institutions which she
has no power in shaping. Let us have her open, avowed and public
coöperation&mdash;always safer than indirect influence. </p></blockquote>

<p>The submission of an amendment to the constitution necessarily
aroused a general agitation on the proposed changes. The fifth
amendment decided on by the board of censors seemed to create a
more general interest than either of the others, and accordingly a
meeting was called for its full consideration, that efficient steps
might be taken for a thorough canvass of the State, preparatory to
the May election, and issued the following call:</p>

<blockquote><p>The friends of woman suffrage in Vermont are requested to meet in
mass convention at Montpelier on Wednesday, February 2, at 10
o'clock, for the purpose of considering<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_386" id="Page_386">[Pg 386]</a></span> and advancing the best
interests of the cause in this State, in view of the
constitutional amendment proposed by the council of censors. The
convention will be addressed by several ladies and prominent
gentlemen of this State, and by William Lloyd Garrison, Julia
Ward Howe and Rev. Ada C. Bowles of Massachusetts; Lucy Stone and
Henry B. Blackwell of New Jersey, and Mary A. Livermore of
Illinois. A public meeting will also be held the evening before
the convention, which will be addressed by some of the eminent
speakers above named. The Hutchinson family will be present and
sing their woman suffrage songs. The Vermont Central, Passumpsic,
Rutland and Burlington and Bennington and Rutland lines of
railroad will extend the courtesy of free return checks, provided
they shall be applied for by twenty-five or more persons paying
full fare one way over an average distance of each of their
respective roads, which will be determined by the secretary.</p>

<div class="center">
<table border="0" cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" width="80%" summary="Authors">
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">C. W. Willard</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">James Hutchinson, Jr.</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">George H. Bigelow</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Charles Reed</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Newman Weeks</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Jonathan Ross</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">James S. Peck.</span><i>Ex. Com. Vermont Woman Suffrage Association</i>.<a name="FNanchor_195_195" id="FNanchor_195_195"></a><a href="#Footnote_195_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a></td></tr>
</table></div>

<p class="ltr-to"><i>Montpelier</i>, January 10, 1870.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>It is a noticeable fact that the movement for the enfranchisement
of woman in Vermont was inaugurated wholly by men. Not a woman was
on its official board, nor was there one to speak in the State. Men
called the first woman's rights convention, and chose Hon. Charles
Reed of Montpelier as its presiding officer, as well as president
of the State association.</p>

<p>However, these gentlemen invited ladies from other States, and a
series of meetings<a name="FNanchor_196_196" id="FNanchor_196_196"></a><a href="#Footnote_196_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> was inaugurated through the chief towns and
cities of Vermont. The speakers<a name="FNanchor_197_197" id="FNanchor_197_197"></a><a href="#Footnote_197_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a> were heartily welcomed at some
points and rudely received at others. The usual "free-love" cry was
started by some of the opposition papers&mdash;a cry that like "infidel"
in the anti-slavery days, oft' times frightened even the faithful
from their propriety. Henry B. Blackwell came to the rescue, and
ably answered the <i>Vermont Watchman</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>The <i>Vermont Watchman</i> evades the discussion of the question
whether women shall be entitled to vote, by raising false issues.
The editor asserts that "many of the advocates of suffrage have
thrown scorn upon<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_387" id="Page_387">[Pg 387]</a></span> marriage and upon the Divine Word." That
assertion we denounced as an unfounded and wicked calumny. We
also objected to it as an evasion of the main question. Thereupon
the <i>Watchman</i>, instead of correcting its mistake and discussing
the question of suffrage, repeats the charge, and seeks to
sustain it by garbled quotations and groundless assertions, which
we stigmatized accordingly. The <i>Watchman</i> now calls upon us to
retract the stigma. We prefer to prove that our censure is
deserved, and proceed to do so.</p>

<p>The first quotation of the <i>Watchman</i> is from an editorial in the
<i>Woman's Journal</i>, entitled "Political Organization." The object
of which was to show the propriety of doing what the <i>Watchman</i>
refuses to do&mdash;viz.: of discussing woman suffrage upon its own
merits. It showed the unfairness of complicating the question
with other topics upon which friends of woman suffrage honestly
differ. It regretted that "many well-meaning people insist on
dragging in their peculiar views on theology, temperance,
marriage, race, dress, finance, labor, capital&mdash;it matters not
what." It condemned "a confusion of ideas which have no logical
connection," and protested "against loading the good ship, Woman
Suffrage, with a cargo of irrelevant opinions." The <i>Watchman</i>
cites this article as an admission that some of the friends of
suffrage advocate free-love. Not at all. The editor of the
<i>Watchman</i> is himself one of the well-meaning people alluded to.
He insists on dragging in irrelevant theological and social
questions. He refuses to confine himself to the issue of
suffrage. The <i>Watchman</i> quotes a single sentence of the
following statement:</p>

<blockquote><p>The advocates of woman's equality differ utterly upon every other
topic. Some are abolitionists, others hostile to the equality of
races. Some are evangelical Christians; others Catholics,
Unitarians, Spiritualists, or Quakers. Some hold the most rigid
theories with regard to marriage and divorce; others are
latitudinarian on these questions. In short, people of the most
opposite views agree in desiring to establish woman suffrage,
while they anticipate very different results from the reform,
when effected. </p></blockquote>

<p>The above is cited as evidence against us. How so? A man may hold
"latitudinarian theories in regard to marriage and divorce" without
"throwing scorn upon the marriage relation," or having the
slightest sympathy with free-love. For instance: The present law of
Vermont is latitudinarian is these very particulars. It grants
divorce for many other causes than adultery. Measured by the more
conservative standard of Henry Ward Beecher and Mary A. Livermore,
it allows divorce upon insufficient grounds. This law represents
the public sentiment of a majority of the people of Vermont. Will
the <i>Watchman</i> assert that the people of Vermont "throw scorn on
the marriage relation"? Or that he is in "low company" because he
is surrounded by the citizens of a State who entertain views upon
the marriage relation less rigid than his own? Our indignant
protest against the injustice of the common law, which subjects the
person, property, earnings and children of married women to the
irresponsible control of their husbands, is not a protest against
marriage. It is a vindication of marriage, against the barbarism of
the law which degrades<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_388" id="Page_388">[Pg 388]</a></span> a noble and life-long partnership of equals
into a mercenary and servile relation between superior and
dependant.</p>

<p>The <i>Watchman</i> assails prominent supporters of woman suffrage, and
misquotes and misrepresents them. Because Theodore Tilton is
unwilling "that men or women shall be compelled to live together as
husband and wife against the inward protest of their own souls,"
therefore he is charged with advocating free-love. Is it possible
that the editor regards such a relation of protest and disgust as
consistent with the unity of Christian marriage? Is it right that a
pure and noble man, the tender husband of a happy wife, the loving
father of affectionate children, should be thus causelessly
traduced for showing that the essential fact of marriage is in that
unity of soul which is recognized and affirmed by the outward form?
When the <i>Watchman</i> undertakes to brand men and women of
irreproachable character for an intellectual difference, he is
engaged in a very unworthy business. When he charges immorality
upon the <i>New York Independent</i> and infidelity upon John Stuart
Mill, he forgets that his readers have minds of their own.</p>

<p>But, suppose it were true that newspapers and individuals who
believe in woman suffrage held objectionable views on other
subjects, what has this to do with the merit of the proposed
reform? There are impure and intemperate men in the Republican
party. Is the Republican party therefore "low company"? There are
brutal and ignorant and disloyal men in the Democratic party. Does
this prove that Dr. Lord and every other Democrat in the State of
Vermont is brutal and ignorant and disloyal? The Supreme Court of
the United States has just decided that a divorce obtained under
the laws of Indiana is legal and binding in every other State. In
thus affirming Mrs. McFarland's right to marry Mr. Richardson, has
the Supreme Court of the United States sanctioned free-love? Will
the <i>Watchman</i> call Chief-Justice Chase and the Supreme Court
free-lovers? We have very little hope that the <i>Watchman</i> will
treat this question with fairness or candor. Our cause is too
strong. The argument from reason, from revelation, from nature,
from history, is on our side. The <i>Watchman</i> is fighting against
the Declaration of Independence, the bill of rights of the State of
Vermont, and the principles of representative government. No wonder
that it raises false issues. No wonder that it evades the question.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">H. B. B.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>The following editorial in the <i>Woman's Journal</i>, from the pen of
Mary A. Livermore, does not give a very rose-colored view of the
reception of the Massachusetts missionaries on their first advent
into Vermont:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Vermont constitutional convention has rejected a proposition
to give the ballot to woman, by a vote of 231 to 1. It flouted
all discussion of the question, and voted it down with the utmost
alacrity. No one cognizant of the bigotry, narrowness and general
ignorance that prevail there will be surprised at this result. It
is not a progressive State, but the contrary. Great stress has
been laid on the fact that "Vermont never owned a slave"&mdash;and
from this it has been argued that the Green Mountain<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_389" id="Page_389">[Pg 389]</a></span> State is
and has been especially liberty-loving. But during the two brief
visits we made last winter, we were told again and again, by
Vermont men, that the only reason for the non-introduction of
slavery was the impracticability of that form of labor among the
Green Mountains&mdash;that slavery could never have been made
profitable there, and that this, and not principle and heroic
love of freedom, prevented Vermont from ever being a slave State.
Nowhere, not even in the roughest and remotest West, have we met
with such vulgar rudeness, ill-manners and heroic lying as we
encountered in Vermont. The lecturers who were invited into the
State by the Vermont Woman Suffrage Association, composed wholly
of men, were in many instances left unsupported by them, allowed
to meet the frequently rough audiences as best they could, to pay
their own bills, and to manage the campaign as they might. At the
very first intimation of opposition on the part of the
<i>Montpelier Argus</i>, the <i>Watchman</i> and the <i>Burlington Free
Press</i>&mdash;an unworthy trio of papers that appear to control the
majority&mdash;many members of the State association showed the "white
feather," and either apologetically backed out of the canvass, or
ignominiously kept silent in the background. There was,
therefore, nothing like a thorough discussion of the question, no
fair meeting of truth and error, not even an attempt to canvass
the State. For, not ambitious to waste their efforts on such
flinty soil, the men and women who were invited to labor there
shook off the dust (snow) of Vermont from their feet, and turned
to more hopeful fields of labor.</p>

<p>Let it not be supposed, however, that this vote of the delegates
of the constitutional convention is any indication of the
sentiment of the women on this question. The fact that 231 women
of lawful age, residents of Brattleborough, and 96 of Newfane,
sent a petition for woman suffrage, with their reasons for asking
it, to Charles K. Field, delegate from that town to the
constitutional convention; that petitions from other hundreds of
women have been forwarded to congress, praying for a sixteenth
amendment; that, by letters and personal statements, we know the
most intelligent and thoughtful women everywhere rebel against
the State laws whose heathenism, despotism and absurdity were so
well shown by Mrs. Nichols in 1845&mdash;all these facts are proofs
that the sentiment of Vermont women is not represented by the
constitutional convention now in session at Montpelier.&mdash;[M. A.
L. </p></blockquote>

<p>August 12, 1871, our Burlington correspondent says:</p>

<blockquote><p>While conventions, picnics and bazar meetings, in the cause of
woman suffrage, have been held in our sister States, an event has
very quietly occurred with us which we deem an important step in
the right direction, viz.: the admission of women to the
University. By an almost unanimous vote of the corporation, a few
conservatives opposing it, the matter was referred to the
faculty, who are understood to be heartily in favor of the "new
departure." The college that has thus thrown its doors wide open
to all, is the University of Vermont and State Agricultural
College, founded by the munificence of General Ira Allen in 1791.
It commenced operations in 1800; the Federal troops used its
buildings for barracks in the war of 1812; the buildings (and
library) were burned in 1824, and reconstructed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_390" id="Page_390">[Pg 390]</a></span> in the following
year, when the corner-stone was laid by General Lafayette. It
sent forth nearly all its sons to the great rebellion. Indeed, at
one time its condition served to remind one of the lines of
Holmes&mdash;</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"Lord, how the <i>Senior</i> knocked about<br /></span>
<span class="i2">That Freshman class of <i>one</i>."<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>It has graduated such men as the late Senator Collamer, John G.
Smith, president of the Northern Pacific Railroad; William G. T.
Shedd, the learned theologian; the late Henry J. Raymond of the
New York <i>Times</i>; John A. Kasson of Iowa, Frederick Billings, and
a host of others, eminent in all the walks of life. Its late
president, who was an "Angell from Providence," and has just been
elected president of Michigan University, is heartily in favor of
the movement, and the president-elect, Matthew H. Buckham, is no
less so. With its new president and its "new departure" the
future bids fair even to outshine the past.</p>

<p>It may be well to inquire the reason why a college located in a
State regarded by outsiders "as the most conservative of the
Union on the woman suffrage question," should take a step so far
in advance of what has been deemed the prevailing sentiment.
Editors who have been battling the new reform with a zeal equaled
only by that manifested against abolitionism a few years since,
can see no necessary connection between the new movement and the
general cause of woman's emancipation. Whether necessary or not,
there is a practical connection between them which is being felt
more and more every day. I assert, with no fear of contradiction
by any observing man, that Vermont is no more committed against
woman suffrage than any other State in the East, and the fact
that but one man in our late convention voted to extend the right
of suffrage to all, can well be explained when we consider the
manner of choosing delegates by towns; one town, for instance,
with twelve voters, having the same voice in the representation
that this city has with 1,500. With a popular vote upon that
question the State would give such a majority as would fairly
astonish all those who regarded the late convention as a complete
demolition of the "reformers."</p>

<p class="ltr-from">St. Andrew.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The following criticism of the Rev. Mr. Holmes, from the pen of a
woman, shows the growing self-assertion of a class hitherto held in
a condition of subordination by clerical authority. Such
tergiversation in the pulpit as his has done much to emancipate
woman from the reverence she once felt for the teaching of those
supposed to be divinely ordained of heaven:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Benson</span>, Vt., June 20, 1871.</p>

<p>I have heard it stated from the pulpit within a year that the
woman suffrage question in Vermont is dead. Well, we believe in
the resurrection. Week by week this question of the hour and of
the age confronts those who claim to have given it decent burial.
The same clergyman who pronounced it dead has since spoken of it
as one of the "growing evils of the times," and in this beautiful
summer weather he has felt called upon to preach another sermon,
ostensibly on "marriage," really upon this "dead<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_391" id="Page_391">[Pg 391]</a></span> question,"
dragging it out to daylight again, that we might see how easily
he could bury it fifty fathoms deep&mdash;with mud. It reminded me of
Robert Laird Collier's sermon, "The Folly of the Woman Movement,"
in its logic and its spirit. Mr. Collier and our Mr. Holmes see
but one thing in all this struggle for truth and justice, and
that is "free-love." Here are some specimens of Mr. Holmes'
assertions:</p>

<blockquote><p>The advocates of woman's rights want, not the ballot so much as
the dissolution of the marriage tie. They propose to form a tie
for the term of five, six or seven years. Mark the men or women
who are the most strenuous advocates of woman suffrage. They are
irreligious and immoral. </p></blockquote>

<p>Who are more strenuous advocates of woman suffrage than Mrs. Julia
Ward Howe, Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, Mrs. Isabella Beecher
Hooker, Mrs. Lucy Stone, Mrs. Lucretia Mott, Mrs. Livermore, T. W.
Higginson, Henry Ward Beecher, Bishop Simpson, Governor Claflin,
Gilbert Haven, Wendell Phillips, and scores of others whose lives
are as pure and intellects as fine as his who dares stand in the
sacred desk and call these persons "irreligious and immoral"? His
argument seems to be like this: Some advocates of woman suffrage
are in favor of easy divorces. These men and women advocate woman
suffrage; therefore these men and women are in favor of easy
divorces. Or, to make the matter still plainer, some ministers of
the Gospel are immoral. Mr. H. is a minister of the Gospel;
therefore Mr. H. is immoral. The method of reasoning is the same,
but it don't sound quite fair and honorable, does it?</p>

<p>"In our land woman is a queen; she is loved and cared for," says
Mr. Holmes. In sight from the window where I write is a sad
commentary upon this. One of these queens, so tenderly cared for,
is hoeing corn, while her five-months-old baby&mdash;the youngest of
nine children&mdash;lies on the grass while she works. Her husband is
away from home, but has left word for the "old woman" to "take care
of the corn and potatoes, for he has to support the family." When
they are out of meat, she must go out washing and earn some, for
"he has to support the family," and cannot have her idle. Not long
since they were planting corn together, she doing as much as he. At
noon, although she had a pail of milk and another of eggs, he
brought her the two hoes to carry home, as he could not be troubled
with them. Had he ever read:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"I will be master of what is my own;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">She is my goods, my chattels&mdash;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything"?<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>"No woman reaches such dignity as the New England wife and mother,"
says Mr. H. Is wifehood more honorable, or motherhood more sacred,
in New England than in other places? Is to be a wife and mother,
and nothing else, the sole end and aim of woman? Or is there not
other work in God's universe which some woman may possibly be
called upon to do? Is Florence Nightingale or Anna Dickinson less
dignified than Mrs. John Smith, who happens physically to be the
mother of half-a-dozen children, but mentally and morally is as
much of a child as any of them?</p>

<p>"Woman has just the sphere she wants. She has more privileges than
she could vote herself into," says Mr. H. Has she, indeed? I know
women, who would gladly vote themselves into the privilege of
having<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_392" id="Page_392">[Pg 392]</a></span> the custody of their own children, whose husbands are
notoriously drunken and licentious. They are pure, good women, who,
rather than part with their children, live on with men whose very
breath is pollution. I know others who would like to vote
themselves into the privilege of retaining their own hard earnings
instead of having them sacrificed by a drunken husband. Widows have
been literally turned out of doors after their husbands' death, and
the property they had helped to accumulate divided among those who
never earned it. Do you think such women would not change the laws
of inheritance if they had the power?</p>

<p>"Husband and wife are one, hence one vote is sufficient," says Mr.
H. Follow out the reasoning, if you please. "Both one," hence one
dinner is sufficient, "both one," hence if a man is a member of a
church his wife is also. In plain English, "the husband and wife
are both one," and the husband is that one. Now in case <i>that one</i>
should die, is it fair, or just, or fitting, that the widow&mdash;"the
relict"&mdash;or, in the words of Mr. H., "the feminine spirit that has
supplemented this masculine nature," whose hands have been tied all
these years, should be called upon to pay taxes upon the share of
property the law allows her? Taxation without representation was
the immediate cause of the famous tea-party in Boston harbor, and,
in fact, of a good many other unpleasant things that followed.</p>

<p>"Woman has just the sphere she wants," says Mr. H., closing the
discussion. No, sir, she has not. Had those young ladies in
Philadelphia who were studying medicine, and were insulted day
after day by the male medical students, the sphere they wanted? Our
American girls have been to Europe for the sake of pursuing their
studies in medicine, and have met with kindness and courtesy, while
in this land, where they are called "queens," they received only
hisses. Last winter Governor Claflin of Massachusetts&mdash;one of those
"irreligious and immoral" advocates of woman suffrage&mdash;reminded the
gentlemen of that State who claim to be woman's representatives in
the legislature, "that a wife in that State is deprived of the free
control of property that was her own before marriage, and is denied
an equal right in the property accumulated during the marriage
partnership; that a married mother has no legal right to her child;
and that a widow has not equal rights with a widower." When woman
has the sphere she wants, these things will be changed.</p>

<p>As a majority of the men in this community are opposed to woman
suffrage, I will relate one circumstance that will do to "point a
moral or adorn a tale." Of course, the voters in this or any other
place always elect their best men to hold office, and the board of
selectmen would naturally be the very wisest and best, the "<i>crème
de la crème</i>." Now it so happens that one selectman being away from
home, there was not enough arithmetic left with the other two to
make out the tax-bills for the town, and they hired a woman, the
mother of two children, to do it for them. It certainly took more
of her time than it would for her to have walked across the street
and voted for men who could make out their own tax-bills. Then
arithmetic is not a womanly accomplishment, like tatting,
crocheting, etc. These things sink into our hearts, and will bear
fruit in due season.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Sarah A. Gibbs.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_393" id="Page_393">[Pg 393]</a></span></p>

<p>In 1877, July 21, Miss Thyrza F. Pangborn, for the last six years
the capable and efficient recorder in the probate office of
Burlington, was appointed and sworn as a notary public. In a letter
of December 7, 1872, our correspondent says:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the year 1870, the world was somewhat startled by the fact
that in the constitutional convention, held that year in Vermont,
but one vote was cast for the enfranchisement of woman; and no
one wonders that the friends of that movement exclaimed, "Can any
good come out of&mdash;Vermont"? Yesterday the first biënnial session
of the legislature closed its session of fifty-seven days. A bill
has been pending in each House, giving female tax-payers a right
to vote at all school-district meetings. It was advocated by Mr.
Butterfield, one of the leading members of the House, in an able
and learned speech, and received 64 votes to 103 against. Is not
that doing well for such a staid old State as Vermont, and one
where the enemies of equal suffrage supposed, two years since,
that the measure was indefinitely postponed? But this is not all.
The measure was introduced in the Senate, composed of thirty
members, who are supposed to be the balance-wheel of the General
Assembly. It was warmly discussed by several Senators, and the
vote taken, when there were three members absent, resulting in,
yeas 13, nays 14. Had the Senate been full, the vote would have
been, yeas 14,<a name="FNanchor_198_198" id="FNanchor_198_198"></a><a href="#Footnote_198_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a> nays 16. A change of one of the "no" votes
would have carried the measure, as the lieutenant-governor, who
presides in the Senate, would have given the casting vote in its
favor.</p>

<p>The supporters of the measure included some of the ablest members
of the Senate, among them the chairmen of the very important
Committees on Finance, Claims, Education, Agriculture,
Manufactures, Railroads and Printing.</p>

<p>Following the defeat of the above-mentioned bill came up a
measure granting to women the same right to vote as men have in
all elections everywhere in the State. It received the support of
all who voted for the school measure, save two, Mr. Mason and Mr.
Rogers, who prefer to see the first tried as an experiment in the
school meetings. You thus perceive that twelve out of our thirty
grave and reverend Senators are real out-and-out equal suffrage
men. Verily, the world moves! Another year, 1874, we hope will
carry off the measure. Meanwhile, we say, three cheers for old
Vermont, and glory enough for one day!</p>

<p class="ltr-from">St. Andrew.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Burlington, Vt.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_394" id="Page_394">[Pg 394]</a></span></p>

<p>In 1880 the School Suffrage bill passed the Vermont House of
Representatives, with only four dissenting votes. When the bill
came to a third reading and only four men stood up for the
negative, there was so marked an expression of derision that the
speaker called for "order," and reminded the House that "no man was
to be scorned for voting alone any more than with a crowd." The
action and the voting came cheerily. More than one man, to the
objection of "an entering wedge," said "he was ready to grant the
whole." The bill passed the Senate triumphantly and was approved by
the governor, December 18, 1880:</p>

<blockquote><p>Women shall have the same right to vote as men have, in all
school-district meetings and in the election of school
commissioners in towns and cities, and the same right to
hold office relating to school affairs. </p></blockquote>

<p>An item in the <i>Woman's Journal</i>, from Vergennes, March 22, 1881,
says:</p>

<blockquote><p>At the city election to-day General J. H. Lucia, a staunch friend
of woman suffrage, was elected mayor, and principally through his
management Miss Electa S. Smith has been chosen to the office of
city clerk, which office he has held for the past two years. The
legislature of 1880 authorized the election of women to the
offices of superintendent of schools and town clerk, and some of
the friends of the cause were disposed to try the working of the
law here. They selected a candidate whose ability, qualifications
and thorough fitness all had to concede, and against whom the
only objection that could be raised was her being a woman. It
took the conservatives some time to get over their surprise at
the first suggestion of her name, but they admitted the propriety
of the thing and gallantly lent a hand, so that when the election
came all the candidates who had been talked about were
conspicuous by their absence, and Miss Smith was elected by
acclamation. Surely the world does move. </p>


<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Springfield</span>, February 7, 1884.</p>

<p><i>Miss Lydia Putnam, Brattleboro', Vt.:</i></p>

<p>Your letter is at hand. I think but few women have, as yet, availed
themselves of the privilege of voting in school meetings in this
State, and I am not able to say what the effect upon our schools
has been up to the present time.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Justus Dartt</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully,</p>

</blockquote>


<p>Notwithstanding the above reply from the state-superintendent of
the public schools of Vermont, the Associated Press reports of
every year<a name="FNanchor_199_199" id="FNanchor_199_199"></a><a href="#Footnote_199_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a> since 1881 make mention of women being elected to
school offices in the various towns and counties of the State.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_194_194" id="Footnote_194_194"></a><a href="#FNanchor_194_194"><span class="label">[194]</span></a> No woman in so many varied fields of action has more
steadily and faithfully labored than Mrs. Nichols, as editor,
speaker, teacher, farmer, in Vermont, New York, Wisconsin, Iowa,
Ohio, Kansas, and California where she spent the closing years of
her life; and though always in circumstances of hardship and
privation, yet no annual convention was held without a long letter
from her pen, uniformly the most cheerful and able of all that were
received. A great soul that seemed to rise above the depressing
influences of her surroundings! The last letter she ever wrote us
was in January, 1885, a few days before she passed away. See Volume
I., page <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_195_195" id="Footnote_195_195"></a><a href="#FNanchor_195_195"><span class="label">[195]</span></a> Officers of the Vermont Woman Suffrage Association:
<i>President</i>, Hon. Charles Reed, Montpelier. <i>Vice-presidents</i>, Hon.
John B. Hollister, Bennington; Hon. Seneca M. Dorr, Rutland; Rev.
Addison Brown, Brattleboro'; Col. Lynus E. Knapp, Middlebury; Hon.
James Hutchinson, jr., West Randolph; Hon. Russell S. Taft,
Burlington; Hon. A. J. Willard, St. Johnsbury; Hon. H. Henry
Powers, Hyde Park; Hon. Jasper Rand, St. Albans. <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Henry Clark, Rutland. <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Albert
Clarke, St. Albans. <i>Treasurer</i>, Albert D. Hager, Proctorsville.
<i>Executive Committee</i>, Hon. C. W. Willard, Montpelier; Hon. Charles
Reed, Montpelier; George H Bigelow, Burlington; Newman Weeks,
Rutland; Hon. Jonathan Ross, St. Johnsbury; Rev. Eli Ballou, D. D.,
Montpelier.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_196_196" id="Footnote_196_196"></a><a href="#FNanchor_196_196"><span class="label">[196]</span></a> Following the convention at Montpelier, meetings
were held at St. Albans, Northfield, Barre, Burlington, St.
Johnsbury, Brattleboro', Rutland, Fairhaven, Castleton, Springfield
and Bellows Falls.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_197_197" id="Footnote_197_197"></a><a href="#FNanchor_197_197"><span class="label">[197]</span></a> Among the speakers were Mr. Garrison, Mrs. Howe,
Mrs. Stone, Leo Miller, Mrs. Churchill, Mrs. Livermore, Mrs.
Campbell, Dr. Sarah Hathaway, Mrs. Bowles, Mr. Blackwell, Hon. A.
J. Williard. Mr. Taft, Mr. Clark, Judge Carpenter, Mr. Ivison, the
Rev. Messrs. Brigham, Eastwood, Brown and Emerson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_198_198" id="Footnote_198_198"></a><a href="#FNanchor_198_198"><span class="label">[198]</span></a> The fourteen who favored the bill were: Mr. Bigelow
of Burlington, one of the leading editors in the State; Mr.
Butterfield of Grafton, one of the most experienced legislators in
the State; Mr. Carpenter of Northfield, who is known to be right on
all questions that concern humanity, Mr. Colton of Irasburgh, now
serving his second term in the Senate; Mr. Estey of Brattleboro',
the manufacturer of the celebrated cottage organ; Mr. Houghton of
North Bennington, a leading banker and business man who has just
been elected one of the directors of our state-prison; Mr. King of
North Montpelier, farmer; Mr. Lamb of Royalton, the oldest member
in the Senate, a lawyer; Mr. Mason of Richmond, a man who would be
described by a Yankee as "chock full of honesty and common-sense";
Mr. Rogers of Wheelock and Mr. Stiles of Montgomery, both farmers,
and as near like Mr. Mason as two peas are alike; Mr. Reynolds of
Alburgh Springs, one of the absentees, but in favor of the bill, a
prominent merchant; Mr. Powers, one of the ablest lawyers in the
State, and, finally, Mr. Sprague of Brandon, a leading banker and
manufacturer, the head and principal owner of the Brandon
Manufacturing Company.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_199_199" id="Footnote_199_199"></a><a href="#FNanchor_199_199"><span class="label">[199]</span></a> In 1885 there were thirty-three women elected to the
office of school superintendent in eleven of the fourteen counties
of the State, as follows: <i>Addison</i>, Miss A. L. Huntley;
<i>Bennington</i>, Mrs. R. R. Wiley; <i>Caledonia</i>, Miss Nellie Russell,
Mrs. A. F. Stevens, Mrs. E. Bradley, Miss S. E. Rogers;
<i>Chittenden</i>, Mrs. S. M. Benedict, Mrs. L. M. Bates, Mrs. J. C.
Draper; <i>Essex</i>, Mrs. Henry Fuller, Hettie W. Matthews, Jennie K.
Stanley, Mrs. S. M. Day; <i>Franklin</i>, none; <i>Grand Isle</i>, Miss I.
Montgomery; <i>La Moille</i>, Carrie P. Carroll, Miss C. A. Parker;
<i>Orange</i>, Miss F. H. Graves, Miss A. A. Clement, Miss V. L.
Farnham, Miss F. Martin; <i>Orleans</i>, none; <i>Rutland</i>, Mrs. I. C.
Adams, Miss H. M. Bromley, Miss M. A. Mills, Lillian Tarbell, Mrs.
H. M. Crowley; <i>Washington</i>, none; <i>Windham</i>, Mrs. J. M. Powers,
Mrs. J. E. Phelps; <i>Windsor</i>, Mrs. E. G. White, Miss C. A. Lamb,
Mrs. H. F. VanCor, Clara E. Perkins, Mrs. E. M. Lovejoy, Mrs. L. M.
Hall.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_395" id="Page_395">[Pg 395]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXVII" id="CHAPTER_XXXVII"></a>CHAPTER XXXVII.</h2>

<h3>NEW YORK&mdash;1860-1885.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Saratoga Convention, July 13, 14, 1869&mdash;State Society Formed,
Martha C. Wright, President&mdash;<i>The Revolution</i> Established,
1868&mdash;Educational Movement&mdash;New York City Society, 1870,
Charlotte B. Wilbour, President&mdash;Presidential Campaign,
1872&mdash;Hearings at Albany, 1873&mdash;Constitutional Commission&mdash;An
Effort to Open Columbia College, President Barnard in
Favor&mdash;Centennial Celebration, 1876&mdash;School Officers&mdash;Senator
Emerson of Monroe, 1877&mdash;Gov. Robinson's Veto&mdash;School Suffrage,
1880&mdash;Gov. Cornell Recommended it in his Message&mdash;Stewart's Home
for Working Women&mdash;Women as Police&mdash;An Act to Prohibit
Disfranchisement&mdash;Attorney-General Russell's Adverse Opinion&mdash;The
Power of the Legislature to Extend Suffrage&mdash;Great Demonstration
in Chickering Hall, March 7, 1884&mdash;Hearing at Albany, 1885&mdash;Mrs.
Blake, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Howell, Gov. Hoyt of
Wyoming. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">The</span> in <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_63">New York chapter</a> in Volume I. closes with an account of some
retrogressive legislation on the rights of married women,<a name="FNanchor_200_200" id="FNanchor_200_200"></a><a href="#Footnote_200_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a>
showing that until woman herself has a voice in legislation her
rights may be conceded or withheld at the option of the ruling
powers, and that her only safety is in direct representation. The
chapter on <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_586">"Trials and Decisions"</a> in Volume II., shows the
injustice women have suffered in the courts, where they have never
yet enjoyed the sacred right of trial by a jury of their own peers.</p>

<p>After many years of persistent effort for the adjustment of special
grievances, many of the leaders, seeing by what an uncertain tenure
their civil rights were maintained by the legislative and judicial
authorities, ceased to look to the State for redress, and turned to
the general government for protection in the right of suffrage, the
fundamental right by which all minor privileges and immunities are
protected. Hence the annual meeting of the National Association,
which had been regularly held in New York as one of the May
anniversaries, was, from 1869, supplemented by a semi-annual
convention in Washington for special influence upon congress.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_396" id="Page_396">[Pg 396]</a></span></p>

<p>Until the war the work in New York was conducted by a central
committee; but in the summer of 1869, the following call was issued
for a convention at Saratoga Springs, to organize a State Society:</p>

<blockquote><p>The advocates of woman suffrage will hold a State convention at
Saratoga Springs on the thirteenth and fourteenth of July, 1869.
The specific business of this convention will be to effect a
permanent organization for the State of New York. Our friends in
the several congressional districts should at once elect their
delegates, in order that the whole State may be represented in
the convention. In districts where delegates cannot be elected,
any person can constitute himself or herself a representative.
The convention will be attended by the ablest advocates of
suffrage for woman, and addresses may be expected from Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, president of the National Association, Celia
Burleigh, president of the Brooklyn Equal Rights Association,
Matilda Joslyn Gage, advisory counsel for the State, Susan B.
Anthony, of <i>The Revolution</i>, Charlotte B. Wilbour of New York
city, and others. Every woman interested for her personal freedom
should attend this convention, and by her presence, influence and
money, aid the movement for the restoration of the rights of her
sex.</p>

<p>
Mrs. <span class="smcap">Elizabeth B. Phelps</span>, <i>Vice-President for the State of New York</i>.<br />
<span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Advisory Counsel</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The opening session of the convention was held in the spacious
parlors of Congress Hall the audience composed chiefly of
fashionable ladies<a name="FNanchor_201_201" id="FNanchor_201_201"></a><a href="#Footnote_201_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> from all parts of the country, who listened
with evident interest and purchased the tracts intended for
distribution. The remaining sessions were held in Hawthorn Hall,
Matilda Joslyn Gage presiding. A series of spirited resolutions was
adopted, also a plan of organization presented by Charlotte B.
Wilbour, for a State association.<a name="FNanchor_202_202" id="FNanchor_202_202"></a><a href="#Footnote_202_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a> Many able speakers<a name="FNanchor_203_203" id="FNanchor_203_203"></a><a href="#Footnote_203_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> were
present. The formation of this society was the result of a very<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_397" id="Page_397">[Pg 397]</a></span>
general agitation in different localities on several vital
questions in the preceding year:</p>

<p><i>First</i>&mdash;On taxation. Women being large property holders, had felt
the pressure during the war, especially of the tax on incomes, and
had resolved on resistance: Accordingly, large meetings<a name="FNanchor_204_204" id="FNanchor_204_204"></a><a href="#Footnote_204_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a> were
called at various points, in 1868. While women of wealth were
organizing to resist taxation, the working women<a name="FNanchor_205_205" id="FNanchor_205_205"></a><a href="#Footnote_205_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a> were uniting
to defend their earnings, and secure better wages. It seemed for a
few months as if they were in a chronic condition of rebellion. But
after many vain struggles for redress in the iron teeth of the law,
and equally vain appeals to have unjust laws amended, the women
learned the hopelessness of all efforts made by disfranchised
classes.</p>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;On prostitution. For the first time in the history of the
government, a bill was presented in the New York legislature, in
1868, proposing to license prostitution. This showed the
degradation of woman's position as no other act of legislation
could have done, and although the editors of <i>The Revolution</i> were
the only women who publicly opposed the bill (which they did both
before the committee of the legislature, and in their journal), yet
there was in the minds of many, a deep undercurrent of resistance
to the odious provisions of that bill. Horace Greeley, too, in his
editorials in the New York <i>Tribune</i>, denounced the proposition in
such unmeasured terms that, although pressed at three different
legislative sessions, no member of the committee could be found
with sufficient moral hardihood to present the bill.</p>

<p>In connection with this question, the necessity of "women as
police," was for some time a topic of discussion. They had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_398" id="Page_398">[Pg 398]</a></span> proved
so efficient in many cases, that it was seriously proposed to have
a standing force in New York and Brooklyn, to look after young
girls,<a name="FNanchor_206_206" id="FNanchor_206_206"></a><a href="#Footnote_206_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a> new to the temptations and dangers of city life. In
<i>The Revolution</i> of March 26, 1868, we find the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is often asked, would you make women police officers? It has
already been done. At least a society of women exists in this
country, for the discovery of crimes, conspiracies and such
things. The chief of this band was Mrs. Kate Warn, a native of
this State, who lately died in Chicago. She was engaged in this
business, fifteen years ago, by Mr. Pinkerton, of the National
Police Agency. She did good service for many years in watching,
waylaying, exploring and detecting; especially on the critical
occasion of President Lincoln's journey to Washington in 1861. In
1865 she was sent to New Orleans, as head of the Female Police
Department there. </p></blockquote>

<p>There was a general movement in these years for the more liberal
education of women in various departments of art and industry, as
well as in letters. First on the list stands Vassar College,
founded in 1861, richly endowed with fine grounds and spacious
buildings. We cannot estimate the civilizing influence of the
thousands of young women graduating at that institution, now, as
cultivated wives and mothers, presiding in households all over this
land. Cornell University<a name="FNanchor_207_207" id="FNanchor_207_207"></a><a href="#Footnote_207_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a> was opened to girls in 1872, more
richly endowed than Vassar, and in every way superior in its
environments; beautifully situated on the banks of Cayuga Lake,
with the added advantage and stimulus of the system of coëducation.
To Andrew D. White, its president, all women owe a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_399" id="Page_399">[Pg 399]</a></span> debt of
gratitude for his able and persevering advocacy of the benefits to
both sexes, of coëducation. The university at Syracuse, in which
Lima College was incorporated, is also open alike to boys and
girls. Rochester University,<a name="FNanchor_208_208" id="FNanchor_208_208"></a><a href="#Footnote_208_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> Brown, Columbia, Union, Hamilton,
and Hobart College at Geneva, still keep their doors barred against
the daughters of the State, and the three last, in the small number
of their students, and their gradual decline, show the need of the
very influence they exclude. Could all the girls desiring an
education in and around Rochester, Geneva,<a name="FNanchor_209_209" id="FNanchor_209_209"></a><a href="#Footnote_209_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> Clinton and
Schenectady, enter these institutions, the added funds and
enthusiasm they would thus receive would soon bring them renewed
life and vigor.</p>

<p>Peter Cooper and Catharine Beecher's efforts for the working
classes of women were equally praiseworthy. Miss Beecher formed
"The American Woman's Educational Association," for the purpose of
establishing schools all over the country for training girls in the
rudiments of learning and practical work. The Cooper Institute,
founded in 1854, by Peter Cooper, has been invaluable in its
benefits to the poorer classes of girls, in giving them advantages
in the arts and sciences, in evening as well as day classes. Here
both boys and girls have free admission into all departments,
including its valuable reading-room and library. It had long been a
cherished desire of Mr. Cooper to found an institution to be
devoted forever to the union of art and science in their
application to the useful purposes of life. The School of Design is
specially for women.</p>

<p>The Ladies Art Association of New York was founded in 1867, now
numbering over one hundred members. One of the most important
things accomplished by this society has been the preparation of
thoroughly educated teachers, many of whom are now filling
positions in Southern and Western colleges.</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">New York</span>, June 3, 1869.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Editors of the Revolution</span>: Inclosed please find the report of a
meeting of New York ladies to consider the important subject of
woman's education. The within slip will show that this is a
movement quite as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_400" id="Page_400">[Pg 400]</a></span> earnest and pronounced as the woman suffrage
agitation of the day, and more in consonance with prevailing
public opinion. We trust that you will aid the effort by
inserting the report and resolutions into your columns, and add
at least a brief editorial notice.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Mrs. Marshall O. Roberts</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully,</p>


<p class="ltr-clear"><span class="smcap">Important Meeting of New York Ladies.&mdash;Woman's Education</span>.&mdash;On
Monday, the 31st of May, a large number of influential ladies
gathered at Dr. Taylor's, corner Sixth avenue and Thirty-eighth
street, in response to the call of the secretary of The American
Woman's Educational Association. A meeting was organized, Mrs.
Marshall O. Roberts presiding, and after a long and interesting
discussion the following resolutions were unanimously passed. It is
proper to state that the society has been an organized and
efficient power in woman's education for over twenty years. The
object of its present action is to forward a movement to secure
endowed institutions for the training of women to their special
duties and professions as men are trained for theirs, particularly
the science and duties of home-life:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That one cause of the depressed condition of woman is
the fact that the distinctive profession of her sex, as the nurse
of infancy and of the sick, as educator of childhood, and as the
chief minister of the family state, has not been duly honored,
nor such provision been made for its scientific and practical
training as is accorded to the other sex for their professions;
and that it is owing to this neglect that women are driven to
seek honor and independence in the institutions and the
professions of men.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the science of domestic economy, in its various
branches, involves more important interests than any other human
science; and that the evils suffered by women would be
extensively remedied by establishing institutions for training
woman for her profession, which shall be as generously endowed as
are the institutions of men, many of which have been largely
endowed by women.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the science of domestic economy should be made a
study in all institutions for girls; and that certain practical
employments of the family state should be made a part of common
school education, especially the art of sewing, which is so
needful for the poor; and that we will use our influence to
secure these important measures.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That every young woman should be trained to some
business by which she can earn an independent livelihood in case
of poverty.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in addition to the various in-door employments
suitable for woman, there are other out-door employments
especially favorable to health and equally suitable, such as
raising fruits and flowers, the culture of silk and cotton, the
raising of bees and the superintendence of dairy farms and
manufactures. All of these offer avenues to wealth and
independence for women as properly as men, and schools for
imparting to women the science and practice of these employments
should be provided and as liberally endowed as are the
agricultural schools for men.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the American Woman's Educational Association is
an organization which aims to secure to women these advantages,
that its managers have our confidence, and that we will coöperate
in its plans as far as we have opportunity.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Protestant clergy would greatly aid in these
efforts by preaching on the honor and duties of the family state.
In order to this, we request their attention to a work just
published by Miss Beecher and Mrs. Stowe, entitled "The American
Woman's Home," which largely discusses many important topics of
this general subject, while the authors have devoted most of
their profits from this work to promote the plans of the American
Woman's Educational Association.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_401" id="Page_401">[Pg 401]</a></span></p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That editors of the religious and secular press will
contribute important aid to an effort they must all approve by
inserting these resolutions in their columns. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>Among the influences that brought new thought to the question of
woman suffrage was the establishment of <i>The Revolution</i> in 1868.
Radical and defiant in tone, it awoke friends and foes alike to
action. Some denounced it, some ridiculed it, but all read it. It
needed just such clarion notes sounded forth long and loud each
week to rouse the friends of the movement from the apathy into
which they had fallen after the war. One cannot read its glowing
pages to-day without appreciating the power it was just at that
crisis.<a name="FNanchor_210_210" id="FNanchor_210_210"></a><a href="#Footnote_210_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a></p>

<p>Miss Lucy B. Hobbs of New York was the first woman that ever
graduated in the profession of dentistry. She matriculated in the
Cincinnati Dental College in the fall of 1864&mdash;passing through a
full course of study, missing but two lectures, and those at the
request of the professor of anatomy. She graduated from that
institution in February, 1866. A letter from the dean of the
college testifies to her worth as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>She was a woman of great energy and perseverance. Studious in her
habits, modest and unassuming, she had the respect and kind
regard of every member of the class and faculty. As an operator
she was not surpassed by her associates. Her opinion was asked
and her assistance sought in difficult cases almost daily by her
fellow-students. And though the class of which she was a member
was one of the largest ever in attendance, it excelled all
previous ones in good order and decorum&mdash;a condition largely due
to the presence of a lady. In the final examination she was
second to none. </p></blockquote>

<p>Having received her diploma, she opened an office in Iowa; from
thence she removed to Chicago, and practiced successfully. The
following letter from Mrs. Taylor (formerly Miss Hobbs) gives
further interesting details. Writing to Matilda Joslyn Gage, she
says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I am grateful to you for giving me the opportunity to place in
history the fact of my study of dentistry. I was born in Franklin
county, New York, in 1833. You ask my reason for entering the
profession. It was to be independent. I first studied medicine,
but did not like the practice. My preceptor, Professor Cleveland,
advised me to try dentistry, and I commenced with Dr. Samuel
Warde of Cincinnati, finishing my studies in March, 1861. At that
time the faculty of the Ohio Dental College would not permit me
to attend, and there was not a college in the United States that
would admit me, and no amount of persuasion could change their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_402" id="Page_402">[Pg 402]</a></span>
minds. So far as I know, I was the first woman who had ever taken
instruction of a private tutor.</p>

<p>I went to Iowa to commence practice, and was so successful that
the dentists of the State insisted I should be allowed to attend
the college. Their efforts prevailed, and I graduated from the
Ohio Dental College at Cincinnati in the spring of 1866&mdash;the
first woman in the world to take a diploma from a dental college.
I am a New-Yorker by birth, but I love my adopted country&mdash;the
West. To it belongs the credit of making it possible for women to
be recognized in the dental profession on equal terms with men.
Should you wish any further proof, write to Dr. Watt, who was
professor of chemistry at the time I graduated, and I know he
will take pleasure in giving you any additional information. </p></blockquote>

<p>As early as 1866 a system of safe-deposit companies was inaugurated
in New York, which has proved a boon to women, enabling them to
keep any private papers they may wish to preserve. In 1880, we find
the following in the <i>National Citizen</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>A ladies' exchange for railroad and mining stocks has been
started at 71 Broadway, New York. The rooms are provided with an
indicator, desks and such other conveniences as are required for
business. Messenger boys drop in and out, and a telephone
connects with the office of a prominent Wall-street brokerage
firm. Miss Mary E. Gage, daughter of Frances Dana Gage, is the
manager and proprietor of the business. In reply to the inquiries
of a <i>Graphic</i> reporter, Miss Gage said she had found so much
inconvenience and annoyance in transacting her own operations in
stocks that she concluded to establish an office. After Miss Gage
was fairly settled, other women who labored under the same
disadvantages, began to drop in, their number increasing daily. A
ladies' stock exchange also exists at No. 40 Fourth street, under
charge of Mrs. Favor. The banking houses of Henry Clews and the
wealthy Russell Sage are said to be working in union with this
exchange. In January we chronicled the formation of a woman's
mining company and this month of a woman's stock exchange, each
of them an evidence of the wide range of business women are
entering. </p></blockquote>

<p>In <i>The Revolution</i> of May 14, 1868, we find the following:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Sorosis</span>.&mdash;This is the name of a new club of literary women, who
meet once a month and lunch at Delmonico's, to discuss questions
of art, science, literature and government. Alice Carey, who is
president, in her opening speech states the object of the club,
which is summed up in this brief extract:</p>

<blockquote><p>We have proposed the inculcation of deeper and broader ideas
among women, proposed to teach them to think for themselves and
get their opinions at first hand, not so much because it is their
right as because it is their duty. We have also proposed to open
new avenues of employment to women&mdash;to make them less dependent
and less burdensome&mdash;to lift them out of unwomanly self-distrust
and disqualifying diffidence into womanly self-respect and
self-knowledge. To teach them to make all work honorable, by each
doing the share that falls to her, or that she may work out to
herself agreeably to her own special aptitude, cheerfully and
faithfully&mdash;not going down to it, but bringing it up to her. We
have proposed to enter our protest against all idle<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_403" id="Page_403">[Pg 403]</a></span> gossip,
against all demoralizing and wicked waste of time, also, against
the follies and the tyrannies of fashion, against all external
impositions and disabilities; in short, against each and every
thing that opposes the full development and use of the faculties
conferred upon us by our Creator. </p></blockquote>

<p>We most heartily welcome all movements for the cultivation of
individual thought and character in woman, and would recommend the
formation of such clubs throughout the country. The editors of the
New York press have made known their dissatisfaction that no
gentlemen were to be admitted into this charmed circle. After a
calm and dispassionate discussion of this question, it was decided
to exclude gentlemen, not because their society was not most
desirable and calculated to add brilliancy to the club, but from a
fear lest the natural reverence of woman for man might embarrass
her in beginning to reason and discuss; lest she should be awed to
silence by their superior presence. It was not because they love
man less, but their own improvement more. For the comfort of these
ostracised ones, we would suggest a hope for the future. After
these ladies become familiar with parliamentary tactics, and the
grave questions that are to come before them for consideration, it
is proposed to admit gentlemen to the galleries, that they may
enjoy the same privileges vouchsafed to the fair sex in the past,
to look down upon the feast, to listen to the speeches, and to hear
"the pale, thoughtful brow," "the silken moustache," "the flowing
locks," "the manly gait and form" toasted in prose and verse. </p></blockquote>

<p>This club has met regularly ever since the day of its inauguration,
and has been remarkable for the harmony maintained by its members.
Mrs. Charlotte Wilbour was president for several years, until she
went to reside in Paris, in 1874. Since that time Mrs. Croly has
been, from year to year, elected to that office. Beginning with 12
members,<a name="FNanchor_211_211" id="FNanchor_211_211"></a><a href="#Footnote_211_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a> this club now numbers 320.</p>

<p>The most respected live-stock reporter in New York is a woman. Miss
Middie Morgan, pronounced the best judge of horned cattle in this
country. She can tell the weight of a beef on foot at a glance, and
reports the cattle market for the New York <i>Times</i>. A correspondent
says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Her father was a cattle-dealer, and taught her to handle
fearlessly the animals he delighted in. She learned to tell at a
glance the finest points of live-stock, and to doctor bovine and
equine ailments with the utmost skill. With all this, she became
a proficient in Italian and French, and a terse and rapid writer.
A few years ago, after her father's death, she traveled in Italy
with an invalid sister, having an eye to her pet passion&mdash;the
horse. While there she met Prince Poniatowsky, also an ardent
admirer of that animal. He mentioned her zoölogical
accomplishments to Victor Emanuel, and the consequence was Miss
Middie was deputed by His<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_404" id="Page_404">[Pg 404]</a></span> Majesty to purchase a hundred or so of
fine horses. She had charge of the blood-horses of King Victor
Emanuel, who owns the finest stud in Europe, and breeds horses of
a superior shape, vigor and fire. He beats Grant in his
admiration for that noble animal. When she decided to come to
this country, she made known the fact to Hon. George P. Marsh,
our minister to Italy; and he gave her a letter of recommendation
to Mr. Bigelow, of the <i>Times</i>, who employed her. She is an
expert among all kinds of animals. Her judgment about the
different breeds is sought after and much quoted. She can discuss
the nice points about cattle as easily as Rosa Bonheur can paint
them.<a name="FNanchor_212_212" id="FNanchor_212_212"></a><a href="#Footnote_212_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>From the Woman's Journal, Oct. 1, 1870:</p>

<blockquote><p>Miss Barkaloo, the lady just admitted to the St. Louis bar as a
lawyer, and who has received a license to practice as
attorney-at-law from the Supreme Court of that State, is a native
of Brooklyn, N. Y., and is a woman of more than ordinary ability.
Two years ago, after having read Blackstone and other elementary
law-books, she made application for admission as a student at
Columbia College, New York, and was promptly refused. Nothing
daunted, she went to St. Louis, where she was admitted to the Law
School. For eighteen months she assiduously devoted her energies
to the study of the science, and her fellow-students all agreed
in declaring her by far the brightest member of the class. That
there was no question of her ability was clearly shown at her
examination. Judge Knight, although overflowing with gallantry,
gave the lady no quarter. The most abstruse and erudite questions
were propounded to the applicant, but not once did the judge
catch the fair student tripping. Miss Barkaloo was about 22 years
of age, of a fine figure, intelligent face and large, expressive
eyes. The St. Louis papers of last week reported her sudden death
of typhoid fever. According to custom, a meeting of the members
of the St. Louis bar was held to take suitable action and pay
respect to her memory. It was the first meeting of the kind in
the United States, and was largely attended, not only by the
young members of the bar, but by the most distinguished
attorneys. Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins, herself a member of the Law
School, was in attendance, attired in deep mourning for the
recent death of a beloved sister. The following resolutions were
adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the death of Miss Helena Barkaloo we deplore
the loss of the first of her sex ever admitted to the bar of
Missouri.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in her erudition, industry and enterprise we
have to regret the loss of one who, in the morning of her career,
bade fair to reflect credit on our profession, and a new honor
upon her sex.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That our sympathy and condolence be extended to the
relatives of the deceased. </p></blockquote>

<p>Major Lucien Eaton, into whose office she had entered to seek
opportunities of perfecting herself in the knowledge of her
profession, said that&mdash;</p>

<blockquote><p>He had been requested by an accomplished lady of St. Louis to
afford her that opportunity, and at first had hesitated to do so;
yet he felt that she should have a trial,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_405" id="Page_405">[Pg 405]</a></span> and when he took her
into his office his conduct met with the approbation of the legal
fraternity generally. That fraternity cordially sympathized with
the efforts she was making, and both old lawyers and young ones
tried to put business into her hands, the taking of depositions
and other such work as she could perform. He testified to finding
her a true woman; modest and retiring, carefully shunning all
unnecessary publicity, and avoiding all display. She was earnest
in her studies, and being gifted with a fine intellect and a good
judgment, gave promise of great attainments. He had never known a
student more assiduous in study; she wanted to become mistress of
her profession. Her death is a calamity, not to her friends
alone, but to all who are making an effort for the enlargement of
woman's sphere. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>After the closing of the doors of the Geneva Medical School to
women, the Central Medical College of Syracuse was the first to
admit them. Four were graduated in 1852. Since then the two medical
colleges in New York city have graduated hundreds of women. Among
the many in successful practice are Clemence S. Lozier, Emily
Blackwell, Mary Putnam Jacobi, New York; Eliza P. Mosher, Brooklyn;
Sarah R. A. Dolley, Anna H. Searing, Fannie F. Hamilton, Rochester;
Amanda B. Sanford, Auburn; Eveline P. Ballintine, Le Roy; Rachel E.
Gleason, Elmira.</p>

<p>In May, 1870, the New York City Society was formed, with efficient
officers,<a name="FNanchor_213_213" id="FNanchor_213_213"></a><a href="#Footnote_213_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a> and pleasant rooms, at 16 Union Square, where
meetings were regularly held on Friday afternoon of each week.
These meetings were well attended and sustained with increasing
interest from month to month. This society held its first meeting
November 27, 1871, which was addressed by Mrs. Julia Ward Howe; and
on January 13, 1872, another, addressed by Jennie Collins, the
indefatigable Bostonian who has done so much for the benefit of the
working girls. A series of meetings was held under the auspices of
this association in many of the chief cities around New York and on
the Hudson, the chief speakers being the officers of the
association. An active German society was soon after formed, with
Mrs. Augusta Lillienthal, president, and Mrs. Matilda F. Wendt,
secretary. The latter published a paper, <i>Die Neue Zeit</i>, devoted
to woman suffrage. She was also the correspondent of several
leading journals in Germany. The society held its first public
meeting March 21, 1872, in Turner Hall, Mrs. Wendt presiding. Mrs.
Lillienthal, Mrs. Clara Neyman and Dr. Adolphe Doney were the
speakers. Clara Neyman became afterwards a popular speaker in many
suffrage and free-religious associations.</p>

<p>Petitions were rolled up by both the German and American societies
to the legislature, praying for the right of suffrage, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_406" id="Page_406">[Pg 406]</a></span> on
April 3, 1871, the petitioners<a name="FNanchor_214_214" id="FNanchor_214_214"></a><a href="#Footnote_214_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a> were granted a hearing, before
the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, Hon. L. Bradford Prince
presiding. Mrs. Wilbour's able address made a most favorable
impression. The question was referred to the Judiciary Committee.
The majority report was adverse, the minority, signed by Robert A.
Strahan and C. P. Vedder, favorable.</p>

<p>A grand demonstration was made April 26, 1872, in Cooper Institute,
intended specially to emphasize the claims of wives and mothers to
the ballot, and to show that the City Association had no sympathy
with any theories of free-love. Five thousand cards of invitation
were distributed.</p>

<p>In 1871 women attempted to vote in different parts of the State,
among whom were Matilda Joslyn Gage at Fayetteville, and Mrs.
Louise Mansfield at Nyack, but were repulsed. In 1872 others did
vote under the fourteenth amendment, conspicuously Susan B.
Anthony, who, as an example for the rest, was arrested, tried,
convicted and fined.<a name="FNanchor_215_215" id="FNanchor_215_215"></a><a href="#Footnote_215_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a> Mrs. Gage published a woman's rights
catechism to answer objections made at that time to woman's voting,
which proved a valuable campaign document. We find the names of
Mary R. Pell of Flushing, Helen M. Loder of Poughkeepsie, and
Elizabeth B. Whitney of Harlem, frequently mentioned at this time
for their valuable services.</p>

<p>The following items show the varied capacity of women for many
employments:</p>

<blockquote><p>In March, 1872, Miss Charlotte E. Ray (colored) of New York, was
graduated at the Howard University Law School, and admitted to
practice in the courts of the District of Columbia at
Washington.&mdash;The headquarters of the Women's National Relief
Association is in New York; its object is supplying government
stations along the coast with beds, blankets, warm clothing and
other necessaries for shipwrecked persons.&mdash;&mdash;Miss Leggett, for a
long time proprietor of a book and paper store in New York,
established a home, in 1878, for women, on Clinton Square, which
is in all respects antipodal to Stewart's Hotel. It is governed
by no stringent rules or regulations. No woman is liable without
cause, at the mere caprice of the founder, to be suddenly
required to leave, as was the case in Judge Hilton's home. On the
contrary, it is the object of the founder to provide a <i>real</i>
home for women. The house is not only provided with a library,
piano, etc., but its inmates are allowed to bring their
sewing-machines, hang pictures upon the walls, put up private
book-racks, etc. The price, too, but $4 a week, falls more nearly
within<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_407" id="Page_407">[Pg 407]</a></span> the means of laboring women than the $6 to $10 of the
Stewart Hotel.&mdash;&mdash;The first penny lunch-room in New York was
established by a woman, who made it a source of revenue.&mdash;&mdash;The
inventor of the submarine telescope, a woman, has received
$10,000 for her invention.&mdash;&mdash;Deborah Powers, now over ninety
years of age, is the head of a large oil-cloth manufactory in
Troy. Her sons are engaged in business with her, but she, still
bright and active, remains at the head of the firm. This is the
largest oil-cloth factory in the United States. She was left a
widow with three sons, with a heavy mortgage on her estate. She
secured an extension of time, built up the business and educated
her sons to the work. She is also president of a bank.&mdash;&mdash;A
successful nautical school in New York is conducted by two
ladies, Mrs. Thorne and her daughter, Mrs. Brownlow. These ladies
have made several voyages and studied navigation, both
theoretically and practically. During the late war they prepared
for the navy 2,000 mates and captains bringing their knowledge of
navigation up to the standard required by the strict examiners of
the naval board.&mdash;&mdash;Mrs. Wilson, since a New York custom-house
inspector, took charge, in 1872, of her husband's ship, disabled
in a terrific gale off Newfoundland in which his collar-bone was
broken and a portion of the crew badly hurt. The main-mast having
been cut down she rigged a jury-mast, and after twenty-one days
brought ship and crew safe to port.</p>

<p>Miss Jennie Turner, a short-hand writer of New York, is a notary
public. In a recent law-suit some of the papers were "sworn to"
before her in her official capacity, and one of the attorneys
claimed that it was not verified, inasmuch as a woman "could not
legally hold public office." The judge decided that the paper
must be accepted as properly verified, and said that the only way
to oust her was in a direct action by the attorney-general. The
judge said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Whether a female is capable of holding public office has never
been decided by the courts of this State, and is a question about
which legal minds may well differ. The constitution regulates the
right of suffrage and limits it to "male" citizens. Disabilities
are not favored, and are seldom extended by implication, from
which it may be argued that if it required the insertion of the
term "male" to exclude female citizens of lawful age from the
right of suffrage, a similar limitation would be required to
disqualify them from holding office. Citizenship is a condition
or status and has no relation to age or sex. It may be contended
that it was left to the good sense of the executive and to the
electors to determine whether or not they would select females to
office, and that the power being lodged in safe hands was beyond
the danger of abuse. If, on the other hand, it be seriously
contended that the constitution, by necessary implication,
disqualifies females from holding office, it must follow as a
necessary consequence that the act of the legislature permitting
females to serve as school officers, and all other legislative
enactments of like import removing such disqualification, are
unconstitutional and void. In this same connection it may be
argued that if the use of the personal pronoun "he" in the
constitution does not exclude females from public office, its use
in the statute can have no greater effect. The statute, like the
constitution, in prescribing the qualifications for office, omits
the word "male," leaving the question whether female citizens of
lawful age are included or excluded, one of construction. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Anna Ballard, a reporter on the staff of the New York <i>Sun</i>,
was elected a member of the Press Club, in 1877, by a vote of 24 to
10. Within<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_408" id="Page_408">[Pg 408]</a></span> the last ten years women contributors to the press have
become numerous. The book-reviewer of the <i>Herald</i> is a woman; one
of the book-reviewers of the <i>Tribune</i>, one of its most valued
correspondents and several of its regular contributors are women;
the agricultural and market reporter of the New York <i>Times</i> is a
woman; the New York <i>Sun's</i> fashion writer is a woman, and also one
of its most industrious and sagacious reporters. Female
correspondents flood the evening papers with news from Washington.
We instance these not at all as a complete catalogue; for there
are, we doubt not, more than a hundred women known and recognized
in and about Printing-house Square as regular contributors to the
columns of the daily and weekly press. As a rule they are modest,
reputable pains-taking servants of the press; and it is generally
conceded that if they are willing to put up with the inconveniences
attending journalistic work, it is no part of men's duty to
interfere with their attempt to earn an honest livelihood in a
profession which has so many avenues as yet uncrowded. Miss Ellen
A. Martin, formerly of Jamestown, N. Y., a graduate of the Law
School of Ann Arbor, in 1875, was admitted to the bar by the
Supreme Court of Illinois, at the January term, and is practicing
in Chicago, occupying an office with Miss Perry, Room 39, No. 143
La Salle street. Mrs. Martha J. Lamb was the first woman ever
admitted to membership in the New York State Historical Society.
Her "History of New York City" is recognized as a standard
authority, and has already taken rank among the great histories of
the world. </p></blockquote>

<p>During the summer of 1872 the presidential campaign agitated the
country. As Horace Greeley, who was opposed to woman suffrage, was
running against Grant and Wilson, who were in favor, and as the
Republican platform contained a plank promising some consideration
for the loyal women of the nation, a great demonstration was held
in Cooper Institute, New York, October 7. The large hall was
crowded by an excited throng. Hon. Luther R. Marsh presided. The
speakers<a name="FNanchor_216_216" id="FNanchor_216_216"></a><a href="#Footnote_216_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a> were all unusually happy. Mrs. Blake's<a name="FNanchor_217_217" id="FNanchor_217_217"></a><a href="#Footnote_217_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> address
was applauded to a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_409" id="Page_409">[Pg 409]</a></span> recall, when she went forward and asked the
audience to give three cheers for the woman suffrage candidates,
Grant and Wilson, which they did with hearty good will.</p>

<p>During the winter of 1873 a commission was sitting at Albany to
revise the constitution of New York. As it seemed fitting that
women should press their claims to the ballot, memorials were
presented and hearings requested by both the State and City
societies. Accordingly Mr. Silliman, the chairman, appointed
February 18, to hear the memorialists. A large delegation of ladies
went from New York.<a name="FNanchor_218_218" id="FNanchor_218_218"></a><a href="#Footnote_218_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> The commission was holding its sessions in
the common-council chamber, and when the time arrived for the
hearing the room was crowded with an attentive audience. The
members of the Committee on Suffrage were all present, Mr. Silliman
presided. Matilda Joslyn Gage represented the State association,
speaking upon the origin of government and the rights pertaining
thereto. Mrs. Wilbour and Mrs. Blake represented the New York City
Society, and each alike made a favorable impression. The Albany
<i>Evening Journal</i> gave a large space to a description of the
occasion. The respectful hearing, however, was the beginning and
the end, as far as could be seen, of all impression made on the
committee, which coolly recommended that suffrage be secured to
colored men by ratifying the fifteenth amendment, while making no
recognition whatever of the women of the State. A memorial was at
once sent to the legislature and another hearing was granted on
February 27. Mrs. Blake<a name="FNanchor_219_219" id="FNanchor_219_219"></a><a href="#Footnote_219_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a> was the only speaker on that occasion.
The Hon. Bradford Prince, of Queens, presided. At the close of Mrs.
Blake's remarks James W. Husted of Westchester, in a few earnest
words, avowed himself henceforth a champion of the cause. Shortly
afterwards the Hon. George West presented a constitutional
amendment giving to every woman possessed of $250 the right to
vote, thus placing the women of the State in the same position with
the colored men before the passage of the fifteenth amendment; but
even this was denied. The amendment was referred to the Judiciary
Committee and there entombed. Large<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_410" id="Page_410">[Pg 410]</a></span> meetings<a name="FNanchor_220_220" id="FNanchor_220_220"></a><a href="#Footnote_220_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> were held at
Robinson Hall during the winter, and at Apollo Hall in May, and in
different localities about New York.</p>

<p>July 2, 1873, an indignation meeting was held by the City Society
to protest against the sentence pronounced by Judge Hunt in the
case of Susan B. Anthony. De Garmo Hall was crowded. The platform
was decorated with the United States flag draped with black
bunting, while on each side were banners, one bearing the
inscription, "Respectful Consideration for a Loyal Woman's Vote!
$100 Fine!" the other, "Shall One Federal Judge Abolish Trial by
Jury?" Dr. Clemence Lozier presided, and Mrs. Devereux Blake made a
stirring speech reviewing Miss Anthony's trial and Judge Hunt's
decision.<a name="FNanchor_221_221" id="FNanchor_221_221"></a><a href="#Footnote_221_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> Mr. Hamilton Wilcox made a manly protest against
Judge Hunt's high-handed act of oppression, and Mrs. Marie Rachel
made another, in behalf of the German association.</p>

<p>In October, 1873, Mrs. Devereux Blake made an effort to open the
doors of Columbia College to women. A class of four young
ladies<a name="FNanchor_222_222" id="FNanchor_222_222"></a><a href="#Footnote_222_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> united in asking admission. Taking them with her, Mrs.
Blake went before the president and faculty, who gave her a
respectful hearing. She argued that the charter of the college
itself declared that it was founded for "the education of the youth
of the city", and that the word <i>youth</i> was defined in all
dictionaries as "young persons of both sexes," so that by its very
foundation it was intended that girls as well as boys should enjoy
the benefits of the university, and it was no more than just that
they should, seeing that the original endowment was by the "rectors
and inhabitants of the city of New York," one-half of these
inhabitants being women. Mrs. Blake's<a name="FNanchor_223_223" id="FNanchor_223_223"></a><a href="#Footnote_223_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a> application was referred
to "the Committee on the Course of Instruction," and after some
weeks of consideration was refused, on the ground that "it was
inexpedient," the Rev. Morgan Dix being especially<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_411" id="Page_411">[Pg 411]</a></span> active in his
opposition. However, soon after this, the lectures of the college
were open to ladies, and a few years later President Barnard warmly
recommended that young women should be admitted as students to all
the privileges of the university.</p>

<p>A Woman's Congress was organized at New York, October 15, 16, 17,
1873, in the Union League Theater. Representative women<a name="FNanchor_224_224" id="FNanchor_224_224"></a><a href="#Footnote_224_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> were
there from all parts of the country. Its object was similar to the
social science organizations&mdash;the discussion of a wider range of
subjects than could be tolerated on the platforms of any specific
reform. Mary A. Livermore presided, and the meeting was considered
a great success. The speeches and proceedings were published in
pamphlet form, and still are from year to year. This had been an
idea long brewing in many minds, and was at last realized through
the organizing talent of Mrs. Charlotte B. Wilbour, the originator
of Sorosis. From year to year they have held regular meetings in
the chief cities of the different States.</p>

<p>Dr. Clemence Lozier,<a name="FNanchor_225_225" id="FNanchor_225_225"></a><a href="#Footnote_225_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> president of the city society, early
opened her spacious parlors to the monthly meetings, where they
have been held for many years. This association has been active and
vigilant, taking note of and furthering every step of progress in
Church and State. Mrs. Lozier and Mrs. Blake have worked most
effectively together, the former furnishing the sinews of war, and
the latter making the attack all along the line, to the terror of
the faint-hearted.</p>

<p>The era of centennial celebrations was now approaching, and it was
proposed to hold a suitable commemoration on the one-hundredth
anniversary of the Boston tea-party, December 16, 1873. Union
League Theater was, on the appointed evening, filled to its utmost
capacity. The platform was decorated with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_412" id="Page_412">[Pg 412]</a></span> flowers and filled with
ladies, Dr. Lozier presiding. Miss Anthony was the speaker of the
evening, and made a most effective address; Helen Potter gave a
recitation; Hannah M'L. Shepherd read letters of sympathy; Mrs.
Blake made a short closing address, and presented a series of
resolutions, couched in precisely the same language as that adopted
by our ancestors in protesting against taxation without
representation:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That as an expression of the sentiments of the
tax-paying women of New York, we reïterate, as applied to
ourselves, the declaration contained in the bill of rights put
forth by our ancestors 100 years ago: <i>First</i>&mdash;That the women of
the country are entitled to equal rights and privileges with the
men; <i>Second</i>&mdash;That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of
a people, and the undoubted right of all men and women, that no
taxes be imposed on them but by their own consent, given in
person or by their representatives; <i>Third</i>&mdash;That the only
representatives of these women are persons chosen by themselves,
and that no taxes ever have been or can be constitutionally
imposed upon them but by legislatures composed of persons so
chosen. </p></blockquote>

<p>The report of the State assessors<a name="FNanchor_226_226" id="FNanchor_226_226"></a><a href="#Footnote_226_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a> of 1883 brought forcibly to
view the injustice done in taxing non-voters. At their meeting with
the supervisors of Onondaga county, Mr. Pope of Fabius said: "Mrs.
Andrews is assessed too much." Mr. Hadley replied: "Well, Mr.
Briggs says that is the way all the women are assessed." Mr. Briggs
responded: "Yes, that is the way we find the assessors treat the
women; they can't vote, you know! I am in favor of letting the
women vote now."</p>

<p>Two women in the village of Batavia were assessed for more personal
property than the entire assessment of like property, exclusive of
corporations, in the city of Rochester with a population of 70,000!
While declaring they had found very little personal property
assessed, Mr. Fowler said: "We found some cases where town
assessors had taxed the personal property of women,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_413" id="Page_413">[Pg 413]</a></span> and one case
of a ward who was assessed to full value, while upon the guardian's
property there was no assessment at all." This report not only
proved a good woman suffrage document, but the work done by the
State assessors, Messrs. Hadley, Briggs and Fowler, convinced them
personally of woman's need of the ballot for the protection of her
property.</p>

<p>Early in the year 1874, memorials from societies in different parts
of the State were sent to the legislature, asking "that all taxes
due from women be remitted until they are allowed to vote." The
most active of these anti-tax societies was the one formed in
Rochester through the efforts of Mrs. Lewia C. Smith, whose
earnestness and fidelity in this, as in many another good word and
work, have been such as to command the admiration even of
opponents&mdash;a soul of that sweet charity that makes no account of
self. A hearing was appointed for the memorialists on January 24,
and the journals<a name="FNanchor_227_227" id="FNanchor_227_227"></a><a href="#Footnote_227_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a> made honorable mention of the occasion.</p>

<p>The centennial was approaching and the notes of preparation were
heard on all sides. The women who understood their status as
disfranchised citizens in a republic, regarded the coming event as
one for them of humiliation rather than rejoicing, inasmuch as the
close of the first century of the nation's existence found one half
the people still political slaves. At the February meeting of the
association, Mrs. Blake presented the following resolution:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the members of this society do hereby pledge
themselves not to aid either by their labor, time or money, the
proposed celebration of the independence of the men of the
nation, unless before July 4, 1876, the women of the land shall
be guaranteed their political freedom. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_414" id="Page_414">[Pg 414]</a></span></p>

<p>In their own way, however, the members of the society intended to
observe such centennials as were fitting, and so preparation was
made for a suitable commemoration of the battle of Lexington. They
held a meeting<a name="FNanchor_228_228" id="FNanchor_228_228"></a><a href="#Footnote_228_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a> in the Union League Theatre, the evening of
April 19, to protest against their disfranchisement. The journals
contained fair reports, with the exception of <i>The Tribune</i>, which
sent no reporter, and closed its account next day of many
observances elsewhere by saying, "there was no celebration in New
York city." Several of the papers published Mrs. Blake's speech:</p>

<blockquote><p>Just as the first rays of dawn stole across our city this
morning, the century was complete since the founders of this
nation made their first great stand for liberty. The early April
sunshine a hundred years ago saw a group of men and boys gathered
together, "a few rods north of the meeting-house," in the
Massachusetts village of Lexington. Un-uniformed and
undisciplined, standing in the chilly morning, that handful of
patriots represented the great Republic which on that day was to
spring from their martyrdom. The rebellious colonists had
collected in the hamlets near Boston some military stores; these
the British officers in command at Boston resolved should be
seized and destroyed. Warned of their design Paul Revere made his
famous ride to arouse the country to resistance, and in the dead
of night Adams and Hancock went out to summon their comrades to
arms. As the last stars vanished before the dawn, the drum beat
to summon the patriots to action, and in response a little band
of about eighty men and boys assembled on the village green. Few
as they were in numbers, they presented a brave front as the
British regulars came up the quiet street, 200 strong. What
followed was not a battle, but a butchery. The minute-men refused
to surrender to Major Pitcairn's haughty demand, and a volley of
musketry, close and deadly, was poured on this devoted band. In
response only a few random shots were fired, which did absolutely
no harm, and then, seeing the hopelessness of resistance, the
commander of the minute-men ordered them to disperse. The
British, elated with their easy victory, pushed on toward
Concord, thinking that there another speedy success awaited them.
In this they soon bitterly learned their error. Although they
were reinforced on the way, when they reached that village they
were met by such a resistance as drove them back, broken and
disorganized, on the road they had so proudly followed in the
morning. Concord nobly avenged the slaughter at Lexington.</p>

<p>So much for what men did on that day, and let us see what share
the women had in its dangers and its sorrows. Jonathan Harris was
shot in front of his own house, while his wife was watching him
from a window, seeing him fall with such anguish as no poor words
of mine can describe. He struggled to his feet, the blood gushing
from a wound in his breast, staggered forward a few paces and
fell again, and then crawled on his hands and knees to his
threshold only to expire just as his wife reached him. Did not
this woman bear her portion of the martyrdom? Isaac Davis, a man
in the prime of life, went forth from his home in the morning,
and before the afternoon sunlight had grown yellow, was brought
back to it dead, and was laid, pale and cold, in his wife's bed,
only three hours after he had left her with a solemn benediction
of farewell. Did not this woman also suffer? She was left a widow
in the very flower of her youth, and for seventy years she
faithfully mourned his taking off! Nor were these the only ones;
for every man who fell that day, some woman's heart was wrung.
There were others who endured actual physical hardship and
suffering. Hannah Adams lay in bed with an infant only a week old
when the British reached her house in their disorderly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_415" id="Page_415">[Pg 415]</a></span> retreat
to Boston; they forced her to leave her sick room and to crawl
into an adjoining corn shed, while they burned her house to ashes
in her sight. Three companies of British troops went to the house
of Major Barrett and demanded food. Mrs. Barrett served them as
well as she was able, and when she was offered compensation,
refused it, saying gently, "We are commanded if our enemy hunger
to feed him." So, in toil or suffering or anguish the women
endured their share of the sorrows of that day. Do they not
deserve a share of its glories also? The battles of Lexington and
Concord form an era in our country's history. When, driven to
desperation by a long course of oppression, the people first
resolved to revolt against the mother country. Discontent,
resentment and indignation had grown stronger month by month
among the hardy settlers of the land, until they culminated in
the most splendid act of audacity that the world has ever seen. A
few colonies, scattered at long intervals along the Atlantic
seaboard, dared to defy the proudest nation in Europe, and a few
rustics, undisciplined, and almost unarmed, actually ventured to
encounter in battle that army which had boasted its conquests
over the flower of European chivalry. What unheard of oppressions
drove these people to the mad attempt? What unheard of atrocities
had the rulers of these people practiced, what unjust
confiscations of property, what cruel imprisonments and wicked
murders? None of all these; the people of this land were not
starving or dying under the iron heel of an Alva or a
Robespierre, but their civil liberties had been denied, their
political freedom refused, and rather than endure the loss of
these precious things, they were willing to encounter danger and
to brave death. The men and women who suffered at Concord and at
Lexington 100 years ago to-day, were martyrs to the sacred cause
of personal liberty! Looking over the records of the past we
find, again and again repeated, the burden of their complaints.
Not that they were starving or dying, but that they were taxed
without their consent, and that they were denied personal
representation.</p>

<p>The congress which assembled at Philadelphia in 1774, declared
that "the foundation of liberty and of all free governments is
the right of the people to participate in their legislative
council"; and the House of Burgesses, assembled in Virginia in
the same year, asserted "That a determined system is formed and
pressed for reducing us to slavery, by subjecting us to the
payment of taxes imposed without our consent." Strong language
this, as strong as any we women have ever employed in addressing
the men of this nation. Our ancestors called the imposition of
taxes without their consent, slavery, and the denial of personal
representation, tyranny. Slavery and tyranny! words which they
tell us to-day are too strong for our use. We must find some mild
and lady-like phrases in which to describe these oppressions. We
must employ some safe and gentle terms to indicate the crimes
which our forefathers denounced! My friends, what was truth a
century ago is truth to-day! Other things may have changed, but
justice has not changed in a hundred years! </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1876 a presidential election was again approaching, and to meet
the exigencies of the campaign a woman suffrage committee was
formed to ask the legislature to grant presidential suffrage to
women, as it was strictly within their power to do without a
constitutional amendment. To this end Mrs. Gage prepared an appeal
which was widely circulated throughout the State:</p>

<blockquote><p>Within a year the election of President and Vice-President of the
United States, will again take place. The right to vote for these
functionaries is a National and not a State right; the United
States has unquestioned control of this branch of suffrage, and
in its constitution has declared to whom it has delegated this
power. Article 2 of the Constitution of the United States, is
devoted to the president; the manner of choosing him, his power,
his duties, etc. In regard to the method of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_416" id="Page_416">[Pg 416]</a></span> choosing the
president, Par. 2, Sec. 1, Art. 2, reads thus: "Each State shall
appoint in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct, a
number of electors, equal to the whole number of senators and
representatives to which the State may be entitled in the
congress." There is no other authority for the appointment of
presidential electors, either in the Constitution of the United
States, or in the constitution of any State. The constitution of
the State of New York is entirely silent upon the appointment of
presidential electors, for the reason that the constitution of
the United States declares that they <i>shall</i> be appointed in such
manner as the legislature may direct. With the exception of South
Carolina, every State in the Union has adopted the plan of
choosing presidential electors by ballot, and it is in the power
of the legislature of each State to prescribe the qualifications
of those who shall be permitted to vote for such electors.</p>

<p>The authority to prescribe the qualifications of those persons in
the State of New York who shall be permitted to vote for electors
of President and Vice-President of the United States, therefore
lies alone in the legislature of this State. That body has power
in this respect superior to the State constitution; it rises
above the constitution; it is invested with its powers by the
Constitution of the United States; it is under national
authority, and need in no way be governed by any representative
clause which may exist in the State constitution. In prescribing
the qualifications of those persons who shall vote for electors,
the legislature has power to exclude all persons who cannot read
and write. It has power to say that no person unless possessing a
freehold estate of the value of two hundred and fifty dollars,
shall vote for such electors. It has power to declare that only
tax-payers shall vote for such electors, it is even vested with
authority to say that no one but church members shall be entitled
to vote for electors of President and Vice-President of the
United States. The legislature of this State at its next session
has even power to cut off the right of all white men to vote for
electors at the presidential election next fall. It matters not
what qualifications the State itself may have prescribed for
electors of State officers, the question who shall vote for
president and vice-president is on an entirely different basis,
and prescribing the qualifications for such electors lies in
entirely different hands. It is a question of national import
with which the State (in its constitution) has nothing to do, and
over which even congress has no power. The legislature which is
to assemble in Albany, the first Tuesday in January next, will
have power, by the passage of a simple bill, to secure to the
women of this State the right to vote for electors at the
presidential election in the fall of 1876, and thus to inaugurate
the centennial year by an act of equity and justice that will be
in accordance with that part of the Declaration of Independence
which declares that "governments derive their <i>just</i> powers from
the consent of the governed." Shall it not be done?</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>,<br />
<span class="smcap">Lillie Devereux Blake</span>,<br />
<span class="smcap">Clemence S. Lozier, M. D.</span>,<br />
<i>N. Y. State Woman Suffrage Com.</i><br />
</p>
</blockquote>
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_417" id="Page_417">[Pg 417]</a></span></p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 437px;">
<a name="v3_417" id="v3_417">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_417.jpg" width="437" height="500" alt="Lillie Devereux Blake" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>A memorial embodying this claim was presented to the legislature,
and on, January 18, the committee went to Albany and were heard by
the Judiciary Committee of the Assembly, to whom their paper had
been referred. Hon. Robert H. Strahan of New York presided. On
February 8, the memorialists<a name="FNanchor_229_229" id="FNanchor_229_229"></a><a href="#Footnote_229_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> had another meeting before the
Judiciary Committee of the Senate, in the Senate chamber, Hon.
Bradford L. Prince presiding. The audience was overflowing, and the
corridors so crowded that the meeting adjourned to the Assembly
chamber by order of the chairman. Soon after, Hon. George H. West
of Saratoga presented a bill giving the women of the State the
right to vote for president. It was referred to the Judiciary
Committee and reported adversely, notwithstanding it was twice
called up and debated by its friends, Messrs. Strahan, Husted,
Ogden, Hogeboom and West. No vote was reached on the measure, but
this much of consideration was a gain over previous years, when
nothing had been done beyond the presentation of a bill and its
reference to a committee.</p>

<p>In 1876 Governor Samuel J. Tilden appointed Mrs. Josephine Shaw
Lowell as commissioner of the State Board of Charities, the first
official position a woman ever held in this State.</p>

<p>During the winter of 1877 a memorial was sent to the legislature,
asking that women be allowed to serve as school officers. The Hon.
William N. Emerson, senator from Monroe, presented the following
bill:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">An Act</span> <i>to Authorize the Election of Women to School Offices.</i></p>

<p>The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> Any woman of the age of twenty-one years and upwards,
and possessing the qualifications prescribed for men, shall be
eligible to any office under the general or special school laws
of this State, subject to the same conditions and requirements as
prescribed to men.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> This act shall take effect immediately. </p></blockquote>

<p>Petitions and memorials from all parts of the State were poured
into the legislature, praying for the passage of the bill. Mr.
Emerson made an eloquent speech in its favor, and labored earnestly
for the measure. It passed the Senate by a vote of 19 to 9; the
Assembly by a vote of 84 to 19. This success was hailed with great
rejoicing by the women of the State who understood the progress of
events. But their delight was turned into indignation and
disappointment when the governor, Lucius Robinson, returned the
bill to the Senate with the following veto:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_418" id="Page_418">[Pg 418]</a></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">State of New York, Executive Chamber,</span> }<br />
<span class="smcap">Albany</span>, May 8, 1877. }<br />
</p>

<p><i>To the Senate:</i></p>

<p>I return without approval Senate bill No. 61, entitled "An act to
authorize the election of women to school offices."</p>

<p>This bill goes too far or not far enough. It provides that women
may hold any or all of the offices connected with the department
of education, that is to say, a woman may be elected
superintendent of public instruction, women may be appointed
school commissioners, members of boards of education and trustees
of school districts. In some of these positions it will become
their duty to make contracts, purchase materials, build and
repair school-houses, and to supervise and effect all the
transactions of school business, involving an annual expenditure
of over twelve million dollars in this State. There can be no
greater reason that women should occupy these positions than the
less responsible ones of supervisors, town clerks, justices of
the peace, commissioners of highways, overseers of the poor, and
numerous others. If women are physically and mentally fitted for
one class of these stations, they are equally so for the others.</p>

<p>But at this period in the history of the world such enactments as
the present hardly comport with the wisdom and dignity of
legislation. The God of nature has appointed different fields of
labor, duty and usefulness for the sexes. His decrees cannot be
changed by human legislation. In the education of our children
the mother stands far above all superintendents, commissioners,
trustees and school teachers. Her influence in the family, in
social intercourse and enterprises, outweighs all the mere
machinery of benevolence and education. To lower her from the
high and holy place given her by nature, is to degrade her power
and to injure rather than benefit the cause of education itself.
In all enlightened and Christian nations the experience and
observations of ages have illustrated and defined the relative
duties of the sexes in promoting the best interests of society.
Few, if any, of the intelligent and right-minded among women
desire or would be willing to accept the change which such a law
would inaugurate.</p>

<p>The bill is moreover a clear infraction of the spirit if not the
letter of the constitution. Under that instrument women have no
right to vote, and it cannot be supposed that it is the intention
of the constitution that persons not entitled to the right of
suffrage should be eligible to some of the most important offices
in the State.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">L. Robinson.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>On May 24, 25, 1877, the National and State conventions were again
held in New York, at Steinway Hall. Both conventions passed
resolutions denouncing Governor Robinson's action in his veto. The
following address was issued by the State association:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Voters and Legislators of New York:</i></p>

<p>The women of the State of New York, in convention assembled, do
most earnestly protest against the injustice with which they are
treated by the State, where in point of numbers they are in
excess of the men:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>First</i>&mdash;They are denied the right of choosing their own rulers,
but are compelled to submit to the choice of a minority
consisting of its male residents, fully one-third of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_419" id="Page_419">[Pg 419]</a></span> whom are of
foreign birth. <i>Second</i>&mdash;They are held amenable to laws they have
had no share in making and in which they are forbidden a
voice&mdash;laws which touch all their most vital interests of
education, industry, children, property, life and liberty.
<i>Third</i>&mdash;While compelled to bear the burdens and suffer the
penalties of government, they are debarred the honors and
emoluments of civil service, and the control of offices in the
righteous discharge of whose duties their interest is equal to
that of men. <i>Fourth</i>&mdash;They are taxed without their consent to
sustain men in office who enact laws directly opposing their
interests, and inasmuch as the State of New York pays one-sixth
the taxes of the United States, its women feel the arm of
oppression&mdash;like Briareus with his hundred hands&mdash;touching and
crushing them with its burdens. <i>Fifth</i>&mdash;They are under the power
of an autocrat whose salary they must pay, but who, in opposition
to the will of the people&mdash;as recently shown in the passage of
the School bill by the legislature&mdash;has by his veto denied them
all official authority in the control of the public schools, and
this despite the fact of there being 3,670 more girls of school
age than boys, and 14,819 more women than men teaching in the
State. <i>Sixth</i>&mdash;Under pretence of regulating public morals, women
of the <i>femme de pave</i> class, many of whom have been driven to
this mode of life as a livelihood, are subjected to more
oppressive laws than their partners in vice. <i>Seventh</i>&mdash;The laws
treat married women as criminals by taking from them all legal
control of their children, while those born outside of marriage
belong absolutely to the mothers. <i>Eighth</i>&mdash;They forbid the
mother's inheritance of property from her children in case the
father is living, thus making her of no consideration in the eyes
of those to whom she has given birth. <i>Ninth</i>&mdash;They give the
husband control of the common property&mdash;allow him to spend the
whole personal estate in riotous living, or even to sell the home
over his wife's head, subject only to her third life-interest in
case she survives him. <i>Tenth</i>&mdash;They allow the husband to
imprison her at his pleasure within his own house, the court
sustaining him in this coërcion until the wife "submits herself
to her husband's will." <i>Eleventh</i>&mdash;They allow the husband while
the common property is in his possession, "without even the
formality of a legal complaint, the taking of an oath or the
filing of a bond for the good faith of his action," to advertise
his wife through the public press as a deserter and to forbid her
credit. <i>Twelfth</i>&mdash;They deny the widow the right of inheritance
in the common property that they give the widower, allow her but
forty days' residence in the family mansion before paying rent to
her husband's heirs, thus treating her as if she were an alien to
her own children&mdash;set off to her a few paltry articles of
household use, close the estate through a process of law, and
make the days of her bereavement doubly days of sorrow. </p></blockquote>

<p>The above laws of marriage, placing irresponsible authority in the
hands of the husband, have given him a power of moral coërcion over
the wife, making her virtually his slave. Without entering into
fuller details of the injustice and oppression of the laws upon all
women, married and single, we will sum the whole subject up in the
language of the French Woman's Rights League, which characterizes
woman's position thus:</p>

<blockquote><p>(1) Woman is held <i>politically</i> to have no existence; (2)
<i>civilly</i>, she is a minor; (3) in marriage she is a serf; (4) in
labor she is made inferior and robbed of her earnings; (5) in
public instruction she is sacrificed to man; (6) out of marriage,
answers to the faults committed by both; (7) as a mother is
deprived of her right to her children; (8) she is only deemed
equally responsible, intelligent and answerable in taxes and
crimes. </p></blockquote>

<p>By order of the New York State Woman Suffrage Society.</p>
<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>, <i>Secretary</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0">May, 1877.</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="ltr-clear">In the summer of 1877 another effort was made by women of wealth to
be relieved from taxation. Several memorials to that effect were
sent to the legislature, one headed by Susan A.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_420" id="Page_420">[Pg 420]</a></span> King<a name="FNanchor_230_230" id="FNanchor_230_230"></a><a href="#Footnote_230_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> of New
York, a self-made woman who had accumulated a large fortune and
owned much real estate. Her memorial, signed by a few others,
represented $9,000,000. The committee bearing these waited on many
members of the legislature to secure their influence when such a
bill should be presented, which was done March 11, by Col. Alfred
Wagstaff, with warm recommendations. He was followed by Senator
McCarthy of Onondaga, who also introduced a bill for an amendment
to the constitution to secure to women the right of suffrage. Both
these bills called out the determined opposition of Thomas C.
Ecclesine, senator from the eleventh district, and the ridicule of
others. The delegation of ladies, sitting there as representatives
of half the people of the State, felt insulted to have their
demands thus sneered at; it was for them a moment of bitter
humiliation. In the evening, however, their time for retaliation
came, as they had a hearing in the Senate chamber, before the
Judiciary Committee, where an immense crowd assembled at an early
hour. The chairman of the committee Hon. William H. Robertson,
presided. Each of the ladies, in the course of her speech, referred
to the insulting remarks of Mr. Hughes of Washington county. That
gentleman, being present, looked as if he regretted his unfortunate
jokes, and winced under the sarcasm of the ladies.</p>

<p>Soon after this, great excitement was created by the close of
Stewart's Home for Working Women. This fine building, on the corner
of Thirty-second street and Fourth avenue, had been erected by the
merchant prince for the use of working women, who could there find
a home at a moderate expense. The millionaire dead, his large
fortune passed into other hands. The<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_421" id="Page_421">[Pg 421]</a></span> building was completed and
furnished in a style of elegance far beyond what was appropriated
to that purpose. On April 2, with a great flourish, the immense
building was thrown open for public inspection. A large number of
women applied at once for admission, but encountered a set of rules
that drove most of them away. This gave Judge Hilton an excuse for
violating his obligation to carry out the plan of his dead
benefactor, and in a few weeks he closed the house to working women
and opened it as the Park Hotel, for which it was so admirably
furnished and fitted that it was the general opinion that it was
intended for this from the beginning. Great indignation was felt in
the community, the women calling a meeting to express their
disappointment and dissatisfaction. This was held in Cooper
Institute, under the auspices of the Woman Suffrage
Association.<a name="FNanchor_231_231" id="FNanchor_231_231"></a><a href="#Footnote_231_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> Had Mr. Stewart provided a permanent home for
working women it would have been but a meager return for the
underpaid toil of the thousands who had labored for half a century
to build up his princely fortune. But even the idea of such an act
of justice died with him.</p>

<p>In 1879 that eminent philanthropist Dr. Hervey Backus Wilbur,
superintendent of the State Idiot Asylum at Syracuse, urged the
passage of a law requiring the employment of competent women as
physicians in the female wards of the State insane asylums.
Petitions prepared by him were circulated by the officers of the
Women's Medical College, of the New York Infirmary, by Mrs.
Josephine Shaw Lowell of the State Board of Charities, and by Drs.
Willard Parker, Mary Putnam Jacobi, and other eminent physicians of
New York. The bill prepared by Dr. Wilbur was introduced in the
Assembly by Hon. Erastus Brooks, and required the trustees of each
of the four State asylums for the insane, "to employ one or more
competent, well-educated female physicians to have the charge of
the female patients of said asylum, under the direction of the
medical superintendents of the several asylums, as in the case of
the other or male assistant physicians, and to take the place of
such male assistant physician or physicians in the wards of the
female patients." Although Dr. Wilbur stood at the head of his
profession, his authority upon everything connected with the
feeble-minded being not only recognized in this country but in
Europe also as absolute, yet this bill, which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_422" id="Page_422">[Pg 422]</a></span> did not contemplate
placing a woman in charge of such an institution, and which was so
purely moral in its character, met with ridicule and opposition
from the press of the State, to which Dr. Wilbur made an exhaustive
reply, showing the need of women as physicians in all institutions
in which unfortunate women are incarcerated.</p>

<p>When the fall elections of 1879 approached, a circular letter was
sent to every candidate for office in the city, asking his views on
the question of woman suffrage, and delegations waited on the
nominees for mayor. Mr. Edward Cooper, the Republican candidate,
declared he had no sympathy with the movement, while Hon. Augustus
Schell, the Democratic candidate, received the ladies with great
courtesy, and avowed himself friendly at least to the demand for
equal wages and better opportunities for education, and in the
trades and professions. From the answers received, a list of
candidates was prepared. On the evening of October 30, a crowded
mass-meeting was held in Steinway Hall to advocate the election of
those men who were favorable to the enfranchisement of woman. Mr.
Schell was chosen Mayor. The re-nomination in 1879, of Lucius
Robinson for governor by the Democratic convention, aroused the
opposition of the women who understood the politics of the State.
He had declared that "the God of Nature did not intend women for
public life"; they resolved that the same power should retire Mr.
Robinson from public life, and held mass-meetings to that end.<a name="FNanchor_232_232" id="FNanchor_232_232"></a><a href="#Footnote_232_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a>
These meetings were all alike crowded and enthusiastic, and the
speakers<a name="FNanchor_233_233" id="FNanchor_233_233"></a><a href="#Footnote_233_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> felt richly paid for their efforts. A thorough
canvass of the State was also made, and a protest<a name="FNanchor_234_234" id="FNanchor_234_234"></a><a href="#Footnote_234_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a> extensively
circulated, condemning the governor for his veto of the
school-bill.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_423" id="Page_423">[Pg 423]</a></span></p>

<p>Mr. F. B. Thurber, and Miss Susan A. King contributed liberally to
this campaign. Handbills containing the protest and a call for a
series of mass-meetings, were distributed by the thousands all over
the State. The last meeting was held at the seventh ward Republican
wigwam, an immense structure, in Brooklyn: its use was given by the
unanimous vote of the club.<a name="FNanchor_235_235" id="FNanchor_235_235"></a><a href="#Footnote_235_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a> At every one of these meetings
resolutions were passed condemning Mr. Robinson, and electors were
urged to cast their votes against him. No doubt the enthusiasm the
women aroused for his opponent helped in a measure to defeat him.</p>

<p>In the meantime, women in the eleventh senatorial district were
concentrating their efforts for the defeat of Thomas H. Eccelsine.
His Republican opponent, Hon. Chas. E. Foster, was a pronounced
advocate of woman suffrage. Miss King,<a name="FNanchor_236_236" id="FNanchor_236_236"></a><a href="#Footnote_236_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> who resided in this
district, exerted all her influence for his election, giving time,
money and thought to the canvass. On the morning of November 5, the
day after election, the papers announced that Mr. Cornell was
chosen governor, and that Mr. Ecclesine, who two years before had
been elected by 7,000 majority, was defeated by 600, and Mr. Foster
chosen senator in his stead.</p>

<p>This campaign attracted much attention. The journals throughout the
country commented upon the action of the women. It was conceded
that their efforts had counted for something in influencing the
election, and from this moment the leaders of the woman suffrage
movement in New York regarded themselves as possessing some
political influence.</p>

<p>In January, 1880, Governor Alonzo B. Cornell, in his first message
to the legislature, among other recommendations, embodied the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p>The policy of making women eligible as school officers has been
adopted in several States with beneficial results, and the
question is exciting much discussion in this State. Women are
equally competent with men for this duty, and it cannot be
doubted that their admission to representation would largely
increase the efficacy of our school management. The favorable
attention of the legislature is earnestly directed to this
subject. </p></blockquote>

<p>With such words from the chief executive it was an easy matter to
find friends for a measure making women eligible as school<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_424" id="Page_424">[Pg 424]</a></span>
officers. Early in the session the following bill was introduced by
Hon. Lorraine B. Sessions of Cattaraugus:</p>

<blockquote><p>No person shall be deemed ineligible to serve as any school
officer, or to vote at any school meeting, by reason of sex, who
has the voter's qualifications required by law. </p></blockquote>

<p>Senator Edwin G. Halbert of Broome rendered efficient aid and the
bill passed at once in the Senate by a nearly unanimous vote. Hon.
G. W. Husted of Westchester introduced it at once in the assembly
and earnestly championed the measure. It passed by a vote of 87 to
3. The bill was laid before the governor, who promptly affixed his
signature to it, and thus, at last, secured to the women of the
Empire State the right to vote on all school matters, and to hold
any school offices to which they might be chosen. The bill was
signed on February 12, and the next day being Friday, was the last
day of registration in the city of Syracuse, the election there
taking place on the following Tuesday. The news did not reach there
until late in the day, the evening papers being the first to
contain it. But, although so little was known of the measure,
thirteen women registered their names as voters, and cast their
ballots at the election. This was the first time the women of New
York ever voted, and Tuesday, February 18, 1880, is a day to be
remembered.<a name="FNanchor_237_237" id="FNanchor_237_237"></a><a href="#Footnote_237_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a> The voting for officers, like all other-school
matters, was provided for, not under the general laws, but by the
school statutes. There are two general elections in chartered
cities and universal suffrage for school as well as all other
officers; no preparation being required of voters but registration.
In the rural districts school meetings<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_425" id="Page_425">[Pg 425]</a></span> are held for elections, and
there are, by the statutes, three classes of voters described by
law.</p>

<blockquote><p>1. Every person (male or female) who is a resident of the
district, of the age of twenty-one years, entitled to hold lands
in this State, who either owns or hires real estate in the
district liable to taxation for school purposes.</p>

<p>2. Every citizen of the United States (male or female) above the
age of twenty-one years, who is a resident of the district, and
who owns any personal property assessed on the last preceding
assessment roll of the town exceeding $50 in value, exclusive of
such as is exempt from execution.</p>

<p>3. Every citizen of the United States (male or female) above the
age of twenty-one years, who is a resident of the district and
who has permanently residing with him, or her, a child or
children of school age, some one or more of whom shall have
attended the school of the district for a period of at least
eight weeks within the year preceding the time at which the vote
is offered. </p></blockquote>

<p>Several of the large cities hold their elections on the first
Tuesday in March, while the majority of the rural districts hold
their school meetings on the second Tuesday in October.
Preparations were at once made to call out a large vote of women in
the cities holding spring elections, but all such efforts were
checked by official action. The mayor of Rochester wrote to the
governor, asking him if the new law applied to cities. Mr. Cornell
laid the question before Attorney-General Ward, who promptly gave
an opinion that inasmuch as the words "school meeting" were used in
the law, women could only vote where such meetings were held, but
were not entitled to vote at the elections in large cities.
Meantime the New York City Association called a meeting of
congratulation on the passage of the bill on February 25, when
Robinson Hall was crowded to overflowing with the friends of woman
suffrage, some of whom addressed the vast audience.<a name="FNanchor_238_238" id="FNanchor_238_238"></a><a href="#Footnote_238_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a></p>

<p>A mass-meeting of women was held at Albany, in Geological Hall,
Mrs. Blake presiding. It was especially announced that the meeting
was only for ladies, but several men who strayed in were permitted
to remain, to take that part in the proceedings usually allowed to
women in masculine assemblies, that is, to be silent spectators.
Resolutions were passed, urging the women to vote at the coming
election, and the names of several ladies were suggested as
trustees. March 19, 1880, the Albany County Woman Suffrage
Association<a name="FNanchor_239_239" id="FNanchor_239_239"></a><a href="#Footnote_239_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a> was formed, whose first active duty was to rouse
the women to vote in the coming school election, which they did, in
spite of the attorney-general's opinion.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_426" id="Page_426">[Pg 426]</a></span></p>

<p>Mr. Edwin G. Halbert of Broome also introduced a bill in the
Senate, for a constitutional amendment, to secure to women the
right of suffrage, which was passed by that conservative body just
before its adjournment. Meantime Mr. Wilcox urged the passage of
the bill to prohibit disfranchisement, which was brought to a third
reading in the Assembly. He prepared and circulated among the
members of the legislature a brief,<a name="FNanchor_240_240" id="FNanchor_240_240"></a><a href="#Footnote_240_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> showing their power to
extend the suffrage. The argument is unanswerable, establishing the
fact that women had voted through the early days of the Colonies,
and proving, by unanswerable authorities, their right to do so;
thus establishing the right of women to vote in 1885. Mr. Wilcox'
researches on this point will prove invaluable in the
enfranchisement of woman, as his facts are irresistible. Following
is the proposed bill:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">An Act</span> <i>to Prohibit Disfranchisement</i>.</p>

<p>Introduced in the Assembly by Hon. Alex. F. Andrews, March 31,
1880. Reported by the Judiciary Committee for consideration, May
24. Ordered to third reading, May 27. Again so reported,
unanimously, March 16, 1881. Again ordered to third reading, May
3, 1881; ayes 60, noes 40. Vote on passage, May 11, 1881; ayes
59, noes 55, majority 4. (65 necessary to pass).</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, the common law entitles women to vote under the same
qualifications as men; and</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, said common law has never been abrogated in this
State; and</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, a practice nevertheless obtains of treating as
disfranchised all persons to whom suffrage is not secured by
express words of the constitution; and</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, the constitution makes no provision for this practice,
but on the contrary declares that its own object is to secure the
blessings of freedom to the people, and provides that no member
of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of the
privileges secured to any citizen unless by constitutional
provision and judicial decision thereunder; and</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, this practice, despite the want of authority therefor,
has by continuance acquired the force of law; and</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, many citizens object to this practice as a violation
of the spirit and purpose of the constitution, as well as against
justice and public policy; and</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, the legislature has corrected this practice in
repeated instances, its power to do so being in such instances
fully recognized and exercised; therefore</p>

<p>The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
Assembly, do enact as follows:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Section 1</span>. Every woman shall be free to vote, under the
qualifications required of men, or to refrain from voting, as she
may choose; and no person shall be debarred, by reason of sex,
from voting at any election, or at any town meeting, school
meeting, or other choice of government functionaries whatsoever.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2</span>. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,
are hereby repealed.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 3</span>. This act shall take effect immediately. </p></blockquote>

<p>Various memorials were sent to the legislature in behalf of this
bill, and a hearing was granted to its advocates.<a name="FNanchor_241_241" id="FNanchor_241_241"></a><a href="#Footnote_241_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> The
Assembly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_427" id="Page_427">[Pg 427]</a></span> chamber in the beautiful new capitol was crowded as it
had never been before. A large proportion of the senators and
assemblymen were present, many of the judges from the various
courts, while the governor and lieutenant-governor occupied
prominent places, and large crowds of fashionable ladies and
leading gentlemen filled the seats and galleries. The chairman of
the committee, Hon. George L. Ferry, presided. The ladies were
graciously received by the governor, who, at their request, gave
them the pen with which he signed the bill providing "school
suffrage for women," and in return they presented him a handsome
gold-mounted pen, a gift from the City Society.</p>

<p>The first voting by women after the passage of the new law, was at
Syracuse, February 17, only five days after the bill received the
governor's signature, but the great body of women had not the
opportunity until October. At that time in Fayetteville, the home
of Matilda Joslyn Gage, women voted in large numbers; the three who
had been placed upon the ticket, trustee, clerk and librarian were
all elected. It was an hour of triumph for Mrs. Gage who was
heartily congratulated upon the result. It was remarked that so
quiet an election had seldom been known. At Middletown, Orange
county, Dr. Lydia Sayre Hasbrook urged the women to take advantage
of their new privilege, and when the day of election came, although
it was cold and stormy, over 200 voted, and elected the entire
ticket of women for trustees, Mrs. Hasbrook herself being chosen as
one.</p>

<p>There were many places, however, where no women voted, for the
reform had all the antagonisms and prejudices of custom to
overcome. Many obstacles were thrown in the way to prevent them
from exercising this right. The men of their families objecting,
and misconstruing the law, kept them in doubt both as to their
rights and duties. The clergy from their pulpits warned the women
of their congregations not to vote, fathers forbade their
daughters, husbands their wives. The wonder is that against such a
pressure so many women did vote after all.</p>

<p>October 12, 1880, the elections took place in a large proportion of
the eleven thousand school districts of the State, and the daily
journals were full of items as to the result. We copy a few of
these:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Lowville</span>, Lewis County, Oct. 16, 1880.&mdash;The business meeting was
held on the evening of the 12th, and was attended by twenty
ladies. On the following day at 1 <span class="smcap">p.m.</span>, the election was held.
The ladies had an independent ticket opposing the incumbent clerk
and trustee. Seven voted. Four were challenged. They swore their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_428" id="Page_428">[Pg 428]</a></span>
votes in. Boys just turned twenty-one years of age voted
unchallenged. The clerk, who is a young sprig of a lawyer, made
himself conspicuous by challenging our votes. He first read the
opinion of the State superintendent of public instruction, and
said that the penalty for illegal voting was not less than six
months' imprisonment. My vote was challenged, and although my
husband is an owner of much real estate and cannot sell one foot
of it without my consent, I could not vote.</p>

<p>From Penn Yan a woman writes:&mdash;About seventy ladies voted here,
but none who did not either own or lease real estate. The
argument so often used against woman suffrage&mdash;viz: that the
first to avail themselves of the privilege would be those least
qualified to do so, is directly refuted, in this town at least,
since the ladies who voted are without doubt those who by natural
ability and by culture are abundantly competent to vote
intelligently as well as conscientiously.</p>

<p>A woman in Nunda writes:&mdash;Only six women attended the school
meeting in the first district on the 12th, but over forty went to
the polls on the 13th. Two women were on one of the tickets; the
opposition ticket was made up entirely of males. We were
supported by the best men in the village. The ticket bearing the
names of Mrs. Fidelia J. M. Whitcomb, M. D., and Mrs. S. Augusta
Herrick, was elected.</p>

<p>From Poland a woman writes:&mdash;Our school meeting was attended by
about thirty men and two women. The population of the village is
between three and four hundred. My neighbor and I were proud of
the privilege of casting our first vote. There was nothing of
special interest to call out voters, as our trustees are
satisfactory to all. If circumstances required, there would be
many women voters here.</p>

<p>David Hopkins and Gustave Dettloff were candidates for school
trustee in district No. 1 of New Lots, Long Island, at the last
election. Mr. Hopkins is a farmer and was seeking reëlection. Mr.
Dettloff is connected with an insurance company in this city, and
is a well-known resident of the town. The friends of Mr. Hopkins
about an hour before the closing of the polls, perceived that
there was danger of their candidate's defeat. A consultation was
held, and it was decided to utilize the new law giving women the
privilege of voting. Accordingly, several farm wagons were
procured and sent through the district to gather in the farmers'
wives and daughters. The wagons returned to the polls with 107
women, all of whom voted for Mr. Hopkins, thus saving him from
defeat. It was too late to use a counter poison. The total number
of votes cast was 329, Mr. Hopkins receiving eighty majority.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Port Jervis</span>. Oct. 13.&mdash;The annual election of school trustees
occurred to-day and was attended with unusual excitement. Eight
hundred and thirty votes were polled, 150, for the women's
ticket, the remainder being divided. Only fifty ladies voted, a
great many being kept from the polls by the crowd of loafers
standing around. The Protestant ticket, composed of three men,
was elected. The election was held in a small room, and this was
crowded with men who amused themselves by passing remarks about
the ladies until the police were called in. Every lady who
offered her vote was challenged and a great many left the polls
in disgust. In Carpenter's Point and Sparrowbush, two suburbs of
the village, the ladies voted and were not molested.</p>

<p>Only a few women voted on Tuesday evening at the election for
school trustees in the first district of Southfield, Staten
Island. When the poll was opened Judge John G. Vaughan, the
retiring trustee, presided. A motion was made to reëlect him by
acclamation. Amid great confusion Judge Vaughan put the motion
and declared it carried. Then Officers Fitzgerald and Leary had
to take charge of the meeting to preserve order, and Judge
Vaughan's opponents withdrew, threatening proceedings to have the
election declared invalid. Abram C. Wood was elected school
trustee in the West New Brighton (S. I.) district by 69 majority,
which included the votes of eight of eleven women present. Other
women promised to vote if Mr. Wood needed their support. Mr.
Robert B. Minturn presided.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sing Sing</span>, Oct. 13.&mdash;Five women voted at the school meeting last
night.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_429" id="Page_429">[Pg 429]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Mount Morris</span>, Oct. 13.&mdash;One hundred and twenty women voted at the
school election here last evening.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Glen's Falls</span>, Oct. 13.&mdash;I am informed that women did vote here
and in the neighborhood last evening.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Perry</span>, Oct. 13.&mdash;A large woman vote was cast here. Two women were
elected members of the school-board.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Peekskill</span>, Oct. 13.&mdash;Five women voted in one district.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Shelter Island</span>, Oct. 13.&mdash;Women voted at our school meeting.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Coffin Summit</span>, Oct. 15.&mdash;Six women voted at the school meeting
here. A lady was nominated for trustee and received many votes,
but was defeated.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Stamford</span>, Oct. 15.&mdash;Four ladies voted at the school meeting.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Port Richmond</span>, Oct. 15.&mdash;Six ladies attended the school meeting.
The chairman, Mr. Sidney P. Ronason, made a speech, welcoming
them, stating that an unsuccessful effort had been made by
citizens to induce a leading lady to become a candidate for
trustee; also, that Lester A. Scofield, the retiring trustee,
would cheerfully give way if any competent lady would take his
place. This Mr. Scofield confirmed, but, no lady being nominated,
he was reëlected without opposition.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Baldwinville</span>, Oct. 15.&mdash;Thirty-three ladies voted at the school
election.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Lockport</span>, Oct. 15.&mdash;Two Quaker ladies voted at the school meeting
of the first district of this township. One of them, Dr. Sarah
Lamb Cushing, was chosen tax-collector by 23 votes out of 26. On
the entrance of the ladies, smoking and all disorder ceased, and
the meeting was uncommonly well-conducted.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Lawton Station</span>, Oct. 15.&mdash;Of the 16 votes cast at the school
meeting here, 15 were given by women. A woman received the
highest vote for school trustee, but withdrew in favor of one of
the male candidates. The proceedings were enlivened with singing
by the pupils under the direction of the teacher. Several
improvements in the building were ordered at the instance of the
ladies.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Knowlesville</span>, Oct. 15.&mdash;Many women meant to vote at the school
meeting, but a person went from house to house and threatened
them with legal penalties if they did. Mrs. James Kernholtz was
nominated for tax-collector at the meeting, but declined, saying
the pay was too small. Miss Adelina Lockwood, being nominated for
librarian, declined, but was elected by acclamation, amid great
applause. The meeting was very large, but unusually orderly.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Flushing</span>, Oct. 15.&mdash;Forty women voted at the school meeting here,
and in the adjoining district.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Syracuse</span>, Oct. 14, 1881.&mdash;At the Fayetteville, Onondaga county,
school district election yesterday, a direct issue was made on
the question of woman's rights. The candidate of the women was
chosen. This is the women's second victory in that place, giving
them control of the school-board. </p></blockquote>

<p>A correspondent describing what the voters had to encounter, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Is the question asked, why have not more women voted? I answer,
hundreds of women in this State were debarred by falsehood and
intimidation. No sooner had the school suffrage law passed than
the wildest statements about it were made. It was given out that
the Governor had recalled the bill from the Secretary of State
after signing it (which he could not do), and vetoed it; that the
law was unconstitutional; that it was defective and inoperative;
that it did not apply to cities and villages; that it had been
repealed; and like untruths. Pains was taken to hide its
existence by corrupt officials, who told the women that the law
did not apply to the places where they lived, or who withheld the
fact of its passage. The State was flooded just before the
elections with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_430" id="Page_430">[Pg 430]</a></span> an incorrect statement that only the rich women
could vote; that the children's mothers could not unless they
held real estate. The story was also set afloat that the
attorney-general had indorsed this statement; which that
gentleman promptly repudiated. All this we corrected as fast and
as far as we could; but it unavoidably did much harm.</p>

<p>Wholesale hindrance and terrorism too, were used. A few samples
are these: In Albany, many women were threatened by their own
husbands with expulsion from house and home, imprisonment, bodily
violence or death if they dared vote; while many others were
deterred by insults and threats of social persecution. Many
persons ridiculed and abused those who sought to vote. In some
districts the inspectors refused to register qualified women,
while in others votes were refused. Statements were widely
published that the law did not apply to Albany. In Knowersville,
the village teacher went to every house, and threatened the women
with state-prison if they dared to vote. In Mount Morris, the
president of the Board of Education denounced the ladies who
induced others to vote. In Fayetteville, Saratoga and elsewhere,
the ladies' request for some share in making the tickets was
scornfully ignored. In Port Jervis, the Board of Education
declined a hall that was offered, and had the election in a low,
dirty little room. Smoke was puffed in the ladies' faces,
challenges were frequent, and all sorts of impudent questions
were asked of the voters. In Long Island City many ladies were
challenged, and stones were thrown in the street at Mrs. Emma
Gates Conkling, the lady who was most active in bringing out the
new voters. In New Brighton, the village paper threatened the
women with jail if they voted; and when a motion was made in one
district that the ladies be invited to attend, a large negative
vote was given, one man shouting, "We have enough of women at
home; we don't want'em here!" At West New Brighton it was openly
announced that the meeting should be too turbulent for ladies,
insomuch that many who intended to go staid away, and the few who
went were obliged to wait till all the men had voted. In Newham a
gang of low fellows took possession of the polling place early,
filled it with smoke of the worst tobacco, and covered the floor
with tobacco juice; and through all this the few ladies who
ventured to vote had to pass. In New York a man who claims to be
a gentleman said: "If my wife undertook to vote I would trample
her under my feet." In New Rochelle the school trustee told the
women they were not entitled to vote, and tried to prevent a
meeting being held to inform them. Clergymen from the pulpit
urged women not to vote, and a mob gathered at the polls and
blocked the way. These are but samples of the difficulties under
which the new law went into operation; and it is the truth that
there was as much bulldozing of voters in New York as ever in the
South, though sometimes by other means. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1880 Mrs. Blake was sent by the New York society to the
Republican and Democratic presidential conventions at Chicago and
Cincinnati, and on her return a meeting was called in Republican
Hall, July 9, to hear her report as to the comparative treatment<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_431" id="Page_431">[Pg 431]</a></span>
received by the delegates in the two conventions. Soon afterwards a
delegation of ladies<a name="FNanchor_242_242" id="FNanchor_242_242"></a><a href="#Footnote_242_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> waited on Winfield S. Hancock, the
Democratic nominee, who received them with much courtesy, saying he
was quite willing to interpret, in its broadest sense, that clause
of his letter of acceptance wherein he said: "It is only by a full
vote and a fair count that the people can rule in fact, as required
by the theory of our government." "I am willing, ladies," said the
general, "to have you say that I believe in a free ballot for all
the people of the United States, women as well as men."</p>

<p>Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Slocum and Mr. Wilcox made quite an extensive
canvass through many counties of the State, to rouse the women to
use their right to vote on all school matters.</p>

<p>The bill to prohibit disfranchisement was again introduced in the
legislature of 1881, by Joseph M. Congdon, and ordered to a third
reading May 3, by a vote of 60 to 40, and on May 11 came up for
final action, when the ladies, by special courtesy, were admitted
to the floor of the Assembly chamber to listen to the discussion.
General Francis B. Spinola and General James W. Husted made earnest
speeches in favor of the bill, and Hon. Erastus Brooks and General
George A. Sharpe in opposition. The roll-call gave 57 ayes to 55
noes&mdash;a majority of those present, but not the majority (65) of all
the members of the Assembly, which the constitution of New York
requires for the final passage of a bill. The vote astonished the
opponents, and placed the measure among the grave questions of the
day. This substantial success inspired the friends to renewed
efforts.<a name="FNanchor_243_243" id="FNanchor_243_243"></a><a href="#Footnote_243_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a></p>

<p>The necessity of properly qualified women in the police stations
again came up for consideration. The condition of unfortunate women
nightly consigned to these places had long been set forth by the
leaders of the suffrage movement. In New York there were thirty-two
station-houses in which, from night to night, from five to forty
women were lodged, some on criminal charges, some from extreme
poverty. All there, young and old, were entirely in the hands of
men, in sickness or distress. If search was to be made on charge of
theft, it was always a male official who performed the duty. If the
most delicate and refined lady were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_432" id="Page_432">[Pg 432]</a></span> taken ill on the street, or
injured in any way, she was liable to be taken to the nearest
station, where the needful examinations to ascertain if life yet
lingered must be made by men. In view of these facts, a resolution
was again passed at the State convention, and request made to the
police commissioners, to permit a delegation of ladies to meet with
them in conference. The commissioners deigned no reply, but gave
the letter to the press, whereupon ensued a storm of comment and
ridicule.</p>

<p>On consultation with Mrs. Josephine Shaw Lowell, commissioner of
the State Board of Charities, a bill was drawn up and sent to
Albany, providing for the appointment of one or more police-matrons
at every station-house in cities of 50,000 inhabitants and upwards,
the salaries to be $600 each. Hon. J. C. Boyd presented the bill in
the Senate, where it passed April 18. In the Assembly its passage
was urged by Hon. Michael C. Murphy, chairman of the Committee on
Cities. Meantime Mayor Grace and Comptroller Campbell entered their
protest against the bill, declaring the measure ought to originate
in the city departments, where there was full power to appoint
police-matrons; also, that the proposed salaries would be a heavy
drain upon the city treasury. The comptroller was at once informed
of the previous application to the police commissioners, from whom
no reply had been received, which virtually compelled appeal to the
legislature. And as to salaries, it was suggested that there were
now on the pay-roll of the police of New York 2,500 men whose
salaries amounted to over $2,500,000, whereas the bill before the
legislature asked for only sixty matrons, whose salaries would
amount to but $36,000. This was certainly a most reasonable demand
for the protection of one-half the people of the city, who paid
fully half the indirect taxes as well as a fair proportion of the
direct taxes. Finally, it was proposed to the comptroller that the
bill should be withdrawn if he would recommend the appointment of
police-matrons in the city departments. This was not accepted. The
Committee on Cities gave a hearing to Mrs. Blake, and reported
unanimously in favor of the bill. Public sentiment supported the
measure, the press generally advocated it, and the Assembly passed
the bill by a vote of 96 to 7; but it failed to receive the
signature of the governor,&mdash;a most striking proof of the need of
the ballot for women; since, friendly as he was to woman's
enfranchisement, when he found the police department, with its
thousands of attachés, <i>all with votes</i> in their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_433" id="Page_433">[Pg 433]</a></span> hands, opposed,
Governor Cornell was found wanting in courage and conscience to
sign this bill for women who had no votes.<a name="FNanchor_244_244" id="FNanchor_244_244"></a><a href="#Footnote_244_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> The next year
application was again made to the city authorities for the
appointment of matrons, but they refused to act. The bill was
reïntroduced in the legislature, passed by a large majority in the
Assembly, but defeated in the Senate by the adverse report of the
Committee on Cities. A mass-meeting to discuss this question of
police-matrons was held in Steinway Hall, March 1, at which the
speakers[B] all urged such appointments.</p>

<p>During the winter of 1882 an effort was made in New York city to
secure the enforcement of the law enacted by the previous
legislature, which provided that seats should be furnished for the
"shop-girls." Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling caused the arrest of certain
prominent shop-keepers on the charge of not complying with the law,
but on coming to trial the suits were withdrawn on the promise of
the delinquents to give seats to their employés.</p>

<p>During the winter of 1882 agitation for the higher education of
women was renewed, and a society organized by some of the most
influential ladies in the city. They rolled up a petition of 1,200,
asking that Columbia College be opened to women. President Barnard
had recommended this in his reports for three years. The agitation
culminated in a grand meeting<a name="FNanchor_245_245" id="FNanchor_245_245"></a><a href="#Footnote_245_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> in the new Union League Theater.
Parke Godwin of the <i>Evening Post</i> presided. The audience was
chiefly composed of fashionable ladies, whose equipages filled
Thirty-eighth street blocks away, yet not a woman sat on the
platform; not a woman's voice was heard; even the report of the
society was read by a man, and every inspiration of the occasion
was filtered through the brain of some man. Among other things, Mr.
Godwin, son-in-law of the poet Bryant, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>We speak of the higher education of women. Why not also of men?
Because they already have the opportunity for obtaining it. The
idea upon which our government is built is the idea of equal
rights for all; and that means equal opportunities. Every society
needs all the best intellect that it can get. We have many evil
influences acting upon our society here, and we need the
all-controlling influence of woman. We cannot fix a standard for
her. History shows what she has done, in a Vespasia, Vittoria<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_434" id="Page_434">[Pg 434]</a></span>
Colonna, De Staël, Bremer, Evans, Somerville and Maria Mitchell.
She does not go out of her sphere when she is so highly educated.
She can darn her stockings just as well if she does know the word
in half-a-dozen languages. There is no longer novelty in this
movement; it has been tried successfully here and abroad in the
universities, and always with success. </p></blockquote>

<p>Addresses were also made by Rev. Dr. Stowe, Dr. William Draper,
Joseph Choate, and others eminent in one way or another. The
meeting closed by circulating a petition for presentation to the
trustees of Columbia College, asking that properly qualified women
be admitted to lectures and examinations.</p>

<p>The bill to prohibit disfranchisement on account of sex was again
introduced in the Assembly by Hon. J. Hampden Robb, and referred to
the Committee on Grievances, of which Major James Haggerty was
chairman, who gave to it his hearty approval and granted two
hearings to the officers of the State society, on behalf of the
large number of memorialists who had sent in their petitions from
all parts of the State. The women of Albany were indefatigable in
their personal appeals to the different members of the Assembly,
urging them to vote for the bill, while Major Haggerty was untiring
in his advocacy of the measure. On May 3 there was an animated
discussion:<a name="FNanchor_246_246" id="FNanchor_246_246"></a><a href="#Footnote_246_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> the bill passed to its third reading by an
overwhelming vote, which alarmed the opponents into making a
thorough canvass, that proved to them the necessity of some
decisive action for the defeat of the bill. The Hon. Erastas Brooks
presented a resolution, calling on the attorney-general for his
opinion on the constitutionality of the proposed law, which was
passed in a moment of confusion, and when many of our friends were
absent. Following is the opinion elicited:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">State of New York. Office of the Attorney-General,</span> }<br />
<span class="smcap">Albany</span>, May 10, 1882. }<br />
</p>

<p><i>To the Assembly:</i></p>

<p>I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the resolution of
the Assembly requesting the attorney-general to report his
opinion as to the constitutionality of Assembly bill No. 637,
which provides that "every woman shall be free to vote under the
qualifications required of men, or to refrain from voting, as she
may choose; and no person shall be debarred by reason of sex from
voting at any election, or at any town meeting, school meeting,
or other choice of government functionaries whatsoever," and
whether, without an amendment to the constitution, suffrage<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_435" id="Page_435">[Pg 435]</a></span> can
be granted to any class of persons not named in the constitution.
I reply:</p>

<p><i>First</i>&mdash;It has been decided so often by the judicial tribunals
of the various States of the Union, and by the Supreme Court of
the United States, that suffrage is not a natural inherent right,
but one governed by the law-making power and regulated by
questions of availability and expediency, instead of absolute,
inalienable right (1, 3), that the question is no longer open for
discussion, either by the judicial forum or legislative
assemblies (<i>Burnham vs. Laning, 1 Legal Gazette Rep., 411,
Supreme Court Penn.; Minor vs. Happersett, 21 Wallace, 162; Day
vs. Jones, 31 California, 261; Anderson vs. Baker, 23 Maryland,
531; Abbott vs. Bayley, 6 Pickering, 92; 2 Dallas, 471-2; In re
Susan B. Anthony, 11 Blatchford, 200</i>). At the common law women
had no right to vote and no political status (2, 4) (<i>Maine's
Ancient Law, 140; Cooley's Const. Lim., 599; Blackstone's Comm.,
171</i>).</p>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;Therefore the constitution of the State of New York,
providing that every male citizen of the age of 21 years who
shall have certain other qualifications, may vote, the
determination of the organic law specifying who shall have the
privilege of voting, excludes all other classes (5), such as
women, persons under 21 years of age and aliens. The argument
that, because women are not expressly prohibited, they may vote,
fails to give the slightest force to the term "male" in the
constitution; and by the same force of reasoning, the expression
of the term "citizen" and the statement of the age of 21 years
would not necessarily exclude aliens and those under 21 years of
age from voting (6). Therefore, assuming that our organic law was
properly adopted without the participation of women either in
making or adopting it (7), that organic law controls.</p>

<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;It follows, therefore, as a logical consequence that the
proposed reform cannot be accomplished except by an amendment of
the constitution ratified by two successive legislatures and the
people, or by a constitutional convention, whose work shall be
sanctioned by a vote of the people.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Leslie W. Russell</span>, <i>Attorney-General</i>.<a name="FNanchor_247_247" id="FNanchor_247_247"></a><a href="#Footnote_247_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a><br />
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Weak as was this document, and untenable as were its assertions, it
had great weight with many of the members of the legislature coming
as the opinion did from the attorney-general of the State. The
friends of the bill resolved to call for the vote when the bill
should be reached, and on May 16, the women were present in large
numbers, listening with intense interest to the brief speeches of
the members for and against, and watching and counting the vote as
the roll-call proceeded, which resulted in 54 ayes and 59 noes,
lacking three votes of a majority of those present and only eleven
of the requisite number, sixty-five. In view of the official
opinion against its constitutionality amounting to a legal
decision, this was a most gratifying vote.<a name="FNanchor_248_248" id="FNanchor_248_248"></a><a href="#Footnote_248_248" class="fnanchor">[248]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_436" id="Page_436">[Pg 436]</a></span></a></p>

<p>The presence of Leslie W. Russell in Albany, as attorney-general,
rendered it useless to reïntroduce the bill to prohibit
disfranchisement on account of sex in the legislature of 1883, but
in its stead, Dr. John G. Boyd of New York introduced a proposition
to strike "male" from the suffrage clause of the constitution,
which, however, received only fifteen votes.</p>

<p>To pass from the State to the Church, the winter of 1883 was
notable for the delivery of a series of Lenten lectures on woman by
the Rev. Morgan Dix, D. D., rector of Trinity Church, New York,
afterwards published in book form under the title, "The Calling of
a Christian Woman and her Training to Fulfill it." The lectures
were delivered each Friday evening during Lent, in Trinity Chapel,
and at once attracted attention from their conservative,
reäctionary, almost monastic views of woman's position and duties.</p>

<p>After reading a report of one of these remarkable essays in which
women were gravely told their highest happiness should be found in
singing hymns, Mrs. Blake decided to reply to them. She secured a
hall on Fourteenth street, and on successive Sunday evenings gave
addresses in reply. Both courses of lectures were well attended.
The moderate audiences of Trinity Chapel soon became a throng that
more than filled the large building, while the hall in which Mrs.
Blake spoke was packed to suffocation, hundreds going away unable
to gain admittance. The press everywhere favored the broad and
liberal views presented by Mrs. Blake, and denounced the old-time
narrow theories of Dr. Dix. Mrs. Blake's lectures were also
published in book form with the title of "Woman's Place To-day" and
had a large circulation.</p>

<p>The Republicans again nominating Mr. Russell for attorney-general,
an active campaign was organized against him and in favor of the
Democratic nominee, Mr. Dennis O'Brien. Protests<a name="FNanchor_249_249" id="FNanchor_249_249"></a><a href="#Footnote_249_249" class="fnanchor">[249]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_437" id="Page_437">[Pg 437]</a></span></a> against
Russell were circulated throughout the State; Republican tickets
were printed with the name of Denis O'Brien for attorney-general,
and on election day women distributed these tickets, and made every
possible effort to ensure the defeat of Russell; and he was
defeated by 13,000 votes.</p>

<p>The legislature of 1884 showed a marked gain; Hon. Erastus Brooks,
General George A. Sharpe, and other prominent opponents had been
retired, and their seats filled by active friends. Our bill was
introduced by Mr. William Howland of Cayuga, and referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. Mr. Howland also secured the passage of
a special act, granting women the right to vote at the charter
elections of Union Springs, Cayuga county. Under similar enactments
women have the right to vote for municipal officers in Dansville,
Newport and other villages and towns in the State.</p>

<p>On March 11, 12, the annual meeting of the State society was held
in the City Hall, Albany, with a good representation<a name="FNanchor_250_250" id="FNanchor_250_250"></a><a href="#Footnote_250_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> from the
National Convention at Washington, added to our own State
speakers.<a name="FNanchor_251_251" id="FNanchor_251_251"></a><a href="#Footnote_251_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> On the last evening there was an overflow meeting
held in Geological Hall, presided over by Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage.</p>

<p>Governor Cleveland accorded the delegates a most courteous
reception in his room in the capitol. A hearing was had before the
Judiciary Committee March 13. The assembly-chamber was crowded.
General Husted, chairman of the committee, presided, and Mrs.
Blake, the president of the society, introduced the speakers.<a name="FNanchor_252_252" id="FNanchor_252_252"></a><a href="#Footnote_252_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a>
A few days later the same committee gave a special<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_438" id="Page_438">[Pg 438]</a></span> hearing to Mrs.
Gougar, who made the journey from Indiana to present the case. The
committee reported adversely, but by the able tactics of General
Husted, after an animated debate the bill was placed on the
calendar by a vote of 66 to 62, and shortly after ordered to a
third reading by a vote of 74 to 39. On May 8 the bill was reached
for final action. Frederick B. Howe of New York was the principal
opponent, trying to obstruct legislation by one and another
pretext. General Husted took the floor in an able speech on the
constitutionality of the bill, and the vote stood 57 ayes to 61
noes, lacking eight votes of the requisite 65.</p>

<p>While the right of suffrage is still denied, gains in personal and
property rights have been granted:</p>

<blockquote><p>In 1880, the law requiring the private acknowledgment by a
married woman of her execution of deeds, or other written
instruments, without the "fear or compulsion" of her husband, was
abolished, leaving the wife to make, take and certify in the same
manner as if she were a <i>feme sole</i>.</p>

<p>March 21, 1884, the penal code of the State was amended, raising
the age of consent from ten to sixteen years, and also providing
penalties<a name="FNanchor_253_253" id="FNanchor_253_253"></a><a href="#Footnote_253_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> for inveigling or enticing any unmarried woman,
under the age of twenty-five years, into a house of ill-fame or
assignation.</p>

<p>Under the act of May 28, 1884, a married woman may contract to
the same extent, with like effect and in the same form as if
unmarried, and she and her separate estate shall be liable
thereon, whether such contract relates to her separate business
or estate, or otherwise, and in no case shall a charge upon her
separate estate be necessary. </p></blockquote>

<p>It is by court decisions that we most readily learn the legal
status of married women, under the favorable legislation of the
period covered by this History. While referring the reader to
Abbott's Digest of New York Laws for full knowledge upon this
point, we give a few of the more recent decisions as illustrating
general legal opinion:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Troy</span>, March 23, 1882.&mdash;The Court of Appeals decided that married
women are the rightful owners of articles of personal adornment
or convenience coming from husbands, and can bequeath them to
their heirs. The court held that separate and personal possession
by a wife of articles specially fitted for and adapted to her
personal use, and differing in that respect from household goods
kept for the common use of husband and wife, would draw after it
a presumption of the executed gift if the property came from the
husband, and of the wife's ownership, but for disabilities of the
marital relations. Now that these disabilities are removed the
separate existence and separate property of the wife are
recognized, and her capacity to take and hold as her own the gift
in good faith and fairly made to her by her husband established,
it seemed to the court time to clothe her right with natural and
proper attributes, and apply to the gift to her, although made by
her husband, the general rules of law unmodified and unimpaired
by the old disabilities of the marriage relations. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_439" id="Page_439">[Pg 439]</a></span></p>

<p>This decision was important as further destroying the old
common-law theory of the husband's absolute ownership of his wife's
person, property, services and earnings. The same year (1882) the
Supreme Court, at its general term, rendered a decision that a
married woman could sue her husband for damages for assault and
battery; that by the act of 1860 the legislature intended to, and
did, change the common-law rule, that a wife could not sue her
husband. Judge Brady rendered the opinion, Judge Daniels
concurring; Presiding Judge Noah Davis dissenting. Judge Brady
said:</p>

<blockquote><p>To allow the right (to sue) in an action of this character, in
accordance with the language of the statute, would be to promote
greater harmony by enlarging the rights of married women and
increasing the obligations of husbands, by affording greater
protection to the former, and by enforcing greater restraint upon
the latter in the indulgence of their evil passions. The
declaration of such a rule is not against the policy of the law.
It is in harmony with it, and calculated to preserve peace and,
in a great measure, prevent barbarous acts, acts of cruelty,
regarded by mankind as inexcusable, contemptible, detestable. It
is neither too early nor too late to promulgate the doctrine that
if a husband commits an assault and battery upon his wife he may
be held responsible civilly and criminally for the act, which is
not only committed in violation of the laws of God and man, but
in direct antagonism to the contract of marriage, its
obligations, duties, responsibilities, and the very basis on
which it rests. The rules of the common law on this subject have
been dispelled, routed, and justly so, by the acts of 1860 and
1862. They are things of the past which have succumbed to more
liberal and just views, like many other doctrines of the common
law which could not stand the scrutiny and analysis of modern
civilization. </p></blockquote>

<p>The utter insecurity of woman without the ballot is shown in the
reversal of this decision within a few months, by the Court of
Appeals, on the ground that it would be "contrary to the policy of
the law, and destructive to the conjugal union and tranquility
which it had always been the object of the law to guard and
protect." Could satire go farther? We record with satisfaction the
fact that Judge Danforth uttered a strong dissenting opinion.</p>

<p>The friends of woman suffrage in the legislature of 1884 secured
the passage of a bill empowering women to vote on all questions of
taxation submitted to a popular vote in the village of Union
Springs. Governor Cleveland was urged to veto it; but after hearing
all the objections he signed the bill and it became a law.</p>

<p>At Clinton, Oneida county, twenty-two women voted on June 21, 1884,
at an election on the question of establishing water-works. Eight
voted for the tax, fourteen against it. Fifteen other women
appeared at the polls, but were excluded from voting because,
though they were real-estate tax-payers, the assessor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_440" id="Page_440">[Pg 440]</a></span> had left
their names off the tax-roll. Judge Theodore W. Dwight, president
of the Columbia Law School, pronounced women tax-payers entitled to
vote under the general water-works act, and therefore that the
election-officials violated the law in refusing to accept the votes
of the women whose names were omitted from the assessors' tax-list.</p>

<p>In 1879, there was a report of the committee to allow widows an
active voice in the settlement of the family estate and to have the
sole guardianship of minor children. A petition in favor of the
bill had upon it the names of such well-known men as Peter Cooper,
George William Curtis, Henry Bergh and J. W. Simonton.</p>

<p>September 13, 1879, Mrs. MacDonald of Boston argued her own case
before the United States Circuit Court in New York city, in a
patent suit. It was a marked event in court circles, she being the
first lady pleader that ever appeared in that court, and the second
woman who ever argued a case in this State. Anne Bradstreet was for
years a marked character in Albany courts, but her claims for
justice were regarded as an amusing lunacy.</p>

<p>In 1880, Governor Cornell appointed Miss Carpenter on the State
Board of Charities.</p>

<p>In the suit of Mr. Edward Jones to recover $860 which he alleged he
had loaned to the Rev. Anna Oliver for the Willoughby Avenue
Methodist Episcopal Church, Brooklyn, of which she was pastor, a
verdict for the defendant was rendered. Miss Oliver addressed the
following letter to the court:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To his Honor, the Judge, the Intelligent Jury, the Lawyers and
all who are engaged in the case of Jones vs. Oliver</i>:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>:&mdash;Thanking you for the politeness, the courtesy, the
chivalry even, that has been shown me to-day, allow me to make of
you the following request: Please sit down at your earliest
leisure, and endeavor to realize in imagination how you would
feel if you were sued by a woman, and the case was brought before
a court composed entirely of women; the judge a woman; every
member of the jury a woman; women to read the oath to you, and
hold the Bible, and every lawyer a woman. Further, your case to
be tried under laws framed entirely by women, in which neither
you nor any man had ever been allowed a voice. Somewhat as you
would feel under such circumstances, you may be assured, on
reading this, I have felt during the trial to-day. Perhaps the
women would be lenient to you (the sexes do favor each other),
but would you be satisfied? Would you feel that such an
arrangement was exactly the just and fair thing? If you would
not, I ask you on the principle of the Golden Rule, to use your
influence for the enfranchisement of women.</p>

<p>
<i>New York, 1881.</i><br />
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Roebling, wife of the engineer in charge of the construction
of the marvelous Brooklyn bridge, made the patterns for various
necessary shapes of iron and steel such as no mills were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_441" id="Page_441">[Pg 441]</a></span> making,
after her husband and other engineers had for weeks puzzled their
brains over the difficulties.</p>

<p>When Frank Leslie died, his printing-house was involved, and Mrs.
Leslie undertook to redeem it, which she did, and in a very short
time. Speaking of it she says:</p>

<blockquote><p>"I had the property in reach, and the assignees were ready to
turn it over to me, but to get it, it was necessary for me to
raise $50,000, I borrowed it from a woman. How happy I was when
she signed the check, and how beautiful it seemed to me to see
one woman helping another. I borrowed the money in June, and was
to make the first payment of $5,000, on the 1st of November. On
the 29th of October I paid the $50,000 with interest. From June
to the 29th of October, I made $50,000 clear. I had also to pay
$30,000 to the creditors who did not come under the contract.
While I was paying this $80,000 of my husband's debts, I spent
but $30 for myself, except for my board. I lived in a little
attic room, without a carpet, and the window was so high that I
could not get a glimpse of the sky unless I stood on a chair and
looked out. When I had paid the debts and raised a monument to my
husband, then I said to myself, 'now for a great big pair of
diamond earrings,' and away I went to Europe, and here are the
diamonds." The diamonds are perfect matches, twenty-seven carats
in weight, and are nearly as large as nickles. </p></blockquote>

<p>In Lansingburgh the women tax-payers offered their ballots and were
repulsed, as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>September 2, 1885, the special election of the taxable
inhabitants of the village of Lansingburgh took place, to vote
upon a proposition to raise by tax the sum of $15,000 for
water-works purposes. The measure was voted by 102 for it to 46
against. But a small amount of interest was manifested in the
election. Several women tax-payers offered their votes, but the
inspectors would not receive them, and the matter will be
contested in the courts. The call for the election asked for an
expression from "the taxable inhabitants," and women tax-payers
in the 'burgh claim under the law their rights must be
recognized. Lansingburgh inspectors have on numerous occasions
refused to receive the ballots thus tendered, and the women have
lost patience. They are to employ the best of counsel and settle
the question at as early a day as possible. Women pay tax upon
$367,394 of the property within the village boundaries, and they
believe that they, to the number of 317 at least, are entitled to
votes on all questions involving a monetary expenditure. In
Saratoga, Clinton, and a number of other places in this State,
where elections in relation to water-works have taken place, it
has been held by legal authority that women property owners have
a right to vote, and they have voted accordingly the same as
other tax-payers. </p></blockquote>

<p>In regard to recent efforts to secure legislation favorable to
women, Mr. Wilcox writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>The impression that the School Act, passed in 1880, did not apply
to cities, led to the introduction by the Hon. Charles S. Baker
of Rochester, of a bill covering cities. A test vote showed the
Assembly practically unanimous for it, but it was referred to the
Judiciary Committee to examine its constitutionality. The
chairman, Hon. Geo. L. Ferry, and other members,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_442" id="Page_442">[Pg 442]</a></span> asked me to
look up the point and inform the committee, supposing a
constitutional amendment needful. When the point was made on this
bill, I for the first time closely examined the constitution, and
finding there was nought to prevent the legislature enfranchising
anyone, promptly apprised the committee of the discovery. The
acting-chairman, Major Wm. D. Brennan, requested me to furnish
the committee a legal brief on the matter. This (Feb. 19, 1880) I
did, and arranged a public hearing before them in the
assembly-chamber, which was attended by Governor Cornell,
Lieutenant-Governor Hoskins, many senators, assemblymen, and
State officers; at which Mrs. Blake, the sainted Helen M. Slocum
and Mrs. Elizabeth L. Saxon were the speakers. From that year to
the present there has been a "Bill to Prohibit Disfranchisement"
before each legislature. In 1881, it was carried to a majority
vote in the Assembly. In 1883, two-thirds of the Assembly were
ready to pass the bill when the attorney-general declared it
unconstitutional. In 1884, Governor Cleveland had approved two
suffrage acts, and promised to sign all the friends could carry.
In 1885, growing tired of the senseless clamor of
"unconstitutionality," I resolved to show how little law the
clamorers knew. To the knowledge gained by five years'
discussion, I added that obtained by several months' research in
the State Library at Albany, that of the New York Bar
Association, those of the New York Law Institute and Columbia
College, and elsewhere. The result was the publication of "Cases
of the Legislature's Power over Suffrage," wherein it was shown,
condensed from a great number of authorities, that all classes
have received suffrage, not from the constitution but from the
legislature, and that the latter has exercised the power of
extending suffrage in hundreds of cases. This document received
high praise from General James W. Husted and Major James
Haggerty, who have manfully championed our bills in the Assembly,
General Husted reading from it in his speech and it was signally
sanctioned by the Assembly which, after being supplied with
copies, voted down by more than three to one a motion to
substitute a constitutional amendment.</p>

<p>But while working at this document, I was fortunate enough to
make a still greater discovery&mdash;that portions of statute law
which formerly prevented women's voting were repealed long since;
that the constitution and statutes in their present shape secure
women the legal right to vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>February 19, 1885, a hearing was granted to Mrs. Stanton, Mrs.
Rogers and Mrs. Blake in the assembly-chamber before the Committee
on Grievances, on the "Bill to Prohibit Disfranchisement." The
splendid auditorium was crowded for two hours, and members of the
committee lingered a long time after the audience had dispersed to
discuss the whole question still further with the speakers. On the
next day Mrs. Mary Seymour Howell and Governor John W. Hoyt of
Wyoming Territory had a second hearing. The committee reported for
consideration. When the bill came up for a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_443" id="Page_443">[Pg 443]</a></span> third reading, General
Martin L. Curtis of St. Lawrence moved that it be sent to the
Judiciary Committee with instructions to substitute a
constitutional amendment; lost, ayes 25, noes 75; carried to a
third reading by <i>viva voce</i> vote. The vote on the final passage
was, ayes 57, noes 56; the constitutional majority in this State
being 65 of the 128 members, it was lost by eight votes. Of the 73
Republicans, 29 voted for the bill; of the 55 Democrats, 28 voted
for the bill, showing that more than half the Democratic vote was
in favor, and only two-fifths of the Republican; thus our defeat
was due to the Republican party.</p>

<p>Thus stands the question of woman suffrage in the Empire State
to-day, where women are in the majority.<a name="FNanchor_254_254" id="FNanchor_254_254"></a><a href="#Footnote_254_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a> After long years of
unremitting efforts who can read this chapter of woman's faith and
patience, under such oft-repeated disappointments, but with pity
for her humiliations and admiration for her courage and
persistence. For nearly half a century the petitions, the appeals,
the arguments of the women of New York have been before the
legislature for consideration, and the trivial concessions of
justice thus far wrung from our rulers bear no proportion to the
prolonged labors we have gone through to achieve them.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_200_200" id="Footnote_200_200"></a><a href="#FNanchor_200_200"><span class="label">[200]</span></a> It has recently been ascertained that the first
woman's rights petition sent to the New York State legislature was
by Miss Mary Ayers, in 1834, for a change in the property laws. It
was ten or fifteen feet long when unrolled, and is still buried in
the vaults of the capitol at Albany.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_201_201" id="Footnote_201_201"></a><a href="#FNanchor_201_201"><span class="label">[201]</span></a> Many years afterwards, lecturing in Texas, I met a
party of ladies from Georgia, thoroughly awake on all questions
relating to women. Finding ourselves quite in accord, I said, "how
did you get those ideas in Georgia?" "Why," said one, "some of our
friends attended a woman's convention at Saratoga, and told us what
was said there, and gave us several tracts on all phases of the
question, which were the chief topics of discussion among us long
after." Southern women have suffered so many evils growing out of
the system of slavery that they readily learn the lessons of
freedom.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_202_202" id="Footnote_202_202"></a><a href="#FNanchor_202_202"><span class="label">[202]</span></a> The following were elected officers of the
association. <i>President</i>, Martha C. Wright, Auburn.
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Celia Burleigh, Brooklyn; Rachel S. Martin,
Albany; Lydia A. Strowbridge, Cortland; Jennie White, Syracuse;
Eliza W. Osborn, Auburn; Sarah G. Love, Ithaca; W. S. V. Rosa,
Watertown; Mary M. R. Parks, Utica; Amy Post, Rochester; Candace S.
Brockett, Brockett's Bridge; Ida Greeley, Chappaqua; Mary Hunt,
Waterloo. <i>Secretary</i>, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville.
<i>Executive Committee</i>, Lucy A. Brand, Emeline A. Morgan, Mrs. H.
Stewart, Samuel J. May, Rhoda Price, all of Syracuse. <i>Advisory
Counsel</i>, for First Judicial District, Susan B. Anthony, New York;
Second, Sarah Schram, Newburgh; Third, Sarah H. Hallock, Milton;
Fourth, Caroline Mowry Holmes, Greenwich; Fifth, Ann T. Randall,
Oswego; Sixth, Mrs. Professor Sprague, Ithaca, Seventh, Harriet N.
Austin, Dansville; Eighth, Helen P. Jenkins, Buffalo.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_203_203" id="Footnote_203_203"></a><a href="#FNanchor_203_203"><span class="label">[203]</span></a> The speakers were Celia Burleigh, Susan B. Anthony,
Charlotte B. Wilbour, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Mrs. Bedortha, of
Saratoga, Mrs. Strowbridge, of Cortland, Mrs. Norton, J. N. Holmes,
esq., Judge McKean, Rev. Mr. Angier, Hon. Wm. Hay. See
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_402">Vol. II., page 402</a>, for Mrs. Burleigh's letter on this Saratoga convention.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_204_204" id="Footnote_204_204"></a><a href="#FNanchor_204_204"><span class="label">[204]</span></a> The Board of Trustees of Mt. Vernon, Westchester
county, called a meeting of taxpayers of that village on July 19,
1868, to vote upon the question of levying a tax of $6,000 for the
purpose of making and repairing highways and sidewalks, and for
sundry other public improvements. Over sixty per cent. of the
real-estate owners being women, they resolved upon asserting their
right to a voice in the matter, and issued a call for a meeting,
signed by the following influential ladies: Mrs. M. J. Law, Mrs. H.
H. Leaver, Mrs. Olive Leaver, Mrs. J. Haggerty, Mary H. Macdonald,
Mrs. Dorothy Ferguson, Mrs. M. J. Farrand, Mrs. Jeanette Oron, Mrs.
Thirza Clark, Mrs. S. J. Clark, Mrs. Nettie Morgan, Mrs. D. Downs,
Miss L. M. Hale, Miss Susie Law, Mrs. Celia Pratt, Mrs. Sabra
Talcott, Mrs. Mary Wilkie, Mrs. Elizabeth Latham, Mrs. Mary C.
Brown, Mrs. J. M. Lockwood, Mrs. May Howe, Mrs. Adaline Baylis,
Mrs. J. Harper, Miss Elizabeth Eaton, Miss C. Frederiska Scharft,
Mrs. S. A. Hathaway, Mrs. Margaret Hick, Mrs. Rebecca Dimmic, Mrs.
Catharine Alphonse, Miss Julia Cheney, Mrs. E. Watkins, Mrs. L. M.
Pease, Mrs. Margaret Coles, Mrs. Ruth Smith, Mrs. Mary A. Douglas,
Mrs. Sarah Valentine, Mrs. H. C. Jones, Mrs. J. Tomlinson, Mrs.
Amanda Carr, Mrs. Margaret Wooley, Mrs. S. Seeber, Mrs. B. Powers,
Mrs. S. A. Waterhouse, Mrs. H. M. Smith. But notwithstanding the
numbers, wealth, and social influence of the women, their demand
was rejected, while hundreds of men, who had never paid a dollar's
tax into the village treasury, were permitted to deposit their
votes, though challenged by friends, and well known to the officers
as not possessors of a foot of real estate.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_205_205" id="Footnote_205_205"></a><a href="#FNanchor_205_205"><span class="label">[205]</span></a> The Working Women's Association was organized in New
York, September 17, 1868, with Mrs. Anna Tobitt, <i>President</i>; Miss
Augusta Lewis, Miss Susan Johns, Miss Mary Peers.
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>; Miss Elizabeth C. Browne, <i>Secretary</i>, and Miss
Julia Browne, <i>Treasurer</i>. The three vice-presidents were young
ladies of about twenty. Miss Lewis worked upon a newly invented
type-setting machine.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_206_206" id="Footnote_206_206"></a><a href="#FNanchor_206_206"><span class="label">[206]</span></a> "Sergeant Robinson, of the Twenty-sixth Precinct,
made a raid on the abandoned women patroling the park last evening.
At 11 p. m. six unfortunates were caged." Thus runs the record.
Will some one now be kind enough to tell us whether Sergeant
Robinson, or any other sergeant, made a raid upon the abandoned men
who were patrolling Broadway at the same hour? Did any one on that
night, or, indeed, upon any other night, within the memory of the
oldest Knickerbocker, make a raid upon the gamblers, thieves,
drunkards and panders that infest Houston street? By what authority
do the police call women "abandoned" and arrest them because they
are patrolling any public park or square? If these women belonged
to the class euphemistically called "unfortunate," they were
doubtless there because men were already there before them. And if
it was illegal in women and deserving of punishment, why should men
escape? <i>Prima facie</i>, if crime were committed, the latter are the
greater criminals of the two. We humbly suggest to all who are
endeavoring to reform this class of women, that they turn their
attention to reforming the opposite sex. If you can make men so
pure that they will not seek the society of prostitutes, you will
soon have no prostitutes for them to seek; in other words,
prostitution will cease when men become sufficiently pure to make
no demand for prostitutes. In any event, the police should treat
both sexes alike. Making a raid, as it is called, upon abandoned
women, and shutting them up in prison, never can procure good
results. The most repulsive and bestial features of "the social
evil" have their origin in the treatment that women receive at the
hands of the police; and society itself would be much better if the
police would keep their hands off such women.&mdash;[P. P. in <i>The
Revolution</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_207_207" id="Footnote_207_207"></a><a href="#FNanchor_207_207"><span class="label">[207]</span></a> An important decision relating to the eligibility of
candidates for the Cornell free scholarship has been rendered by
Judge Martin of the Supreme Court. Mary E. Wright, who stood third
in the recent examination here for the scholarship, contested the
appointment on the ground that the candidates who were first and
second in the examination were not pupils of a school in the
county. The judge decided that candidates for the position must be
residents of the county and pupils of a school therein, to be
eligible, and he awarded the scholarship to Miss Wright. This is
the first contested scholarship since the establishment of the
University.&mdash;<i>Ithaca dispatch to New York Times.</i></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_208_208" id="Footnote_208_208"></a><a href="#FNanchor_208_208"><span class="label">[208]</span></a> Dr. Lewis H. Morgan, who died in 1882, famed in both
hemispheres as an ethnologist, left a considerable estate to be
devoted at the death of his wife (which has since occurred) and of
his son without issue, to the establishment, in connection with the
University of Rochester, of a collegiate institution for women.
This makes it very probable that Rochester will ultimately offer
equal opportunities to both sexes.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_209_209" id="Footnote_209_209"></a><a href="#FNanchor_209_209"><span class="label">[209]</span></a> At one time it was said that Hobart College had more
professors than students, and one year had arrived at such a point
of exhaustion as to graduate but one young man. When the
proposition to incorporate Geneva Medical College with the Syracuse
University was made, Hon. George F. Comstock, a trustee of the
latter institution, vigorously opposed it unless equal advantages
were pledged to women.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_210_210" id="Footnote_210_210"></a><a href="#FNanchor_210_210"><span class="label">[210]</span></a> See Volume II., page <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_264">264</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_211_211" id="Footnote_211_211"></a><a href="#FNanchor_211_211"><span class="label">[211]</span></a> The twelve were:. Mrs. H. M. Field, Mrs. Anna Lynch
Botta, Miss Kate Field, Mrs. Anna B. Allen, Miss Josephine Pollard,
Mrs. Celia Burleigh, Mrs. Fanny Barrow, Mrs. C. B. Wilbour, Mrs. J.
C. Croly, Miss Ella Dietz, Alice and Phebe Cary.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_212_212" id="Footnote_212_212"></a><a href="#FNanchor_212_212"><span class="label">[212]</span></a> She now reports the cattle-market for four New York
papers including the <i>Tribune</i> and <i>Times</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_213_213" id="Footnote_213_213"></a><a href="#FNanchor_213_213"><span class="label">[213]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Charlotte B. Wilbour;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Dr. Clemence S. Lozier, Mrs. Devereux Blake;
<i>Secretary</i>, Frances V. Hallock; <i>Treasurer</i>, Miss Jeannie McAdam.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_214_214" id="Footnote_214_214"></a><a href="#FNanchor_214_214"><span class="label">[214]</span></a> The petitioners were represented by Mrs. Wilbour,
Mrs. Hester M. Poole, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Elizabeth Langdon, Mrs.
I. D. Hull, Mrs. Charlotte L. Coleman, Mrs. M. E. Leclover, Matilda
Joslyn Gage.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_215_215" id="Footnote_215_215"></a><a href="#FNanchor_215_215"><span class="label">[215]</span></a> See <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_628">Vol. II., page 628</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_216_216" id="Footnote_216_216"></a><a href="#FNanchor_216_216"><span class="label">[216]</span></a> Isabella Beecher Hooker, Susan B. Anthony, Rev.
Olympia Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Helen M.
Slocum, Lillie Devereux Blake.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_217_217" id="Footnote_217_217"></a><a href="#FNanchor_217_217"><span class="label">[217]</span></a> Lillie Devereux Blake was born in Raleigh, North
Carolina, in August, 1833. Her father, George Devereux, was a
wealthy Southern gentleman of Irish descent. Her mother's maiden
name was Sarah Elizabeth Johnson of Stratford, Connecticut, a
descendant of William Samuel Johnson who was one of the first two
senators from that State. Both her parents were descended from
Jonathan Edwards. Her father died in 1837, and the widow
subsequently removed to New Haven, Conn., where she was well known
for her large and generous hospitality. Her daughter, the future
favorite writer and lecturer, was a much admired belle, and in 1855
was married to Frank Umsted, a lawyer of Philadelphia, with whom
she lived two years in St. Louis, Mo. Mr. Umsted died in 1859, and
his widow, who had written sketches for <i>Harper's Magazine</i> and
published a novel called "Southwold," from that date contributed
largely to leading newspapers and magazines. She was Washington
correspondent of the <i>Evening Post</i> in the winter of 1861,
published "Rockford" in 1862, and wrote many stories for <i>Frank
Leslie's Weekly</i>, the <i>Philadelphia Press</i> and other publications.
In 1866 she married Greenfill Blake of New York. In 1872 Mrs. Blake
published "Fettered for Life," a novel designed to show the legal
disadvantages of women. Ever since she became interested in the
suffrage movement Mrs. Blake has been one of the most ardent
advocates. She has taken several lecturing tours in different
States of the Union. Mrs. Blake is an easy speaker and writer, and
of late has contributed to many of our popular magazines. Much of
the recent work in the New York legislature is due to her untiring
zeal.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_218_218" id="Footnote_218_218"></a><a href="#FNanchor_218_218"><span class="label">[218]</span></a> Mrs. Jennie McAdam, Mrs. Hester Poole, Charlotte
Coleman, Mrs. Hull, Mrs. Morse and others. A month before, January
23, Miss Anthony was invited to address the commission, giving her
constitutional argument, showing woman's right to vote under the
fourteenth amendment. Hon. Henry R. Selden was in the audience,
being in the city on Miss Anthony's case. At the close of her
argument he said: "If I had heard that speech before, I could have
made a stronger plea before Judge Hall this morning."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_219_219" id="Footnote_219_219"></a><a href="#FNanchor_219_219"><span class="label">[219]</span></a> She was escorted to the capitol by Ph&oelig;be H. Jones
and the venerable Lydia Mott, who for a quarter of a century had
entertained at their respective homes the various speakers that had
come to Albany to plead for new liberties, and had accompanied
them, one after another, to the halls of legislation.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_220_220" id="Footnote_220_220"></a><a href="#FNanchor_220_220"><span class="label">[220]</span></a> Addressed by Mrs. Wilbour, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Lozier,
Mrs. Hallock, Hamilton Wilcox and Dr. Hallock.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_221_221" id="Footnote_221_221"></a><a href="#FNanchor_221_221"><span class="label">[221]</span></a> For Judge Hunt's decision, see Volume II., page
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_677">677</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_222_222" id="Footnote_222_222"></a><a href="#FNanchor_222_222"><span class="label">[222]</span></a> Miss Charlotte C. Jackson, the valedictorian of the
Normal College of New York; Miss Mary Hussey of Orange, New Jersey;
Miss Mosher of Ann Arbor, Michigan; Miss Emma Wendt, daughter of
Mathilde Wendt. In 1867, Mrs. Stanton had made a similar
application to Theodore D. Dwight, that the law school might be
opened to young women. In the course of their conversation
Professor Dwight said; "Do you think girls know enough to study
law?" Mrs. Stanton replied: "All the liberal laws for women that
have been passed in the last twenty years are the results of the
protests of women; surely, if they know enough to protest against
bad laws, they know enough to study our whole system of
jurisprudence."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_223_223" id="Footnote_223_223"></a><a href="#FNanchor_223_223"><span class="label">[223]</span></a> It was peculiarly fitting that this application
should be made by Mrs. Blake, as two of her ancestors had been
presidents of the college. The first it ever had, when founded as
King's College in 1700, was the Rev. Samuel Johnson, D. D., her
great-great-grandfather. His son, the Hon. Samuel William Johnson,
was the first president after the Revolution, when the name was
changed to Columbia College.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_224_224" id="Footnote_224_224"></a><a href="#FNanchor_224_224"><span class="label">[224]</span></a> Julia Ward Howe, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Antoinette
Brown Blackwell, Mary F. Eastman, Helen Potter, Sarah Andrews
Spencer, Augusta Cooper Bristol, Alice Fletcher, Maria Mitchell,
professor at Vassar College, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Frances Ellen
Burr, Abby Smith, Rossella E. Buckingham, and others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_225_225" id="Footnote_225_225"></a><a href="#FNanchor_225_225"><span class="label">[225]</span></a> Dr. Clemence Lozier was born of a good family in New
Jersey. She was married at the early age of 16, and widowed at 27,
left with a young family without means of support. But being an
excellent teacher, she soon found employment. For eleven years she
was principal of a young ladies' seminary. By natural instinct a
physician and a healer, she determined to fit herself for that
profession. A physician of the old school assisted her in her
medical studies, and in 1853 she received a diploma from the
Eclectic College of Syracuse, and shortly after established herself
in New York, where her practice steadily increased, until her
professional income was one of the largest in the city. In 1860 she
began a course of free medical lectures to women, which continued
for three years, culminating in "The New York Medical College for
Women," which was chartered in 1863. The foundation and
establishment of this institution was the crowning work of her
life, to which she has devoted time and money. From the first she
has been dean of the faculty, and after years of struggle at last
has the satisfaction of seeing it a complete success, owning a fine
building up town, with hospital and dispensary attached.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_226_226" id="Footnote_226_226"></a><a href="#FNanchor_226_226"><span class="label">[226]</span></a> Several ladies appeared last week before the New
York Supervisors' Committee to protest against excessive taxation.
The New York <i>World</i> informs us that Mrs. Harriet Ramsen complained
that the appraisement of lot 5 West One Hundred and Twenty-second
street, was increased from $7,000 to $9,000. Mrs. P. P. Dickinson,
house 48 West Fifty-sixth street, increased from $15,000 to
$20,000; Mrs. Cynthia Bunce, house 37 West Fifty-fourth street,
last year's valuation $10,000; this year's, $15,000. Mrs. Daly, who
owns a house in Seventy-second street, informed the committee that
the assessment on the house (a small dwelling) was put at $2,000,
an increase of $700 over last year's valuation. This house stands
in an unopened street. Supervisor McCafferty said that the
committee would do all in its power to have the assessment reduced,
and also remarked that it was a positive outrage to assess such a
small house at so high a figure. Mrs. Louisa St. John, who is
reputed to be worth $2,000,000, complained because three lots on
Fifth avenue, near Eighty-sixth street, and five lots on the
last-named street, have been assessed at much higher figures than
other lots in the neighborhood. Mrs. St. John addressed the
committee with much eloquence and force. Said she: "I do not
complain of the assessments that have been laid on my property. I
complain of the inequalities practiced by the assessors, and I
should like to see them set right." Supervisor McCafferty assured
Mrs. St. John that everything in the power of the committee would
be done to equalize assessments in future. Mrs. St. John is a heavy
speculator in real estate. She attends sales and has property
"knocked down" to her. She makes all her own searches in the
register's office, and is known, in fact, among property-owners as
a very thorough real-estate lawyer. Many years ago she was the
proprietor of the Globe Hotel, now Frankfort House, corner of
Frankfort and William streets.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_227_227" id="Footnote_227_227"></a><a href="#FNanchor_227_227"><span class="label">[227]</span></a> The Albany <i>Evening Journal</i> of January 22 said: A
hearing was granted by the Judiciary Committee to-night, on the
petition of the Woman's Tax-payers Association of the City of
Rochester, for either representation or relief from taxation. The
petitioners were heard in the assembly chamber, and in addition to
members of the committee, a large audience of ladies and gentlemen
were drawn together, including the president of the Senate, speaker
of the House, and nearly all the leading members of both branches
of the legislature. The first speaker was Mrs. Blake, the youngest
of the trio, who occupied about twenty minutes and was well
received. She was followed by Miss Anthony, who made a telling
speech, frequently eliciting applause. She recounted her long
service in the woman's rights cause, and gave a brief history of
the different enactments and repeals on the question for the last
thirty years. She related her experience in voting, and said she
was fined $100 and costs, one cent of which she had never paid and
never meant to. She claimed Judge Waite was in favor of woman
suffrage, and believed the present speaker of the Assembly of New
York was also in favor of the movement. Calls being made for
General Husted, that gentleman replied that Miss Anthony was
perfectly correct in her statement. She summed up by asking the
committee to report in favor of legislation exempting women from
taxation unless represented by the ballot, remarking that she would
not ask for the right to vote, as that was guaranteed her by the
Constitution of the United States. Miss Anthony then introduced
Mrs. Joslyn Gage, who said if any member of the committee had
objections to offer or questions to ask she would like the
privilege of answering; but as none of the committee availed
themselves, she proceeded for fifteen minutes in about the same
strain as her predecessors. Calls being made for Mr. Spencer and
eliciting no reply from that gentleman, Mrs. Blake said they should
consider him a convert.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_228_228" id="Footnote_228_228"></a><a href="#FNanchor_228_228"><span class="label">[228]</span></a> The speakers were Dr. Clemence Lozier, Helen M.
Slocum, Henrietta Westbrook, Mrs. Devereux Blake. Mrs. J. E.
Frobisher recited Paul Revere's ride, and Helen M. Cooke read the
resolutions.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_229_229" id="Footnote_229_229"></a><a href="#FNanchor_229_229"><span class="label">[229]</span></a> Helen M. Slocum, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Mrs. Devereux
Blake.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_230_230" id="Footnote_230_230"></a><a href="#FNanchor_230_230"><span class="label">[230]</span></a> Miss King, the head of a New York tea-dealing firm
composed of women, who control a capital of $1,000,000, has
recently gone to China to make purchases. Her previous business
experience, as narrated by a correspondent of the Chicago
<i>Tribune</i>, explains her fitness for her mission, while it
incidentally throws some light on the secrets of the tea-company
business:
</p><p>
"Previous to the outbreak of our civil war Miss King was
extensively engaged in utilizing the leaves of the great blackberry
and raspberry crops running to waste in the rich lowlands of
Georgia and Alabama, and kept in that fertile region a large levy
of Northern women&mdash;smart, like herself&mdash;to superintend the
gathering of the leaves and their preparation for shipment to
headquarters in New York. These leaves were prepared for the market
at their manipulating halls in one of the narrow streets on the
Hudson side of New York city. Over this stage of the tea
preparations Miss King had special supervision, and, by a generous
use of the genuine imported teas, worked up our American
productions into all the accredited varieties of the black and
green teas of commerce. Here the female supervision apparently
ended. In their extensive tea ware-rooms in Walker street the
business was conducted by the shrewdest representatives of
Gothamite trade, with all the appliances of the great Chinese
tea-importing houses. Here were huge piles of tea-chests, assorted
and unassorted, and the high-salaried tea-taster with his row of
tiny cups of hot-drawn tea, delicately sampling and classifying the
varieties and grades for market. The breaking out of the war
stopped the Southern supplies and sent Miss King's female agents to
their Northern homes. But the business was made to conform to the
new order of things. Large cargoes of imported black teas were
bought as they arrived and were skillfully manipulated into those
high-cost varieties of green teas so extensively purchased by the
government for its commissary and medical departments."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_231_231" id="Footnote_231_231"></a><a href="#FNanchor_231_231"><span class="label">[231]</span></a> Mrs. Lozier presided. Addresses were made by Matilda
Fletcher of Iowa, Mrs. Helen Slocum and Mrs. Devereux Blake.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_232_232" id="Footnote_232_232"></a><a href="#FNanchor_232_232"><span class="label">[232]</span></a> In Poughkeepsie, Yonkers, Harlem, Williamsburgh,
Brighton, and in several districts in the city of New York.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_233_233" id="Footnote_233_233"></a><a href="#FNanchor_233_233"><span class="label">[233]</span></a> Matilda Joslyn Gage, Helen M. Loder, Mrs. Clara
Neyman, Mrs. Slocum, Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Blake.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_234_234" id="Footnote_234_234"></a><a href="#FNanchor_234_234"><span class="label">[234]</span></a> <i>To the Women of the State of New York:</i>
</p><p>
The undersigned, citizens of the State of New York, who if free to
do so, would express themselves at the ballot box, but who by
unjust enactments are debarred the exercise of that political
freedom whereto "the God of nature" entitles them, earnestly
protest against the proposed reëlection of Lucius Robinson as
governor. They say naught against his honor as a man, but they
protest because when the legislature of the Empire State had passed
a bill making women eligible to school-boards. Lucius Robinson, by
his veto, kept this bill from becoming law. They therefore call on
all men and women who respect themselves and dare maintain their
rights, to do all in their power to defeat the reëlection of one
who has set himself against the advance made by Iowa, Kansas,
Oregon, Illinois, Michigan, Colorado, California, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, in many of which
States woman's right to vote on school questions is also
recognized.
</p><p>
[Signed:] Matilda Joslyn Gage, <i>President N. Y. State Woman
Suffrage Association</i>. Jennie M. Lozier, M. D., <i>Secretary</i>. Lillie
Devereux Blake, <i>Vice-President National Association</i>. Clemence S.
Lozier, M. D., <i>President N. Y. City Association</i>. Susan A. King,
Cordelia S. Knapp, Helen M. Slocum, Susan B. Anthony, Amanda Deyo,
Helen M. Cooke, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Charlotte Fowler Wells, Emma
S. Allen.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_235_235" id="Footnote_235_235"></a><a href="#FNanchor_235_235"><span class="label">[235]</span></a> Chester A. Arthur, chairman of the Republican
campaign committee, presented the motion.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_236_236" id="Footnote_236_236"></a><a href="#FNanchor_236_236"><span class="label">[236]</span></a> She threw her spacious apartments open, and gave
some of the voters a free lunch, that she might have the
opportunity of adding her personal persuasions to the public
protests. Miss King and Miss Helen Potter, the distinguished
reader, then residing with Miss King, assisted in raising a banner
for Cornell and Foster, applauded by the multitude of by-standers.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_237_237" id="Footnote_237_237"></a><a href="#FNanchor_237_237"><span class="label">[237]</span></a> Mrs. Lucy A. Brand, principal of the Genesee school
of this city, a woman with abilities as good as those of any male
principal, but who, because she is a woman, receives $550 less
salary a year than a male principal, was the first woman in the
State of New York to cast a vote under the new school law. On
Saturday afternoon she was at a friend's house, when the <i>Journal</i>
was thrown in, containing the first editorial notice of the passage
of the law. Mrs. Brand saw the welcome announcement. "Let us go and
register," she at once said, her heart swelling with joy and
thankfulness that even this small quantity of justice had been done
woman. "Where is my shawl? I feel as if I should die if I don't get
there," for the hour was late, and the time for closing the
registry lists was near at hand. To have lost this opportunity
would have placed her in the position of a second Tantalus, the cup
withdrawn just as it touched her lips. But she was in time, and the
important act of registering accomplished, she had but to possess
her soul in patience until the following Tuesday. Who shall say how
long the two intervening days were to her; but Tuesday morning at
last arrived, when, for the first time, Mrs. Brand was to exercise
the freeman's right of self-government. A gentleman, the owner of
the block in which she resided, offered to accompany her to the
polls, although he was a Democrat and knew Mrs. Brand would vote
the Republican ticket. Although not hesitating to go alone, Mrs.
Brand accepted this courtesy. As she entered the polling place the
men present fell back in a semi-circle. Not a sound was heard, not
a whisper, not a breath. In silence and with a joyous solemnity
well befitting the occasion, Mrs. Brand cast her first vote, at
five minutes past eight in the morning. The post-master of the
city, Mr. Chase, offered his congratulations. A few ordinary
remarks were exchanged, and then Mrs. Brand left the place. And
that was all; neither more nor less. No opposition, no rudeness, no
jostling crowd of men, but such behavior as is seen when Christians
come together at the sacrament. I have long known Mrs. Brand as a
noble woman, but talking with her a few days since I could but
notice the added sense of self-respecting dignity that freedom
gives. "I feel a constant gratitude that even some portion of my
rights have been recognized," said she, and I left her, more than
ever impressed, if that is possible, with the beauty and sacredness
of freedom.&mdash;[M. J. G.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_238_238" id="Footnote_238_238"></a><a href="#FNanchor_238_238"><span class="label">[238]</span></a> Rev. Robert Collyer, Elizabeth L. Saxon, Clara
Neyman, Augusta Cooper Bristol, Helen M. Slocum, Hamilton Wilcox,
Mrs. Devereux Blake, and Dr. Clemence Lozier who presided.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_239_239" id="Footnote_239_239"></a><a href="#FNanchor_239_239"><span class="label">[239]</span></a> Mary Seymour Howell, <i>President</i>; Miss Kate
Stoneman, <i>Secretary</i>. Miss Stoneman cast the first vote at the
school election in Albany.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_240_240" id="Footnote_240_240"></a><a href="#FNanchor_240_240"><span class="label">[240]</span></a> See appendix.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_241_241" id="Footnote_241_241"></a><a href="#FNanchor_241_241"><span class="label">[241]</span></a> Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Slocum, Mrs. Saxon, of Louisiana.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_242_242" id="Footnote_242_242"></a><a href="#FNanchor_242_242"><span class="label">[242]</span></a> Miss Helen Potter, Miss Susan A. King, Miss Helen M.
Slocum, Miss Harriet K. Dolson and Mrs. Devereux Blake.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_243_243" id="Footnote_243_243"></a><a href="#FNanchor_243_243"><span class="label">[243]</span></a> Mrs. Rogers organized a society in Lansingburg, Mrs.
Loder in Poughkeepsie, Miss Stoneman held meetings in Chautauqua
county, Mrs. Howell in Livingston county, Mrs. Blake in ten other
counties, and held several parlor meetings in New York city. The
annual convention of the State society was held in Chickering Hall,
February 1, 2, 1882.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_244_244" id="Footnote_244_244"></a><a href="#FNanchor_244_244"><span class="label">[244]</span></a> The press generally commented unfavorably. The
<i>Herald</i> said: "The legislature passed a bill in the interest of
decency and humanity, authorizing the appointment of matrons in the
several police stations in the city of New York to look after
female prisoners who might be placed in the station-houses. This
bill was recommended by our best charitable and religious
societies, but failed to receive the sanction of the governor,
although he very promptly signed a bill to increase the number of
the detective force."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_245_245" id="Footnote_245_245"></a><a href="#FNanchor_245_245"><span class="label">[245]</span></a> Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling, Mrs. Clara Neyman, Dr.
Clemence Lozier and Mrs. Blake.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_246_246" id="Footnote_246_246"></a><a href="#FNanchor_246_246"><span class="label">[246]</span></a> Major Haggerty, ex-Governor Thomas G. Alvord and
Hon. James D. McMellan in its favor; Hon. Erastus Brooks and
General Sharpe against.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_247_247" id="Footnote_247_247"></a><a href="#FNanchor_247_247"><span class="label">[247]</span></a> Mr. Hamilton Wilcox at once prepared an able paper,
refuting the attorney-general's assertion. It was widely circulated
throughout the State.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_248_248" id="Footnote_248_248"></a><a href="#FNanchor_248_248"><span class="label">[248]</span></a> When the vote was announced, the ladies sent the
pages with bouquets to the leading speakers in behalf of the bill,
and button-hole sprigs to the fifty-four who voted aye.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_249_249" id="Footnote_249_249"></a><a href="#FNanchor_249_249"><span class="label">[249]</span></a> <i>To the Women of the State of New York</i>:
</p><p>
The undersigned urge you to exert yourselves to turn every vote
possible against Leslie W. Russell's reëlection as
attorney-general. His official acts prove him the unscrupulous foe
of your liberties. By informing the legislature that you have no
right to vote at common law, he has denied your sacred rights and
misrepresented the law to your hurt. By stating that you have no
natural right to vote, he has denied your title to freedom and
sought to keep your rights at the mercy of those in power. By
informing the legislature that the bill to repeal the statutes
which keep you from voting was unconstitutional he misled the
legislature and kept you disfranchised. By thus continuing your
disfranchisement, he has subjected you to many misfortunes and
wrongs which the repeal of your disfranchisement would cure, and is
personally responsible for these sufferings. He has also sought to
rob the mothers of this State of their votes at school elections,
and thus to deprive them of the power to control their children's
education.
</p><p>
[Signed:] Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., New York; Mary R. Pell,
Queens; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York; Caroline A. Bassett, Erie;
Susan A. King, New York; Lucy Shawler, Chenango; Mary E. Tallman,
Oneida; Hannah M. Angel, Allegany; Ida Louise Dildine, Broome;
Zerivah L. Watkeys, Onondaga; Asenath C. Coolidge, Jefferson; Sarah
H. Hallock, Ulster; N. W. Cooper, Jefferson, and others.
</p><p>
<i>To the Republican and Independent Voters of the State of New
York</i>:
</p><p>
The undersigned earnestly ask you to cast your votes against Leslie
W. Russell, the present attorney-general. When the legislature last
year was about to repeal the election laws which prevent women from
exercising the right of suffrage, Leslie W. Russell stated to that
body that women had no right at common law to vote, and that this
bill was unconstitutional. By these misstatements he misled the
legislature, defeated this most righteous bill and prolonged the
disfranchisement of women. Thus he inflicted on a majority of our
adult citizens, who had committed no offense, the penalty of
disfranchisement and the great mischiefs which flow thence, and,
like Judge Taney in the Dred-Scott decision, perverted law and
constitution to justify injustice and continue wrong. A vote for
Leslie W. Russell is a vote to keep these women disfranchised and
to prolong these mischiefs. He who thus blocks the way of freedom
should be removed from the place which enables him to do this. You
can vote at this election for fifteen or more officers. It is but a
small thing to ask, that each of you cast one-fifteenth part of his
vote to represent women's interest at the polls.
</p><p>
[Signed:] Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., Bronson Murray, Susan A. King,
Hamilton Wilcox, Lillie Devereux Blake, Albert O. Wilcox.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_250_250" id="Footnote_250_250"></a><a href="#FNanchor_250_250"><span class="label">[250]</span></a> Abigail Scott Duniway, editor <i>New Northwest</i>,
Oregon; Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, editor "Woman's Kingdom,"
Chicago <i>Inter-Ocean</i>; Helen M. Gougar, editor <i>Our Herald</i>,
Indiana.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_251_251" id="Footnote_251_251"></a><a href="#FNanchor_251_251"><span class="label">[251]</span></a> On the evening of March 8 the New York city society
gave a reception in honor of the delegates to the National
Convention, recently held at Washington, in the elegant parlors of
the Hoffman House.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_252_252" id="Footnote_252_252"></a><a href="#FNanchor_252_252"><span class="label">[252]</span></a> Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Howell, Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Duniway
and Mrs. Gougar.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_253_253" id="Footnote_253_253"></a><a href="#FNanchor_253_253"><span class="label">[253]</span></a> Imprisonment for not more than five years, or a fine
of not more than $1,000, or both.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_254_254" id="Footnote_254_254"></a><a href="#FNanchor_254_254"><span class="label">[254]</span></a> The last census shows there are 72,224 more women
than men in New York; that there are 360,381 women and girls over
ten years of age who support themselves by work outside their own
homes, not including the house-keepers who, from the raw material
brought into the family, manufacture food and clothing three times
its original value.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_444" id="Page_444">[Pg 444]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXVIII" id="CHAPTER_XXXVIII"></a>CHAPTER XXXVIII.</h2>

<h3>PENNSYLVANIA.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Carrie Burnham&mdash;The Canon and Civil Law the Source of Woman's
Degradation&mdash;Women Sold with Cattle in 1768&mdash;Women Arrested in
Pittsburgh&mdash;Mrs. McManus&mdash;Opposition to Women in the Colleges and
Hospitals; John W. Forney Vindicates their Rights&mdash;Ann
Preston&mdash;Women in Dentistry&mdash;James Truman's Letter&mdash;Swarthmore
College&mdash;Suffrage Association Formed in 1866, in
Philadelphia&mdash;John K. Wildman's Letter&mdash;Judge William S.
Pierce&mdash;The Citizens' Suffrage Association, 333 Walnut Street,
Edward M. Davis, President&mdash;Petitions to the
Legislature&mdash;Constitutional Convention, 1873&mdash;Bishop Simpson,
Mary Grew, Sarah C. Hallowell, Matilda Hindman, Mrs. Stanton,
Address the Convention&mdash;Messrs. Broomall and Campbell Debate With
the Opposition&mdash;Amendment Making Women Eligible to School
Offices&mdash;Two Women Elected to Philadelphia School Board,
1874&mdash;The Wages of Married Women Protected&mdash;J. Edgar Thomson's
Will&mdash;Literary Women as Editors&mdash;The Rev. Knox Little&mdash;Anne E.
McDowell&mdash;Women as Physicians in Insane Asylums&mdash;The Fourteenth
Amendment Resolution, 1881&mdash;Ex-Governor Hoyt's Lecture on
Wyoming. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">In</span> the demand for the right of suffrage, women are constantly asked
by the opposition if they cannot trust their own fathers, husbands
and brothers to legislate for them. The answer to this question may
be found in an able digest of the old common laws and the Revised
Statutes of Pennsylvania,<a name="FNanchor_255_255" id="FNanchor_255_255"></a><a href="#Footnote_255_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> prepared by Carrie S. Burnham<a name="FNanchor_256_256" id="FNanchor_256_256"></a><a href="#Footnote_256_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a>
of Pennsylvania. A careful perusal of this paper will show the
relative position of man and woman to be that of sovereign and
subject.</p>

<p>To get at the real sentiments of a people in regard to the true
status of woman we must read the canon and civil laws that form the
basic principles of their religion and government. We must not
trust to the feelings and actions of the best men towards the
individual women whom they may chance to love and respect. The
chivalry and courtesy that the few command through their beauty,
wealth and position, are one thing; but justice, equality, liberty
for the multitude, are quite another. And when the few,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_445" id="Page_445">[Pg 445]</a></span> through
misfortune, are made to feel the iron teeth of the law, they regret
that they had not used their power to secure permanent protection
under just laws, rather than to have trusted the transient favors
of individuals to shield them in life's emergencies.</p>

<p>The law securing to married women the right to property,<a name="FNanchor_257_257" id="FNanchor_257_257"></a><a href="#Footnote_257_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a>
inherited by will or bequest, passed the legislature of
Pennsylvania, and was approved by the governor April 11, 1848, just
five days after a similar law had been passed in New York. Judge
Bovier was the mover for the Pennsylvania Married Women's Property
Law. His feelings had been so often outraged with the misery caused
by men marrying women for their property, that he was bound the law
should be repealed. He prevailed on several young Quakers who had
rich sisters, to run for the legislature. They were elected and did
their duty. Judge Bovier was a descendent of the Waldenses, a
society of French Quakers who fled to the mountains from
persecution. Their descendants are still living in France.<a name="FNanchor_258_258" id="FNanchor_258_258"></a><a href="#Footnote_258_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a></p>

<p>The disabilities and degradation that women suffer to-day grow out
of the spirit of laws that date from a time when women were viewed
in the light of beasts of burden. Scarce a century has passed since
women were sold in this country with cattle. In the <i>Pennsylvania
Gazette</i> for January 7, 1768, is the following advertisement:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">To Be Seen.</span>&mdash;At the Crooked Billet, near the Court-house,
Philadelphia (Price Three Pence), A Two Year Old Hogg, 12 Hands
high, and in length 16 Feet; thought to be the largest of its
Kind ever seen in America. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the same paper of the following week occurs this yet more
extraordinary announcement:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">To Be Sold.</span>&mdash;A Healthy Young Dutch Woman, fit for town or country
business; about 18 years old; can spin well; she speaks good
English, and has about five years to serve. Inquire at James Der
Kinderen's, Strawberry alley. </p></blockquote>

<p>In one century of growth a woman's sewing machine was better
protected than the woman herself under the old common law:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">An Act</span> <i>to exempt Sewing Machines belonging to Seamstresses in
this Commonwealth from levy and sale on execution or distress for
rent</i>:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in general
assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the
same, That hereafter all sewing machines belonging to
seamstresses in this commonwealth shall be exempt from levy and
sale on execution or distress for rent, in addition to any
article or money now exempt by law. Approved, April 17, 1869. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_446" id="Page_446">[Pg 446]</a></span></p>

<p>While the following order reflects the spirit of the seventeenth
century, the comments show the dawning of the right idea, and are
worthy the time in which the great State of Pennsylvania could
boast such women as Lucretia Mott, Anna E. Dickinson, Jane G.
Swisshelm and Sarah J. Hale:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">A Woman Order in Pittsburgh.</span>&mdash;The mayor of Pittsburgh has ordered
the arrest of every woman found on the streets alone after 9
o'clock in the evening; the consequence of which has been that
some respectable ladies have recently seen the inside of the
lock-up.&mdash;<i>Exchange, June, 1869.</i></p>

<p>Now let the mothers, wives and daughters of Pittsburgh obtain the
passage, by the city council, of an ordinance causing the arrest
of every <i>man</i> found in the streets after 9 o'clock in the
evening, and the law will then be equal in its operation. This
legislating upon the behavior of one sex by the other
exclusively, is one-sided and despotic. Give both sexes a chance
at reforming each other. </p></blockquote>

<p>Another step in progress was indicated by the assumption of some
women to influence civil administration, not only for their own
protection, but for that of their sires and sons:</p>

<blockquote><p>An exchange says that women are becoming perfect nuisances, and
to substantiate the assertion adds that 1,500 women in Chester
county, Pennsylvania, have petitioned the court to grant no more
liquor licenses. </p></blockquote>

<p>Suppose wives should come reeling home, night after night, with
curses on their lips, to destroy the food, the dishes, the
furniture for which husbands toiled; to abuse trembling children,
making the home, from year to year, a pandemonium on earth&mdash;would
the good men properly be called "nuisances," who should rise up and
say this must end; we must protect our firesides, our children,
ourselves, society at large? To have women even suggest such
beneficent laws for the men of their families is called "a
nuisance," while the whole barbarous code for women was declared by
Lord Coke to be the "perfection of reason."</p>

<p>The prejudice against sex has been as bitter and unreasonable as
against color, and far more reprehensible, because in too many
cases it has been a contest between the inferior, with law on his
side, and the superior, with law and custom against her, as the
following facts in the <i>Sunday Dispatch</i>, by Anne E. McDowell,
fully show:</p>

<blockquote><p>The decision of the Court of Common Pleas in the case of Mrs.
McManus, elected principal of the Mount Vernon Boys' Grammar
School, is to the effect that, no rule being in existence
prohibiting the exercise of the duties of such office by a woman,
the resolution of the controllers against the exercise of the
duties of that office by the lady was unjustifiable and illegal.
Since the decision was pronounced the controllers have come up to
the boundary of the principle held by the court, and a rule has
been proposed that in future women shall be ineligible to be
principals of boys' grammar schools&mdash;the case of Mrs. McManus
being specially excepted. That lady, therefore, will be
undisturbed. But she may be, like the celebrated "Lady
Freemason." an exception to her sex. The controllers have not
favored the public with their reasons<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_447" id="Page_447">[Pg 447]</a></span> for opposition to the
employment of females in the higher positions of teaching. Women
are good enough for inferior service about a boys'
grammar-school, it seems, but they are not capable of
superintending it. They may be, and are, teachers in all the
classes in such schools, even to the highest; but when the
question arises whether a woman, perfectly competent, shall be
superintendent of all the classes&mdash;for a principal is little
more&mdash;the controllers say <i>no</i>. If this action is influenced by a
belief that women cannot control a school of boys, we hope that
the experience in the case of Mrs. McManus will dispel the
illusion, and the public can afford to await the result of the
trial. But if it is caused by a regard to tradition or precedent,
or because there never has yet been an instance of a woman being
a principal of a boys' grammar-school before this case of Mrs.
McManus, we hope that the controllers will soon see the error of
their course. The complaints from the sections are to the effect
that it is very difficult to get a competent male teacher to
remain principal of a boys' grammar-school for any length of
time. The salary attached to that position is inadequate,
according to the increased cost of living of the times. Gentlemen
who are competent to act as principals of the public schools find
that they can make more money by establishing private schools;
and hence they are uneasy and dissatisfied while in the public
service. A woman able to take charge of a boys' grammar-school
will be paid a more liberal salary (such is the injustice of our
social system in relation to female labor) in that position than
in any other connected with education that she can command, and
she will therefore be likely to be better satisfied with the
duties and to perform them more properly. That such advantage
ought to be held out to ladies competent to be teachers of the
highest grade, we firmly believe. The field of female avocations
should be extended in every legitimate direction; and it seems to
us, unless some reason can be given for the exception, which has
not yet been presented in the case of Mrs. McManus, that the
principalships of the boys' grammar-schools ought to be
accessible to ladies of the proper character and qualification,
without the imputation that by reason of their sex they must
necessarily be unfitted for such duties. </p></blockquote>

<p>In preparing themselves for the medical profession, for which the
most conservative people now admit that women are peculiarly
adapted, students have encountered years of opposition, ridicule
and persecution. After a college for women was established in
Philadelphia,<a name="FNanchor_259_259" id="FNanchor_259_259"></a><a href="#Footnote_259_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> there was another long struggle before their
right to attend the clinics in the hospitals was accorded. The
faculty and students alike protested against the admission of women
into mixed classes; but as there was no provision to give them the
clinics alone, a protest against mixed classes was a protest
against such advantages to women altogether. One would have
supposed the men might have left the delicacy of the question to
the decision of the women themselves. But in this struggle for
education men have always been more concerned about the loss of
modesty than the acquirement of knowledge and wisdom. From the
opinions usually expressed by these self-constituted guardians of
the feminine character, we might be led to infer that the virtues
of women were not a part of the essential elements of their
organization, but a sort of temporary scaffolding, erected by
society to shield a naturally weak structure that any wind could
readily demolish.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_448" id="Page_448">[Pg 448]</a></span></p>

<p>At a meeting convened November 15 at the University of
Pennsylvania, to consider the subject of clinical instruction to
mixed classes the following remonstrance was unanimously adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p>The undersigned, professors in the University of Pennsylvania,
professors in Jefferson Medical College, members of the medical
staff of various hospitals of Philadelphia, and members of the
medical profession in Philadelphia at large, out of respect for
their profession, and for the interests of the public, do feel it
to be their duty, at the present time, to express their
convictions upon the subject of "clinical instruction to <i>mixed
classes</i> of male and female students of medicine." They are
induced to present their views on this question, which is of so
grave importance to medical education, from the fact that it is
misunderstood by the public, and because an attempt is now being
made to force it before the community in a shape which they
conceive to be injurious to the progress of medical science, and
to the efficiency of clinical teaching. They have no hesitation
in declaring that their deliberate conviction is adverse to
conducting clinical instruction in the presence of students of
<i>both sexes</i>. The judgment that has been arrived at is based upon
the following considerations:</p>

<p>I. Clinical instruction in practical medicine demands an
examination of all the organs and parts of the body, as far as
practicable; hence, personal exposure becomes for this purpose
often a matter of absolute necessity. It cannot be assumed, by
any right-minded person, that male patients should be subjected
to inspection before a class of females, although this inspection
may, without impropriety, be submitted to before those of their
own sex. A thorough investigation, as well as demonstration, in
these cases&mdash;so necessary to render instruction complete and
effective&mdash;is, by a mixed audience, precluded; while the clinical
lecturer is restrained and embarrassed in his inquiries, and must
therefore fall short in the conclusions which he may draw, and in
the instruction which he communicates.</p>

<p>II. In many operations upon male patients exposure of the body is
inevitable, and demonstrations must be made which are unfitted
for the observation of students of the opposite sex. These
expositions, when made under the eye of such a conjoined
assemblage, are shocking to the sense of decency, and entail the
risk of unmanning the surgeon&mdash;of distracting his mind, and
endangering the life of his patient. Besides this, a large class
of surgical diseases of the male is of so delicate a nature as
altogether to forbid inspection by female students. Yet a
complete understanding of this particular class of diseases is of
preëminent importance to the community. Moreover, such affections
can be thoroughly studied only in the clinics of the large
cities, and the opportunity for studying them, so far from being
curtailed, should be extended to the utmost possible degree. To
those who are familiar with such cases as are here alluded to, it
is inconceivable that females should ever be called to their
treatment.</p>

<p>III. By the joint participation, on the part of male and female
students, in the instruction and in the demonstrations which
properly belong to the clinical lecture-room, the barrier of
respect is broken down, and that high estimation of womanly
qualities, which should always be sustained and cherished, and
which has its origin in domestic and social associations, is
lost, by an inevitable and positive demoralization of the
individuals concerned, thereby entailing most serious detriment
to the morals of society. In view of the above considerations,
the undersigned<a name="FNanchor_260_260" id="FNanchor_260_260"></a><a href="#Footnote_260_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a> do earnestly and solemnly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_449" id="Page_449">[Pg 449]</a></span> protest against
the admixture of the sexes at clinical instruction in medicine
and surgery, and do respectfully lay these their views before the
board of managers of the hospitals in Philadelphia.</p>

<p><i>November 15, 1869.</i> </p></blockquote>

<p>At meetings held at the University and Jefferson Medical Colleges,
by the students, on Wednesday evening, the following preambles and
resolutions were adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The managers of the Pennsylvania Hospital have seen fit
to admit female students to the clinics of that establishment,
thereby excluding from the lectures many cases, medical and
surgical; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, We consider that in our purchase of tickets of admission
there was a tacit agreement that we should have the benefit of
all cases which the medical and surgical staff of that hospital
should deem fit for our instruction:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That a respectful request be made to the managers of
the Pennsylvania Hospital that we be informed as to whether the
usual character of the clinics will be changed.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That pending the action of the managers on this
question, we as a class and individually absent ourselves from
the clinical lectures. And</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The levity of a few thoughtless young men in the
presence of the females at the hospital has caused the journals
of this city to assume that the whole class of medical students
are utterly devoid of all the attributes of gentlemen,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we do not by any means concede that the
published accounts of the affair are correct, we deplore the fact
that <i>any</i> demonstration should have taken place; for although
the female students may be considered by their presence at the
hospital where male students are present, to have cast aside that
delicacy and modesty which constitutes the ægis of their sex,
they are women, and as such demand our forbearance, if not our
respect.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That these preambles and resolutions be published in
some respectable journal of this city.<a name="FNanchor_261_261" id="FNanchor_261_261"></a><a href="#Footnote_261_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>On these remonstrances of the faculty and students, <i>The Press</i>,
John W. Forney, editor, had many able editorials condemning the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_450" id="Page_450">[Pg 450]</a></span>
action of the medical fraternity. The leading journals throughout
the country advocated the right of the women to enjoy the
advantages of the hospital clinics. <i>The Press</i>, November 22, 1869,
said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The proceedings of the meeting held by the faculties of our two
leading medical schools evince the disposition which lurks at the
bottom of the movement against women as physicians. The hospital
managers are to be browbeaten into the stand taken by the
students, and now sanctioned by the professors. If the women are
to be denied the privilege of clinical lectures, why do not
learned professors, or students, or both, have the manliness to
suggest and advocate some means of solving the difficulty so that
the rights of neither sex shall be impaired? Would any professor
agree to lecture to the women separately? Would any professor
favor the admission of women into the female wards of the
hospitals? Would any professor agree to propose anything, or do
anything that would weaken the firm stand taken against the
admission of women to professional privileges? If so, why not do
it at once? Nothing else will make protestations of fairness
appear at all genuine. Nothing else will remove the stigma of
attempting to drag the hospitals into a support of this crusade
against women. * * * How absurd the solemn declaration, "it
cannot be assumed by any right-minded person that male patients
should be subjected to inspection before a class of females,
although this inspection may, without impropriety, be submitted
to before those of their own sex." This cuts both ways. If it be
improper for female students to be present when patients of the
other sex are treated, is it proper for male students to witness
the treatment of female patients? </p></blockquote>

<p>The practical good sense shown in the following report of a
committee of the Faculty of the Woman's Medical College of
Pennsylvania, makes a very favorable contrast with the unreasonable
remonstrances of the so-called superior sex:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Philadelphia, Nov. 15, 1869.</span></p>

<p>As the relation of students of medicine to public clinics, and
the views entertained by those entitled to speak for their
medical education, are now extensively discussed in the public
journals, it seems necessary for us to state our position.
Considering it decided that, as practitioners of medicine, the
guardianship of life and health is to be placed in the keeping of
women, it becomes the interest of society and the duty of those
entrusted with their professional training to endeavor to provide
for them all suitable means for that practical instruction which
is gained at hospital clinics.</p>

<p>The taunt has heretofore been frequently thrown out that ladies
have not attended the great clinical schools of the country, nor
listened to its celebrated teachers, and that, consequently, they
cannot be as well prepared as men for medical practice. We
believe, as we have always done, that in all special diseases of
men and women, and in all operations necessarily involving
embarrassing exposure of person, it is not fitting or<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_451" id="Page_451">[Pg 451]</a></span> expedient
that students of different sexes should attend promiscuously;
that all special diseases of men should be treated by men in the
presence of men only, and those of women, where it is
practicable, by women in the presence of women only. It was this
feeling, founded on the respect due to the delicacy of women as
patients, perhaps more than any other consideration, which led to
the founding of the Women's Hospital in Philadelphia. There the
clinical demonstration of special diseases is made by and before
women alone. As we would not permit men to enter these clinics,
neither would we be willing&mdash;out of regard to the feelings of men
as patients, if for no other considerations&mdash;that our students
should attend clinics where men are specially treated, and there
has been no time in the history of our college when our students
could intentionally do so, save in direct contravention of our
known views. In nearly all the great public hospitals, however,
by far the larger proportion of cases suited for clinical
illustration&mdash;whether medical or surgical&mdash;is of those which
involve no necessary exposure, and are the results of diseases
and accidents to which man and woman are subject alike, and which
women are constantly called upon to treat. Into these clinics,
women also&mdash;often sensitive and shrinking, albeit poor&mdash;are
brought as patients to illustrate the lectures, and we maintain
that wherever it is proper to introduce women as patients, there
also is it but just and in accordance with the instincts of the
truest womanhood for women to appear as physicians and students.</p>

<p>We had arranged when our class was admitted to the Pennsylvania
hospital to attend on alternate clinic days only, so as to allow
ample opportunity for the unembarrassed exhibition of special
cases to the other students by themselves. We encouraged our
students to visit the hospital upon this view, sustained by our
confidence in the sound judgment and high-minded courtesy of the
medical gentlemen in charge of the wards. All the objections that
have been made to our students' admission to these clinics seem
to be based upon the mistaken assumption that they had designed
to attend them indiscriminately. As we state distinctly and
unequivocally that this was not the fact, that they had no idea
or intention of being present except on one day of the week, and
when no cases which it would not be proper to illustrate before
both classes of students would necessarily be brought in&mdash;it
seems to us that all these objections are destroyed, and we
cannot but feel that those fair-minded professional gentlemen,
who, under this false impression as to facts, have objected to
our course, will, upon a candid reconsideration, acknowledge that
our position is just and intrinsically right. The general
testimony of those who attended the Saturday clinics last winter
at the Philadelphia Hospital at Blockley, when about forty ladies
made regular visits, was that the tone and bearing of the
students were greatly improved, while the usual cases were
brought forward and the full measure of instruction given without
any violation of refined propriety.</p>

<p>We maintain, in common with all medical men, that science is
impersonal, and that the high aim of relief to suffering humanity
sanctifies all duties: and we repel, as derogatory to the science
of medicine, the assertion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_452" id="Page_452">[Pg 452]</a></span> that the physician who has risen to
the level of his high calling need be embarrassed, in treating
general diseases, by the presence of earnest women. The movement
for woman's medical education has been sustained from the
beginning by the most refined, intelligent, and religious women,
and by the noblest and best men in the community. It has ever
been regarded by these as the cause of humanity, calculated in
its very nature to enlarge professional experience, bless women,
and refine society. It has in our own city caused a college and a
hospital not only to be founded, but to be sustained and endowed
by those who have known intimately the character and objects of
this work, and the aims and efforts of those connected with it.
It has this year brought to this city some fifty educated and
earnest women to study medicine, women who have come to this
labor enthusiastically but reverently, as to a great
life-interest and a holy calling. These ladies purchased tickets,
and entered the clinic of the Pennsylvania Hospital, with no
obtrusive spirit, and with no intention of interfering with the
legitimate advantages of other students. If they have been forced
into an unwelcome notoriety, it has not been of their own
seeking.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Ann Preston</span>, M.D., <i>Dean</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><span class="smcap">Emeline H. Cleveland</span>, M.D., <i>Secretary</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>We are indebted to James Truman, D. D. S., of the Pennsylvania
College of Dental Surgery, for the following account of the
admission of women into that branch of the medical profession:</p>

<blockquote><p>The general agitation of the question: What are women best
qualified for in the struggle for existence? naturally led
liberal minds to the opening of new avenues for the employment of
their talents, shared equally with men. Her right to practice in
medicine had been conceded after a long and severe conflict. Even
the domain of the theologian had been invaded, but law and
dentistry were as yet closed, and in the case of the latter,
unthought of as an appropriate avocation for women. The subject,
however, seemed so important, presenting a field of labor
peculiarly suited to her, that one gentleman, then professor in
the Pennsylvania College of Dental Surgery, felt it his duty to
call public attention to this promising work. In a valedictory
delivered by him to the class of 1866, at Musical Fund Hall of
Philadelphia, he included in his theme the peculiar fitness of
dentistry for women. The question was briefly stated, but it
rather startled the large audience by its novelty, and the effect
was no less surprising on the faculty, board of trustees and
professional gentlemen on the platform.</p>

<p>In the fall of 1868 the dean of the Pennsylvania College of
Dental Surgery was waited upon by a German gentleman, who desired
to introduce a lady who had come to this country with the
expectation that all colleges were open to women. Although
informed that this was not the case, he still entertained the
hope that she might be admitted as a student of dentistry. She
gave her name as Henrietti Hirschfeld, of Berlin. The matter came
up before the faculty, and after a free discussion of the whole
subject, she was rejected by a majority vote, but two voting in
her favor.</p>

<p>In a subsequent interview with Professor Truman, he learned that
she had left her native land with the full assurance that she
would have no<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_453" id="Page_453">[Pg 453]</a></span> difficulty in "free America" in securing a dental
education. She had also the positive sanction of her government,
through the then minister of instruction, Dr. Falk, that on
condition of receiving an American diploma she would be permitted
to practice on her return. Her distress, therefore, at this
initial failure was, naturally, very great. The excitement that
this application made was intensified when it was rumored among
the students that a woman desired to be matriculated. The
opposition became very bitter, and manifested itself in many
petty annoyances. In the course of a day or two one gentleman of
the faculty, and he the dean, concluded to change his vote, and
as this decided the question, she was admitted. The opposition of
the professor of anatomy, who belonged to the old school of
medical teachers, was so manifest that it was deemed advisable to
have her take anatomy in the Woman's Medical College for that
winter. The first year of this was in every way satisfactory.
Although the students received her and Mrs. Truman, who
accompanied her on the first visit, with a storm of hisses, they
gradually learned not only to treat her with respect, but she
became a favorite with all, and while not convinced as to the
propriety of women in dentistry, they all agreed that Mrs.
Hirschfeld might do as an exception. The last year she was
permitted by the irate professor of anatomy, Dr. Forbes, to take
that subject under him.</p>

<p>She graduated with honor, and returned to Berlin to practice her
profession. This was regarded as an exceptional case, and by no
means settled the status of the college in regard to women. The
conservative element was exceedingly bitter, and it was very
evident that a long time must elapse before another woman could
be admitted. The great stir made by Mrs. Hirschfeld's graduation
brought several other applications from ladies of Germany, but
these were without hesitation denied. Failing to convince his
colleagues of the injustice of their action, Dr. Truman tried to
secure more favorable results from other colleges, and applied
personally to Dr. Gorgas of the Baltimore College of Dental
Surgery. The answer was favorable, and he accompanied the
applicant and entered her in that institution. This furnished
accommodation for the few applicants. The loss in money began to
tell on the pockets, if not the consciences, of the faculty of
the Philadelphia school. They saw the stream had flown in another
direction, swelling the coffers of another institution, when,
without an effort, they could have retained the whole. They
concluded to try the experiment again, and accepted three ladies
in 1872 and 1873&mdash;Miss Annie D. Ramborger of Philadelphia,
Fraulein Veleske Wilcke and Dr. Jacoby of Germany. Their first
year was very satisfactory, but at its close it was very evident
that there was a determination on the part of the minority of the
class to spare no effort to effect their removal from the school.
A petition was forwarded to the faculty to this effect, and
although one was presented by the majority of the students in
their favor, the faculty chose to accept the former as
representing public sentiment, and it was decided not to allow
them to take another year at this college. This outrage was not
accomplished without forcible protest from the gentleman
previously named, and he appealed from this decision to the
governing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_454" id="Page_454">[Pg 454]</a></span> power, the board of trustees.<a name="FNanchor_262_262" id="FNanchor_262_262"></a><a href="#Footnote_262_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> To hear this appeal
a special meeting was called for March 27, 1873, at which the
communication of Professor Truman was read and ordered filed. A
similar communication, in opposition, was received, signed by
Professors T. L. Buckingham, E. Wildman, George T. Barker, James
Tyson and J. Ewing Mears. The matter was referred to a committee
consisting of Hon. Henry C. Carey, W. S. Pierce and G. R.
Morehouse, M. D. At a special meeting convened for this purpose,
March 31, 1873, this committee made their report. They say:</p>

<blockquote><p>Three ladies entered as students of this college at the
commencement of the session, 1872-73, paid their matriculation
fees, attended the course of lectures, and were informed, by a
resolution adopted by a majority of the faculty at the close of
the session, that they would not be permitted to attend the
second course of lectures. No other cause was assigned for the
action of the faculty than that they deemed it against the
interest of the college to permit them to do so, on account of
the dissatisfaction which it gave to certain male students, etc.
* * * The goal to which all medical and dental students look, is
graduation and the diploma, which is to be the evidence of their
qualification to practice their art. To qualify themselves for
this they bestow their time, their money and their labor. To
deprive them of this without just cause is to disappoint their
hopes, and to receive from them money and bestowal of time and
labor without the full equivalent which they had a right to
expect. </p></blockquote>

<p>After discussing at length the legal aspects of the case, the
summing up is as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>We, therefore, respectfully report that in our opinion it is the
legal right of these ladies to attend, and it is the legal duty
of this college to give them, as students, a second course of
lectures on the terms of the announcement which forms the basis
of the contract with them. </p></blockquote>

<p>This report was signed by all the committee, and read by W. S.
Pierce, one of the number, and judge of the Court of Common Pleas
of Philadelphia. It carried with it, therefore, all the force of a
judicial decision, and was so accepted by the board, and adopted at
once. This left the majority of the faculty no choice but to accept
the decision as final as far as these ladies were concerned. This
they did, and the three were invited to resume their studies. Two,
Misses Ramborger and Wilcke, accepted, Miss Jacoby refused and went
to Baltimore.</p>

<p>The most interesting feature of this matter, and that which clearly
demonstrated a marked advance in public opinion, was the stir it
made in the press. The daily and Sunday papers bristled with strong
leaders, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_455" id="Page_455">[Pg 455]</a></span> faculty being denounced in no measured terms for
their action. To such an extent was this carried, and so
overwhelming was the indignation, that it practically settled the
question for Philadelphia, although several years elapsed after
these ladies were graduated before others were accepted. When that
time did arrive, under the present dean, Dr. C. N. Pierce, they
were accorded everything, without any reservation, and the school
has continued ever since to accept them. At the meeting of the
National Association of Dentists, held at Saratoga, 1869, Dr.
Truman introduced a resolution looking to the recognition of women
in the profession. The resolution and the remarks were kindly
received, but were, of course, laid on the table. This was
expected, the object being to make the thought familiar in every
section of the country.</p>

<p>These efforts have borne rich fruit, and now women are being
educated at a majority of the prominent dental colleges, and no
complaints are heard of coëducation in this department of work. The
college that first accepted and then rejected&mdash;the Pennsylvania of
Philadelphia&mdash;has a yearly average of seven to eight women, nearly
equally divided between America and Germany. Of the three dental
schools in Philadelphia, two accept women, and the third&mdash;the
Dental Department of the University of Pennsylvania&mdash;would, if the
faculty were not overruled by the governing powers.</p>

<p>The learned theories that were promulgated in regard to the injury
the practice of dentistry would be to women, have all fallen to the
ground. The advocates of women in dentistry were met at the
outstart with the health question, and as it had never been tested,
the most favorably inclined looked forward with some anxiety to the
result. Fifteen years have elapsed since then, and almost every
town in Germany is supplied with a woman in this profession. Many
are also established in America. These have all the usual
requisites of bodily strength, and the writer has yet to learn of a
single failure from physical deterioration.</p>

<p>The first lady, Miss Lucy B. Hobbs, to graduate in dentistry, was
sent out from the Cincinnati College, and she, I believe, is still
in active practice in Kansas. She graduated in 1866. Mrs.
Hirschfeld, before spoken of, returned to Germany and became at
once a subject for the fun of the comic papers, and for the more
serious work of the <i>Bajan</i> and <i>Úberlana und Meer</i>, both of them
containing elaborate and illustrated notices of her. She had some
friends in the higher walks of life; notable amongst these was
President Lette of the <i>Trauen-Verein</i>, whose aid and powerful
influence had assisted her materially in the early stages of her
effort. The result of these combined forces soon placed her in
possession of a large practice. She was patronized by ladies in the
highest circles, including the crown princess. She subsequently
married, had two boys to rear and educate, and a large household to
supervise. She has assisted several of her relatives into
professions, two in medicine and two in dentistry, besides aiding
many worthy persons. She has established a clinic for women in
Berlin, something very badly needed there. This is in charge of two
physicians, one being her husband's sister, Dr. Fanny Tiburtius.
She has also started a hospital for women.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_456" id="Page_456">[Pg 456]</a></span> These are mainly
supported by her individual exertions. Notwithstanding all these
multifarious and trying duties, she practices daily, and is as well
physically and mentally as when she commenced. Fraulein Valeske
Wilcke of Königsberg has been over twelve years in a very large
practice with no evil results; Miss Annie D. Ramborger, an equal
time, with an equally large practice, and enjoys apparently far
better health than most ladies of thirty.</p>

<p>Dentistry is, probably, one of the most trying professions, very
few men being equal to the severe strain, and many are obliged to
succumb. No woman has as yet failed, though it would not be at all
remarkable if such were the case. The probabilities are that
comparatively few will choose it as a profession, but that another
door has been opened for employment is a cause for congratulation
with all right-thinking minds. </p></blockquote>

<p>For opening this profession to women a debt of gratitude is due to
Dr. Truman from all his countrywomen, as well as to those noble
German students, who have so ably filled the positions he secured
for them. Similar struggles, both in medicine and dentistry, were
encountered in other States, but the result was as it must be in
every case, the final triumph of justice for women. Already they
are in most of the colleges and hospitals, and members of many of
the State and National associations.</p>

<p>In 1870, the Society of Friends founded Swarthmore College<a name="FNanchor_263_263" id="FNanchor_263_263"></a><a href="#Footnote_263_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> for
the education of both sexes, erecting a fine building in a
beautiful locality. At the dedication of this institution, Lucretia
Mott was elected to honorary membership and invited to the
platform. With her own hands she planted the first tree, which now
adorns those spacious grounds.</p>

<p>The persecutions that women encountered in every onward step soon
taught them the necessity of remodeling the laws and customs for
themselves. They began to see the fallacy of the old ideas, that
men looked after the interests of women, "that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_457" id="Page_457">[Pg 457]</a></span> they were their
natural protectors," that they could safely trust them to legislate
on their personal and property rights; for they found in almost
every case that whatever right and privilege man claimed for
himself, he proposed exactly the opposite for women. Hence the
necessity for them to have a voice as to the laws and the rulers
under which they lived. Whatever reform they attempted they soon
found their labors valueless, because they had no power to remedy
any evils protected by law. After laboring in temperance,
prison-reform, coëducation, and women's rights in the trades and
professions, their hopes all alike centered at last in the suffrage
movement.</p>

<p>In 1866, a suffrage association was formed in Philadelphia at a
meeting of the American Equal Rights Society,<a name="FNanchor_264_264" id="FNanchor_264_264"></a><a href="#Footnote_264_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a> held in Franklin
Institute. This convention was marked by a heated debate on the
duty of the abolitionists now that the black man was emancipated,
to make the demand for the enfranchisement of women, as well as the
freedmen.</p>

<p>We are indebted to John K. Wildman of Philadelphia for the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Pennsylvania association was organized December 22, 1869, in
Mercantile Library Hall, Philadelphia. The meeting was called to
order by John K. Wildman, who said: "The time has arrived when it
is necessary for us to take some action towards promoting the
cause of woman suffrage. We desire to do our part as far as
practicable, in the work of enlightening the people of our State
upon this important subject. With this end in view we propose to
organize, hoping that all friends of the movement will cordially
give us their influence." Edward M. Davis then proposed the
appointment of Judge William S. Pierce as chairman of the
meeting. This was agreed to, and Judge Pierce announced that the
meeting was ready for business, reserving for another stage of
the proceedings any remarks he might wish to make. Annie Heacock
was chosen to act as secretary. In accordance with a motion that
was adopted, the chairman appointed a committee of five
persons<a name="FNanchor_265_265" id="FNanchor_265_265"></a><a href="#Footnote_265_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> to prepare a constitution, and present the same for
the action of the meeting. Mary Grew spoke at length in her
earnest and impressive manner, presenting forcibly those familiar
yet solid arguments in favor of woman suffrage which form the
basis of the discussion, and which should irrevocably settle the
question. Dr. Henry T. Child followed with a brief<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_458" id="Page_458">[Pg 458]</a></span> address,
showing his zealous interest in the object of the meeting, and
trusting that at no distant period the ballot would be placed in
the hands of the women of the land. Judge Pierce said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I am in favor of giving woman a chance in the world. I feel very
much in regard to woman as Diogenes did when Alexander the Great
went to see him. When the monarch arrived at the city in which
Diogenes lived, he sent a request for him to come to see him.
Diogenes declined to go. The monarch then went to the place of
his residence, and found him lying in his court-yard sunning
himself. He did not even rise when Alexander approached. Standing
over him, the warrior asked, "Diogenes, what can I do for you?"
And the philosopher answered, "Nothing, except to stand out of my
sunshine." Now, I am disposed to stand out of woman's sunshine.
If she wants the light of the sun upon her, and the breath of
heaven upon her, and freedom of action necessary to develop
herself, heaven forbid that I should stand in her way. I believe
that everything goes to its own place in God's world, and woman
will go to her place if you do not impede her. We should not be
afraid to trust her, or to apply the same principles to her in
regard to suffrage that we apply to ourselves. There should be no
distinction. Her claims to the ballot rest upon a just and
logical foundation. </p></blockquote>

<p>The venerable Sojourner Truth spoke a few words of encouragement,
showing in her humble and fervid way a reverent faith in the final
triumph of justice. After the adoption of the constitution, the
organization was completed by the election of officers<a name="FNanchor_266_266" id="FNanchor_266_266"></a><a href="#Footnote_266_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> to
serve for the ensuing year.</p>

<p>The first thing that claimed the attention of the officers of the
new society was the representation of the different counties on the
executive committee; and for this purpose the chairman wrote to
nearly all of the sixty-three counties, chiefly to the postmasters
of the principal towns. The replies that were received presented a
curious medley of sentiment and opinion touching the object in
view, disclosing every shade of tone and temper between the two
extremes of cold indifference and warm enthusiasm. It was evident
that, in a large number of cases, the inquiries promptly found
their resting-place in the waste-basket. Before the close of the
year twenty-two counties were represented. Thus reinforced, the
committee took immediate steps towards distributing documents and
circulating petitions throughout the State. Many of the county
members coöperated earnestly in this work. Some of them, not
satisfied to limit their action to this particular form of service,
aided the movement by collecting funds and holding public meetings
in their respective localities. Matilda Hindman, representing
Alleghany county, evinced both energy and enterprise in forwarding
the movement through the agency of public meetings. She did good
service from the beginning, relying almost solely upon her own
determined purpose. Her deep interest in the work and its object,
and the courage that animated her at the first impulse of duty,
have continued without abatement to the present time. Her
usefulness and activity have not confined themselves within the
limits of Pennsylvania, but have extended to other States, both in
the East and West.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_459" id="Page_459">[Pg 459]</a></span></p>

<p>Miss Matilda Hindman, of Philadelphia, pays the following tribute
to her parents:</p>

<blockquote><p>In 1837, my father being a member of the school committee of the
Union township, Washington county, secured equal salaries for
women; and in spite of steady opposition, there was no difference
made for four years. The women who taught the schools in the
summer were paid the same as the men who taught in the winter. At
the death of my father the board returned to the old system of
half pay for women; the result was "incompetent teachers,"
furnishing the opposition with just the plea they desired&mdash;that
women were not fit for school teachers. My mother remonstrated,
but in vain. They replied, "women never received as much as men
for any work"; "it did not cost as much to keep a woman as a
man," and moreover, these school matters belonged to men, and
women had no right to interfere. In 1842, my mother offered to
board the teacher in her district, gratis, if the board would
raise her salary proportionally. They received her proposition
with scorn. She then refused to pay her taxes. Such was the
respect for her in the community, and the sense of justice in
regard to the teachers, that the authorities suffered the tax to
go unpaid, and at the end of the year accepted the proposition,
and for many years after, she boarded the teacher in her
district, making the woman's net salary equal to that of the man.</p>

<p>My mother lived to see her daughters employed in her township on
equal salaries with men. But in process of time, another board,
for the express purpose of humiliating mother and daughters
alike, passed a resolution to take two dollars a month from each
of their salaries, when all three resigned. They all honored her,
by carrying into their life-work the noble principles for which
she suffered so much.</p>

<p>She was the grand-daughter of a Scotch-Irish Presbyterian
minister, who, with his young family, was among the earliest
settlers in the wilderness of what is now known as the prosperous
and beautiful county of Washington, Pennsylvania. Her name was
Sarah Campbell. She was born in 1798. From her earliest girlhood
she rebelled against the injustice done women by the law. She
felt acutely the wrong done her and her sisters by being denied
an education equal to their brothers, and denied also an equal
share of their inheritance. While the father possessed a large
estate, and provided liberally for his sons, he left his
daughters a mere pittance. </p></blockquote>

<p>In view of such facts, it is folly to say that women were ever
satisfied with the humiliating discriminations of sex they have
endured in all periods, and in all ranks in society.</p>

<p>The first annual report of the association was prepared by Eliza
Sproat Turner. She said:</p>

<blockquote><p>We do not complain that man is slow to realize the injustice of
his present attitude towards woman&mdash;an attitude once, from
necessity, endurable; now, from too long continuance, grown
intolerable. It would not be natural for him to feel it with
equal keenness. It takes a great-minded fox to find out, what
every goose knows, that foxes' teeth are cruel. And while we do
not complain of this incapacity on his part, the advocates of
this cause feel the necessity for woman to take upon herself
whatever share in the management of their mutual affairs shall be
needed to right the balance; concluding that the defects in
legislation which she is, by reason of her position, more
competent to understand, she should be more competent to remedy.
Not these innovations alone, but others involving matters beyond
individual interests, she expects to achieve by the power she
shall gain through the exercise of her right of suffrage. We
discern, in the consideration of nearly all questions of national
welfare, a disposition to press unduly the interests of trade and
commerce rather than the interests of the fireside. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mary Grew presided, and has been elected president of the
association every year from the beginning, performing the duties of
the position with ability, earnestness and satisfaction. In the
winter of 1870-71 the executive<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_460" id="Page_460">[Pg 460]</a></span> committee recommended the passage
of a law that should give married women the control of their own
earnings. The appeal to the legislature in behalf of such a law was
renewed the following winter, and its passage finally secured.
Among the resolutions adopted at the annual meeting was the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the vote of the legislature of this State for a
convention to amend the constitution, makes it our duty to work
for the exclusion of the word "male" from the provision defining
the qualifications for the elective franchise, and that we call
upon all friends of justice to give their best energies to the
sustaining of this object. </p></blockquote>

<p>Subsequently the executive committee prepared a petition with
reference to the formation of the constitutional convention, asking
the legislature, in making the needful regulations, to frame them
in such a way as to secure the representation of the women of the
State. This petition was unavailing. At the next annual meeting,
which was held at the time the constitutional convention was in
session, a resolution was adopted containing an appeal to that
body, earnestly requesting it to present to the people of the State
a constitution that should secure the right of suffrage to its
citizens without distinction of sex, accompanied by a request for a
hearing at such time and place as the convention should decide. The
request was willingly granted, and an evening assigned for that
purpose. An evening was also given to the Citizens' Suffrage
Society of Philadelphia for a like object. These meetings were held
in the hall of the convention, and were largely attended by the
members and by the people generally. Addresses were delivered by
various friends of woman suffrage, as representatives of the two
societies.<a name="FNanchor_267_267" id="FNanchor_267_267"></a><a href="#Footnote_267_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a> Still another evening was granted the Pennsylvania
association for a meeting to be addressed by Bishop Matthew Simpson
of the Methodist Episcopal Church. The earnest and forcible words
of the eloquent speaker, and his solid array of arguments, made a
deep impression on the attentive audience.</p>

<p>In the convention the question was discussed during five successive
days. Hon. John M. Broomall introduced a provision in favor of
making the ballot free to men and women alike, proposing that it be
incorporated in the new constitution. This provision was ably
advocated by Mr. Broomall and many other members of the convention.
Their firm convictions in behalf of equal and exact justice,
however well sustained by sound reasoning and earnest appeal, was
an unequal match for the rooted conservatism which recoiled from
such a new departure. Although the measure was defeated, its
discussion had an influence. It was animated, intelligent and
exhaustive, and drew public attention more directly to the subject
than anything that had occurred since the beginning of its
agitation in the State.</p>

<p>The only act of the convention that gave hope to the friends of
impartial suffrage was the adoption of the third section of Article
X.: "Women twenty-one years of age and upwards shall be eligible to
any office of control or management under the school laws of this
State." It was a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_461" id="Page_461">[Pg 461]</a></span> very faint gleam of comfort, too small to stir
more than a breath of praise. It had the merit of being a step in
the right direction, though timid and feeble, and as it has never
disturbed the equilibrium of society, it may ultimately be followed
by others of more importance.</p>

<p>The annual meetings of the association have been held in
Philadelphia, Westchester, Bristol, Kennett Square and Media,
respectively. An interesting feature of the Westchester meeting was
the reading of an essay, entitled "Four quite New Reasons why you
should wish your Wife to Vote." It was written for the occasion by
Eliza Sproat Turner, and was subsequently printed and re-printed in
tract form by order of the executive committee, and freely
circulated among the people. It was likewise published in the
<i>Woman's Journal</i>. Other documents relative to the question have
been printed from time to time by authority of the committee, and
large numbers of suffrage tracts have been purchased for
distribution year after year, embodying the best thoughts, the
soundest arguments, and the most forcible reasoning that the
question has elicited. Frequent petitions have been sent to the
legislature and to congress, all having in view the one paramount
object, and showing by their repeated and persistent appearance the
indefatigable nature of a living, breathing reform. The executive
committee at one time employed Matilda Hindman as State agent.
Meetings were held by her chiefly in the western part of the State.
In 1874 her services extended to the State of Michigan, where the
question of woman suffrage was specially before the people. Lelia
E. Patridge also represented the association in Michigan at that
time, where she performed excellent service in addressing numerous
meetings in different parts of the State. In 1877 Miss Patridge was
appointed to represent the society in Colorado. There she labored
with others to secure the adoption of a constitutional amendment
providing for suffrage without regard to sex. On several occasions
the executive committee has contributed to woman suffrage purposes
in other States. Massachusetts, Michigan, Colorado and Oregon have
been recipients of the limited resources of the association. The
executive committee has felt the cramping influence of an
unfriended treasury. Its provision has been the fruit of unwearied
soliciting, and should the especial object of the association ever
be accomplished, the honors of success may be fitly contested by
the fine art of begging. </p></blockquote>

<p>The following report was sent us by Mrs. Mary Byrnes:</p>

<blockquote><p>March 22, 1872, the Citizens' Suffrage Association of
Philadelphia was formed, William Morris Davis, president, with
fifty members. The name of the society was chosen to denote the
view of its members as to the basis of the elective franchise.
The amendments to the United States constitution had clearly
defined who were citizens, and shown citizenship to be without
sex. Woman was as indisputably a citizen as man. Whatever rights
he possessed as a citizen she possessed also. The supreme law of
the land placed her on the same plane of political rights with
him. If man held the right of suffrage as a citizen of the United
States, either by birthright within the respective States, or by
naturalization under the United States, then the right of the
female citizen<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_462" id="Page_462">[Pg 462]</a></span> to vote was as absolute as that of the male
citizen; and woman's disfranchisement became a wrong inflicted
upon her by usurped power. Men became voters by reason of their
citizenship, having first complied with certain police
regulations imposed within and by the respective States. The
Citizens' Suffrage Association demanded the same political rights
for all citizens, nothing more, nothing less. It repudiated the
idea that one class of citizens should ask of another class
rights which that other class never possessed, and which those
who were denied them never had lost. This society held that the
right to give implied the right to take away; and further, that
the right to give implied a right lodged somewhere in society,
which society had never acquired by any direct concession from
the people.</p>

<p>This society held also, that the theory of the right to the
franchise, as a gift, bore with it the power somewhere to
restrict the male citizen's suffrage, and to strike at the
principle of self-government. They had seen this doctrine
earnestly advanced. They knew that there was a growing class in
the country who were inimical to universal suffrage. In view of
this they chose the name of citizen suffrage, as the highest and
broadest term by which to designate their devotion to the
political rights of all citizens. They held that the political
condition of the white women of the United States was totally
unlike that of the slave population in this: that while the
slaves were not considered citizens until the adoption of the
fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, white women had always been
citizens, and always entitled to all the political rights of
citizenship. The colored male citizen became a voter&mdash;subject to
the police regulations of the different States&mdash;upon acquiring
citizenship. No constitutional enactment denied equal political
rights to women as citizens. No constitutional enactment was
therefore required to enable them to exercise the right to vote,
which became the right of male slaves upon their securing
citizenship under the law. The first legal argument on the
subject of woman's right to the ballot as a citizen of the United
States, was made by Jacob F. Byrnes before the Pennsylvania
Society. Had it been published as soon as written, instead of
being circulated privately, surprising person after person with
the position taken, it would have antedated the report of General
Benjamin F. Butler in the House of Representatives in the winter
of 1871. </p></blockquote>

<p>Edward M. Davis, president for many years, was one of the most
active and untiring officers of this association, giving generously
of his time and money not only to its support but to the general
agitation of the suffrage question in every part of the country.
The meetings were held regularly at his office, 333 Walnut street,
as were also those of the Radical Club. This was composed largely
of the same members as the suffrage society, but in this
organization they had a greater latitude in discussion, covering
all questions of political, religious and social interest. As the
division in the National Society produced division<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_463" id="Page_463">[Pg 463]</a></span> everywhere,
some of the friends in Philadelphia made themselves auxiliary to
the American Association, and the sympathy of others was with the
National, thus forming two rival societies, which together kept the
suffrage question before the people and roused their attention,
particularly to the fact of a pending constitutional convention.
Hence the necessity of holding meetings throughout the State, and
rolling up petitions asking that the constitution be so amended as
to secure to women the right to vote. The following appeal was
issued by this association:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Editor of the Post:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>: There is no political question now before the people of this
commonwealth more important than the consideration of the changes
to be made in our constitution. The citizens of the State, by an
enormous majority of votes, have re-claimed the sovereign powers
of government, and evinced a determination to re-form the
fundamental law, the constitution of this State, in the interest
of a government "of the people, by the people, and for the
people." In this new adaptation of old rules of government to the
advanced ideas of the age, it seems to us fitting and opportune
that woman in her new status as a citizen of the United States
(under the fourteenth amendment of the constitution), should be
allowed the exercise of rights which have been withheld under old
rules of action. Therefore we respectfully ask you to give this,
with our appeal, an insertion in your paper, and to continue the
appeal until further notice. And we ask all the friends of woman
suffrage to aid our association in placing this appeal in each
paper of our city, as well as of the neighboring towns.</p>

<p>"There is no distinction in citizenship as has been determined by
the fourteenth amendment to the constitution of the United
States. The citizens of Pennsylvania have decided on a revision
of the constitution of the commonwealth. The power of revision is
to be delegated by the citizens of the commonwealth to a
convention. The foundation of free government is based on the
consent of the governed. Therefore, the Citizens' Suffrage
Association of Pennsylvania appeals to the sense of right and
justice in the hearts of the citizens of this State, to aid in
securing to every citizen, irrespective of sex, an equal voice in
the selection of delegates, and an equal right, if elected
thereto, to a seat in said constitutional convention."</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Wm. Morris Davis</span>, <i>Controller</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Robert Purvis, at the request of the Citizens' Suffrage
Association of Philadelphia, waited upon Mrs. President Hayes and
presented to her an address adopted by that society. Mr. Purvis
wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p>I have just returned from a very satisfactory and delightful
interview with Mrs. Hayes. She received me most cordially. I read
to her the eloquent address from the Citizens' Suffrage
Association. She listened with marked attention, was grateful for
the high favor conferred upon her, and sent her best wishes for
the success of the cause. I made reference to the fact that the
address bore the honored name of Lucretia Mott, which she
received with a ready acknowledgment of her great worth and
usefulness, and her distinguished place as a reformer and
philanthropist. </p></blockquote>

<p>Through the liberality of Edward M. Davis, this society was able to
publish and circulate an immense number of tracts covering all
phases of the question. He has been one of the few<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_464" id="Page_464">[Pg 464]</a></span> abolitionists
who have thrown into this movement all the old-time fervor
manifested in the slavery conflict. A worthy son of the sainted
Lucretia Mott, her mantle seems to have fallen on his shoulders.</p>

<p>The Hon. John M. Broomall was ever ready to champion the cause of
equality of rights for women, not only in the legislature and in
the constitutional conventions of his own State, but on the floor
of congress as well. In a letter giving us valuable information on
several points, he says:</p>

<blockquote><p>You ask when I made my first declaration for woman suffrage. I
cannot tell. I was born in 1816, and one of the earliest settled
convictions I formed as a man was that no person should be
discriminated against on account of sect, sex, race or color, but
that all should have an equal chance in the race which the Divine
Ruler has set before all; and I never missed an opportunity to
give utterance to this conviction in conversation, on the stump,
on the platform and in legislative bodies. My views were set out
concisely in my remarks in congress, on January 30, 1869, and I
cite the commencement and conclusion, as I find them in <i>The
Globe</i> of that date:</p>

<blockquote><p>Every person owing allegiance to the government and not under the
legal control of another, should have an equal voice in making
and administering the laws, unless debarred for violating those
laws; and in this I make no distinction of wealth, intelligence,
race, family or sex. If just government is founded upon the
consent of the governed, and if the established mode of consent
is through the ballot-box, then those who are denied the right of
suffrage can in no sense be held as consenting, and the
government which withholds that right is as to those from whom it
is withheld no just government. * * * * The measure now before
the House is necessary to the complete fulfillment of what has
gone before it. To hesitate now is to put in peril all we have
gained. Let this, too, pass into history as an accomplished fact.
Let it be followed, in due course of time, by the last crowning
act of the series&mdash;an amendment to the constitution securing to
all citizens of full age, without regard to sex, an equal voice
in making and amending the laws under which they live, to be
forfeited only for crime. Then the great mission of the party in
power will be fulfilled; then will have been demonstrated the
capacity of man for self-government; then a just nation, founded
upon the full and free consent of its citizens will be no longer
a dream of the optimist. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Virginia Barnhurst writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>I think you should make mention of the few men who, against the
greatest opposition, stood boldly up and avowed themselves in
favor of woman's cause. When I think of some of the speeches that
I heard from the opposite side&mdash;expressions which sent the hot
blood to my face, and which showed the low estimate law-makers
put upon woman, those few men who dared to defend mothers and
sisters, stand out in my mind as worthy of having their names go
down in history&mdash;and especially in a history written by women. I
had a good talk with Lawyer Campbell. He is one of the most
ardent in the cause; he believes the ballot to be a necessity to
woman, as a means of self-protection, this necessity being seen
in the unequal operation of many laws relating to the
guardianship<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_465" id="Page_465">[Pg 465]</a></span> of children and the ownership of property. Caleb
White's words have in them the just consciousness of their own
immortality: "I want my vote to be recorded; not to be judged of
here, but to be judged of by coming generations, who, at least,
will give to woman the rights which God intended she should
have." </p></blockquote>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 338px;">
<a name="v3_465" id="v3_465">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_465.jpg" width="338" height="500" alt="Rachel G. Foster" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>The constitutional convention to which reference has been so
frequently made in this chapter, assembled November 12, 1872, and
as early as the 22d, resolutions relative to women holding
school-offices and to the property-rights of women were presented.
Numberless petitions for these and full suffrage for women were
sent in during the entire sitting of the convention. February 3,
1873, John H. Campbell presented the minority report of the
Committee on Suffrage and Elections:</p>

<blockquote><p>The undersigned, members of the Committee on Suffrage, Election
and Representation, dissent from that part of the majority report
of said committee, which limits the right of suffrage to male
electors. We recommend that the question, "Shall woman exercise
the right of suffrage," be submitted by the convention to the
qualified electors of this commonwealth, and also upon the same
day therewith, to those women of the commonwealth who upon the
day of voting shall be of the age of twenty-one years and
upwards, and have been residents of the State one year, and in
the district where they offered to vote at least sixty days prior
thereto; and that if the majority of all the votes cast at said
election should be in the affirmative, then the word "male" as a
qualification for an elector, contained in section &mdash;&mdash;, article
&mdash;&mdash; on suffrage and election shall be stricken out, and women in
this State shall thereafter exercise the right of suffrage,
subject only to the restrictions placed upon the male voters.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">
John H. Campbell,<br />
Lewis C. Cassidy,<br />
Levi Rooke.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The amendment for full suffrage was lost by a vote of 75 to 25,
with 33 absent, while the amendment making women eligible for
school offices was carried by a vote of 60 to 32.<a name="FNanchor_268_268" id="FNanchor_268_268"></a><a href="#Footnote_268_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> The debate
by those in favor of the amendment was so ably and eloquently
conducted that we would gladly reproduce it, had not all the
salient points been so often and so exhaustively presented on the
floor of congress, and by some of the members from Pennsylvania.</p>

<p>After the passage of the school law of 1873, it was immediately
tested all over the State, rousing opposition and conflict
everywhere, but the struggle resulted favorably to women, who now
hold many offices to which they were once ineligible. At the first
election of school directors in Philadelphia the nomination<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_466" id="Page_466">[Pg 466]</a></span> of two
women was hotly contested. The <i>Evening Telegraph</i> of February 6,
1874, gives the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>There is progressing in the Thirteenth ward a contest which
involves so peculiar and important an issue as to merit the
widest publicity. It illustrates how the rights guaranteed to
women under the new constitution are to be denied them, if
cunning and bold chicanery are to be tolerated, by a few ward
politicians. At the Republican primary election, held January 20,
Mrs. Harriet W. Paist and Mrs. George W. Woelpper were duly
nominated as candidates for members of the board of school
directors of the ward. Both of these ladies received their
certificates, that given to Mrs. Paist reading as follows:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">This is to certify that at a meeting of the judges of the
different divisions of the Thirteenth ward, held in accordance
with the rules of the Republican party, on the evening of January
20, 1874, Mrs. Harriet W. Paist was found to be elected as
candidate upon the Republican ticket from the Thirteenth ward,
for school director.</p>

<div class="center">
<table width="90%" summary="Authors">
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">James M. Stewart</span>,</td><td align="left">}</td><td align="left" valign="middle" rowspan="2"><i>Clerks</i>.</td><td class="right"><span class="smcap">Charles M. Carpenter</span>, <i>President</i>.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">David J. Smith</span>,</td><td align="left">}</td></tr>
</table>
</div>

<p class="ltr-break">No sooner was it ascertained that the ladies had actually become
candidates on the Republican ticket than a movement was
inaugurated to oust them, the old war tocsin of "Anything to beat
Grant" being for this purpose amended thus: "Anything to beat the
women." This antagonism to the fair candidates was based entirely
upon the supposition that their names would so materially weaken
the ticket as to place the election of the Republican common
councilman, Henry C. Dunlap, in the greatest jeopardy. To save
him, therefore, the managers of the movement must sacrifice
Mesdames Woelpper and Paist. How was this to be accomplished?
Each was fortified in her position by a genuine certificate of
election, and had, furthermore, expressed her determination to
run. What could not be done fairly must be accomplished by
strategy. Mr. Ezra Lukens called upon Mrs. Paist, stating that if
she did not withdraw the Republicans who were opposed to the lady
candidates would unite with the "other party" and defeat the
Republican ward ticket. Mrs. Paist inquired if she had not been
regularly nominated, and his reply was that she had been, but
that her opponents in the party would unite with the "other
party" and defeat her. Mrs. Paist was firm, and Mr. Lukens
retired foiled. A day or two after, the chairman of the
Thirteenth ward Republican executive committee received somehow
this letter:</p>


<p class="ltr-break ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Philadelphia</span>, February 2, 1874.</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines"><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>: Please accept this as my declination as school director
on the Thirteenth ward Republican ticket. Hoping it will please
those opposed to a lady director.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Harriet W. Paist</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Respectfully yours,</p>


<p class="ltr-clear">A week previous to this the husband of Mrs. Woelpper was called
upon by Mr. William B. Elliott, a member of this executive
committee, and was informed by him that Mrs. Paist had withdrawn,
and that it would be unpleasant, if not inexpedient, for Mrs.
Woelpper to run alone. Mr. Woelpper expressed his belief that if
such were the case his wife would withdraw. At a meeting of the
executive committee a short time after, it was announced that
both the ladies had withdrawn, and everything looked serene for
victory, when the next day the members were individually informed
that the letter of declination written above was a base forgery,
and that neither of the ladies intended to withdraw from the
contest. Another meeting of the executive committee was held on
the 2d inst., at which Mr. Woelpper, jr., was present. He
declared that the statement made to his father was false, and
that he was present to say for his mother that she was still a
candidate. This announcement fell like a bomb in a peaceful camp,
causing great confusion. After order was restored, William B.
Elliott, the collector, offered a resolution declaring it
inexpedient to have any ladies on the ticket at this time. This
resolution was opposed by F. Theodore Walton and a number of the
members, who denied the power of the committee to change the
ticket regularly chosen at the primary election. They favored the
fair candidates, for whose election as school directors the
constitution had made special provisions, and whose<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_467" id="Page_467">[Pg 467]</a></span> presence in
the school-boards had been very favorably commented upon by all
the papers of the city. Besides, the ladies were as legitimately
entitled to their candidacy as Mr. Dunlap, and it would be a
gross and unparalelled outrage to sacrifice them from mere
prejudice, or in the belief that their presence would injure the
chances of Mr. Dunlap. Then arose Collector Elliott, his face
fairly glowing with honest indignation, and his voice sharp and
stinging in his tirade against the newspapers. What did he care
what the newspapers said? What are the newspapers but sheets sold
out to the highest bidder? The newspapers, he cried, are all in
the market, to be bought and sold the same as coal! That was
their business, and they didn't want stability so long as there
was cash to be got. Then he came down upon them in a perfect
whirlwind of wrath for daring to favor the women candidates for
school directors of the Thirteenth ward, and sat down as though
he had accomplished a noble purpose.</p>

<p>The question on the resolution was pressed, and resulted in its
adoption by a vote of 20 to 12.<a name="FNanchor_269_269" id="FNanchor_269_269"></a><a href="#Footnote_269_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> A resolution was offered by
David T. Smith that Mrs. Paist and Mrs. Woelpper be thrown off
the ticket, and this resolution was carried by the same vote as
the preceding one. The meeting then adjourned. In consequence of
this action Mrs. Paist addressed to the citizens of the
Thirteenth ward the following card, in which she declares that
she does not intend to resign:</p>

<p><i>To the Citizens of the Thirteenth Ward.:</i></p>

<p>Unpleasant though it may be to thus appear before the public, I
feel that I must, in justice to myself, expose the fraud and
deception that have been practiced to defeat my election on the
17th of February next. I received the nomination and certificate
of election signed by James M. Stewart, David T. Smith, clerks,
and Charles M. Carpenter, president. Certainly they would not be
guilty of deceiving, for are they not "all honorable men"? John
B. Green, George M. Taylor and A. W. Lyman then (Ezra Lukens
having been on a similar fruitless mission) called on the eve of
January 30, 1874, wishing me to withdraw; stating that Mrs.
Woelpper had done so (which was false), and they thought it would
not be pleasant for me to serve. They also placed it on the
ground of expediency, fearing that their candidate for council
(Mr. Dunlap) was so weak that a woman on the ticket might
jeopardize the election. I knew not before that woman held the
balance of power. After sending their emissaries under the false
garb of friendship to induce me to decline, without success, they
were reduced to the desperate means of producing a letter, which
was read by the secretary of the executive meeting, February 2,
purporting to come from me, and withdrawing my name. I pronounce
it publicly to be a forgery. I have not withdrawn, neither do I
intend to withdraw. Would that I had the power of Brutus or a
Patrick Henry, that I might put these designing, intriguing
politicians in their true light! They deserve to be held up to
the contumely and scorn of the community.</p>

<p class="ltr-from"><span class="smcap">Harriet W. Paist.</span></p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>February 3, 1874.</i></p>

<p>Despite the action of the committee, these talented ladies will
be run as the regular candidates for school directors. A
committee of citizens of the Republican party will prepare the
tickets and see that they are properly distributed, and take all
precautions against fraud at the election and against any effort
that may be made to count out the fair candidates at the meeting
of the ward return judges. It is of the greatest importance that
all good citizens of the ward shall do all in their power to
secure not only the fullest possible number of votes for the lady
candidates, but a fair count when<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_468" id="Page_468">[Pg 468]</a></span> they have been received. It
remains to be seen whether the Republican citizens of the ward
will endorse the action of a committee which from mere prejudice
can throw off regularly-elected candidates from a ticket. </p></blockquote>

<p>The ladies were elected, and Mrs. Paist served her term. Mrs.
Woelpper died immediately after the election.</p>

<p>Anna McDowell, in the <i>Sunday Republic</i> of April 8, 1877, in a long
article shows the necessity of some legal knowledge for women,
enough at least to look after their own interests, and not be
compelled through their ignorance to trust absolutely to the
protection of others. They should be trained to understand that all
pecuniary affairs should be placed on a business basis as strictly
between themselves and their fathers and brothers as men require in
their contracts with each other. After giving many instances in
which women have been grossly defrauded by their relatives, she
points to the will of the great railroad king of Pennsylvania:</p>

<blockquote><p>Let us glance for a moment at the will of the late J. Edgar
Thomson, than which no more unjust testament was ever offered for
probate. This gentleman, the sole object of affection of two most
worthy and self-sacrificing sisters, married late in life without
making any adequate settlement upon the relatives to whom, in a
great measure, he owed his success. He always promised to provide
for them amply, saying, repeatedly, in effect, in letters which
we have seen, "As my fortune advances so also shall yours; my
prosperity will be your prosperity," etc. Oblivious to the ties
of nature and affection, however, when he came to make his will
he, out of a fortune of two millions, bequeathed to these
sisters, during life, an annuity of $1,200 per annum only,
leaving the rest of the income of his estate to his wife and her
niece, the latter a young lady whom he had previously made
independent by his skilful investment of a few thousand dollars
left her by her father. Not content with the will which gave her
also a large income for life out of Mr. Thomson's estate, this
niece of his wife brought suit against the executors to recover
bonds found after the death of the testator in an envelope on
which her name was written, and through the ruling of Judge
Thayer, a relation by marriage to the husband of the lady, the
case was decided in her favor, and $100,000 was thus absolutely
and permanently taken from the fund designed for the asylum which
it was Mr. Thomson's long-cherished desire to found for the
benefit and education of orphan girls whose fathers had been or
might be killed by accident on the Pennsylvania and other
railroads. The injustice of this decision is made manifest when
we reflect that the Misses Anna and Adeline Thomson, who worked
side by side with their brother as civil engineers in their
father's office, and labored, without pay, therein, that he might
be educated and sent abroad further to perfect himself in his
profession, were cut off with a comparatively paltry stipend for
life, this being still further reduced by the
collateral-inheritance tax. As high an authority as Dr. William
A. Hammond says that, "for a man to cut off his natural heirs in
his will is <i>prima facie</i> evidence of abberation of mind," and we
believe this to be true. </p></blockquote>

<p>Had these sisters<a name="FNanchor_270_270" id="FNanchor_270_270"></a><a href="#Footnote_270_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> been brothers they would have been
recognized as partners and had their legal proportion of the
accumulations<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_469" id="Page_469">[Pg 469]</a></span> of the business in which they labored in early years
with equal faithfulness, side by side. This is but another instance
of women's blind faith in the men of their families and of the
danger in allowing business matters to adjust themselves on the
basis of honor, courtesy and protection.</p>

<p>Among the literary women of the State are Sarah C. Hallowell, on
the editorial staff of the <i>Public Ledger</i>; the daughters of John
W. Forney, for many years in charge of the woman's department of
<i>Forney's Progress</i>; Anne McDowell, editor of the woman's
department in <i>The Sunday Republic</i>; Mrs. E. A. Wade; "Bessie
Bramble" of Pittsburg has for many years ably edited a woman's
department in the <i>Sunday Leader</i>; Matilda Hindman, an excellent
column in the <i>Pittsburg Commercial Gazette</i>. In science Grace Anna
Lewis stands foremost. Her paper read before the Woman's Congress
in Philadelphia in 1876, attracted much attention. These ladies
with others organized "The Century Club"<a name="FNanchor_271_271" id="FNanchor_271_271"></a><a href="#Footnote_271_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> in 1876, for
preëminently practical and benevolent work. Its objects are
various: looking after working girls, sending children into the
country for fresh air during summer, and improving the houses of
the poor and needy. The Club has a large house to which is attached
a cooking-school and lodgings for unfortunates in great
emergencies.</p>

<p>Woman's ambition was not confined at this period to literature and
the learned professions; she found herself capable of practical
work on a large scale in the department of agriculture. The
<i>Philadelphia Press</i> has the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>The beautiful farm of Abel C. Thomas, at Tacony, near
Philadelphia, is remarkable chiefly because it is managed by a
woman, Mrs. Louise H. Thomas. Her husband, the intimate friend of
Horace Greeley, and well known as an author and theologian, in
time past, has long been too feeble to take any part in managing
the property. That duty has devolved upon Mrs. Thomas. The house,
two hundred yards from the Pennsylvania railroad, is hidden from
view by the trees which surround it. The grounds are tastefully
laid out, and the lawn mowed with a regularity that indicates
constant feminine attention. The plot is 20 acres in extent. Six
acres comprise the orchard and garden. In addition to apple,
apricot, pear, peach, plum and cherry, there are specimens of all
kinds of trees, from pine to poplar.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_470" id="Page_470">[Pg 470]</a></span></p>

<p>A <i>Press</i> reporter recently walked over the premises, and Mrs.
Thomas explained her manner of doing business. "I look after
everything about the farm; take my little sample bags of wheat to
the mills, and sell the crop by it; and twice I got ten cents
more a bushel than any of my neighbors. But the things I take
most interest in are my cows, chickens and bees. My cattle are
from Jersey island, and pure Alderney. They are very gentle and
good milkers. From four of them I get about 800 pounds of butter
a year. The price of this butter varies from 50 cents to $1.00
per pound. There's my dog. When it's milking time, the hired man
says to the dog, 'Shep, go after the cows,' and away he goes, and
in a little while the herd come tinkling up. Why send a man to do
a boy's work, or a boy to do that which a shepherd dog can do
just as well? The cows understand him, and readily come when they
are sent after. Well, so much for the milk department. Now, as to
the garden; I don't sell much from that. Still, if the vegetables
were not grown, they would have to be bought, and I take all that
into consideration in closing accounts. And that's one thing most
farmers don't do; they don't put on the cash side of the ledger
the cost of their living, for which they have been to no expense.
Now, as to the bees. The first cost is about the only expense
attached to these little workers. I have twenty-five colonies,
and can, and do handle them with as much safety as if they were
so much dry wheat. I sell about $100 worth of honey yearly, and
consume half as much at home. The bees are not troublesome when
you know how to handle them, but they require to be delicately
handled at swarming time.</p>

<p>"Now, as to chickens. My stock consists exclusively of the light
Brahma breed. They come early, grow fast, sell readily, are
tender, and have no disposition to forage; they are not all the
time wandering round and flying over the garden fence, and
scratching up flower and vegetable seeds. In fact, if you'll
notice, there is a docility about my live-stock that is very
attractive. The cows and chickens only need articulation to carry
on conversation. You didn't see the hatching department of my
chicken-house? I modeled the building after one used by a Madame
de Linas, a French lady living near Paris, and am much pleased
with it. I sometimes raise 1,000 chickens a season. I sell them
at prices all the way up from $1 to $3 apiece. You must remember
that they are full-blooded, and I always have my stock
replenished. I keep the best and sell for the highest prices.
They are generally sold to private families, who wish to get the
stock, and I always sell them alive. They are not much trouble to
raise, provided you know how, and have the accommodations for
doing it. I feed them corn, milk, meal and water, and pay
particular attention to their being properly housed. The eggs of
this breed are very rich, and I charge one dollar and a half for
a setting&mdash;that is, thirteen eggs.</p>

<p>"I have some three or four acres of wheat growing and it is
heading out finely. Oh!" said Mrs. Thomas, becoming more
enthusiastic, as she reviewed the incomes from the cereals, cows,
and chickens, "I am making money, and money is a standard of
success, although there is to me a greater pleasure than the mere
financial part of the business, which comes from the passion I
have for the life. I wish, indeed, that young ladies would turn
their attention to this matter. To me, it seems to open to them
an avenue for acquiring a competency in an independent way; and
to one who would pursue it earnestly, I know of no avocation
scarcely worth being classed with it."</p>

<p>"And you are not lonesome out here?"</p>

<p>"Oh! no. I never was lonesome an hour in my life&mdash;don't have
time; I have a great deal of work to do, and am always ready to
do it. Indeed, the only people I pity are those who do not work,
or find no interest in it. No, no; I have plenty of visitors, and
last week Jennie June, Lucretia Mott, and Anna Dickinson paid me
a visit and were very much pleased while here. I have two
grown-up boys, one in New York and the other in California; and
have reared thirteen children besides my own family&mdash;colored,
French, Italian, and I know not what nationalities."</p>

<p>Mrs. Thomas, who is certainly a remarkable woman, is a thoroughly
educated one; has traveled extensively both in Europe and this
country. Herself and husband<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_471" id="Page_471">[Pg 471]</a></span> have been intimate acquaintances of
many eminent men, among whom were President Lincoln and Secretary
Stanton. The activity displayed in managing the estate indicates
the possession of marked executive ability, and the exercise she
thus receives has doubtless had its share in keeping her young,
well-preserved, and good-natured. </p></blockquote>

<p>When the Rev. Knox Little visited this country in 1880, thinking
the women of America specially needed his ministrations, he
preached a sermon that called out the general ridicule of our
literary women. In the Sunday <i>Republic</i> of December 12, Anne E.
M'Dowell said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The reverend gentlemen of St. Clement's Church, of this city,
with their frequent English visiting clergymen, are not only
trying their best to carry Christianity back into the dark ages,
by reinvesting it with all old-time traditions and mummeries, but
they are striving anew to forge chains for the minds,
consciences, and bodies of women whom the spirit of Christian
progress has, in a measure, made free in this country. The sermon
of the Rev. Knox Little, rector of St. Alban's Church,
Manchester, England, recently delivered at St. Clement's in this
city, and reported in the daily <i>Times</i>, is just such an one as
might be looked for from the class of thinkers whom he on that
occasion represented. These ritualistic brethren are bitterly
opposed to divorce, and hold the belief that so many Britons
adhere to on their native soil, viz., that "woman is an inferior
animal, created only for man's use and pleasure, and designed by
Providence to be in absolute submission to her lord and master."
The feeling engendered by this belief breeds contempt for and
indifference to the nobler aspirations of women amongst men of
the higher ranks, while it crops out in tyranny in the middle,
and brutality in the lower classes of society. Even the gentry
and nobility of Great Britain are not all exempt from brutal
manifestations of power toward their wives. We once sheltered in
our own house for weeks the wife of an English Earl who had been
forced to leave her home and family through the brutality of her
high-born husband&mdash;brutality from which the law could not or
would not protect her. She died at our house, and when she was
robed for her last rest much care had to be taken to arrange the
dress and hair so that the scars of wounds inflicted on the
throat, neck and cheek by her cruel husband might not be too
apparent.</p>

<p>The reports of English police courts are full of disclosures of
ill-treatment of women by their husbands, and year by year our
own courts are more densely thronged by women asking safety from
the brutality of men who at the altar have vowed to "love, honor
and protect" them. In nearly all these cases, the men who are
brought into our courts on the charge of maltreating women are of
foreign birth who have been born and brought up under the
spiritual guidance of such clergymen as the Rev. Knox-Little, who
tell them, as he told the audience of women to whom he preached
in this city: "To her husband a wife owes the duty of unqualified
obedience. There is <i>no crime that a man can commit which
justifies his wife in leaving him</i> or applying for that monstrous
thing, a divorce. It is her duty to submit herself to him
<i>always</i>, and no crime he can commit justifies her lack of
obedience. If he is a bad or wicked man she may gently
remonstrate with him, but disobey him, never." Again, addressing
his audience at St. Clement's, he says: "You may marry a bad man,
but what of that? You had no right to marry a bad man. If you
knew it, you deserved it. If you did not know it, you must endure
it all the same. You can pray for him, and perhaps he will
reform; but leave him&mdash;never. Never think of that accursed
thing&mdash;divorce. Divorce breaks up families&mdash;families build up the
church. The Christian woman lives to build up the church." This
is the sort of sermonizing, reïterated from year to year, that
makes brutes of Englishmen, of all classes, and sinks the average
English woman to the condition of a child-bearing slave,
valuable, mostly, for the number of children she brings her
husband. She is permitted to hold no opinion unaccepted by her
master, denied all reason and forced to frequent churches where
she is forbidden the exercise of her common-sense, and where she
is told: "Men are logical;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_472" id="Page_472">[Pg 472]</a></span> women lack this quality, but have an
intricacy of thought. There are those who think that women can be
taught logic; this is a mistake. They can never, by any process
of education, arrive at the same mental status as that enjoyed by
man; but they have a quickness of apprehension&mdash;what is usually
called leaping at conclusions&mdash;that is astonishing." </p></blockquote>

<p>Divorce is a question over which woman now disputes man's absolute
control. His canon and civil laws alike have made marriage for her
a condition of slavery, from which she is now seeking emancipation;
and just in proportion as women become independent and
self-supporting, they will sunder the ties that bind them in
degrading relations.</p>

<p>In September, 1880, Governor Hoyt was petitioned to appoint a woman
as member of the State Board of Commissioners of Public Charities.
The special business of this commission is to examine into the
condition of all charitable, reformatory and correctional
institutions within the State, to have a general oversight of the
methods of instruction, the well-being and comfort of the inmates,
with a supervision of all those in authority in such institutions.
Dr. Susan Smith of West Philadelphia, from the year of the cruel
imprisonment of the unfortunate Hester Vaughan, regularly for
twelve years poured petitions into both houses of the legislature,
numerously signed by prominent philanthropists, setting forth the
necessity of women as inspectors in the female wards of the jails
of the State, and backing them by an array of appalling facts, and
yet the legislature, from year to year, turned a deaf ear to her
appeals. Happily for the unfortunate wards of the State, the law
passed in 1881.</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">State Hospital for the Insane, Norristown</span>, Pa., Sept. 28, 1885.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony</span>: I have referred your letter to my old
friend, Dr. Hiram Corson, of Plymouth, Pa., who can, if he will,
give a much better history of the movement in this State, than
any one else, being one of the pioneers. I hope that you will
hear from him. If, however, he returns your letter to me, I will
give you the few facts that I know. I should be glad to have you
visit our hospital and see our work.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Alice Bennett</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-date ltr-break">
<span class="smcap">Plymouth Meeting</span>, Pa., Oct. 2, 1885.
</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Miss Susan B. Anthony</span>: <i>Esteemed Friend</i>:&mdash;Dr. Alice Bennett has
referred your letter with questions to me. Alice Bennett, M. D.,
Ph. D., is chief physician of the female department of the eastern
hospital of Pennsylvania, for the insane. She is also member of the
Montgomery County Medical Society, and member of the Medical
Society of the State of Pennsylvania. She is the only woman in the
civilized world, of whom I have ever heard, who has entire charge
of the female patients in an institution for the care and treatment
of the insane. We have in the Harrisburg hospital, Dr. Jane Garver,
as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_473" id="Page_473">[Pg 473]</a></span> physician for the female insane, but she is subordinate to the
male physician. She has a female physician to assist her. Dr.
Bennett was appointed and took charge in July, 1880, with Dr. Anna
Kingler as her assistant. Dr. Kingler resigned, and went to India
as medical missionary; was succeeded by Dr. Rebecca S. Hunt, who,
after more than a year's service, also resigned to go to India as
medical missionary. Dr. Bennett has now two women physicians to
assist her in the care of more than six hundred patients, nearly as
many as, if not more than, are in the female departments of the
Harrisburg, Danville, and Warren hospitals all combined.</p>

<p>Dr. Bennett's hospital is a model one. There is a total absence of
physical restraint, as used formerly under male superintendents,
and, I may say, as still used in other hospitals than that of
Norristown. Her skill in providing amusement, instruction and
employment of various kinds, for the comfort and restoration of her
patients to sanity and physical health, I feel sure has never been
equaled in any hospital for the treatment of insane women. It is
exceedingly interesting to see the school which she has
established, and in which a large number of the insane are daily
instructed, amused and interested. It is well known, now, that when
the mind of the insane can be drawn away from their delusions by
employment, or whatever else may interest them and absorb their
attention, they are on the road to health. The public are not yet
fully awake to the great reform effected in having women physicians
for the women insane. Insane women have been treated as though
there were no diseases peculiar to the sex. Never, so far as I have
been able to learn, have they been treated by the means used for
the relief of women in their homes. An eminent surgeon of
Philadelphia informed me a few days since, that thirty years ago he
was an assistant to Dr. Kirkbride, and desired to treat a patient
for uterine troubles, but was rebuked by Dr. K., and told never to
attempt to use the appliances relied on in private practice. My
informant added that he believed not a single insane woman had ever
received special treatment for affections in any of the hospitals
under the care of male physicians. While we realize that great
advantages would have come to these poor unfortunates by proper
treatment, we feel that no male physician having due regard for his
own reputation, should attempt to treat an insane woman for uterine
diseases by means used in private practice, or even in hospitals
with sane women. And this shows the importance of women physicians
for women insane. One of the most intellectual and prominent women
of this State was, 30 years ago, on account of domestic
application, an inmate of our then champion hospital for the
insane, for several months, during all of which time her sufferings
were, to use her own words, indescribable, and yet she was not once
asked in relation to her physical condition. Let us turn aside from
this, and glance at the last annual report of Dr. Alice Bennett.
She reports 180 patients examined for uterine diseases; 125 were
placed under treatment; 67 treated for a length of time; 60
benefited by treatment. While Dr. Bennett does not say that their
insanity was caused by the uterine disease, or that they were cured
by curing that affection, she observes that in some cases the
relief of the mind kept pace with the progress<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_474" id="Page_474">[Pg 474]</a></span> of cure of the
uterine affections. I have, perhaps, written more than was needed
on this subject, but I am so anxious that we shall have women
doctors in every hospital for the treatment of insane women, and
know, too, what influence yourself and good Mrs. Stanton can exert
by turning your attention to it, which I am sure you will as you
become informed in relation to the facts, that I could not stop
short of what I have said. I have prepared a full account of our
struggles with the State Society during six years to obtain for
women doctors their proper recognition by the profession, and also
the obstacles and opposition we encountered in our attempt to
procure the law empowering boards of trustees to appoint women to
hospitals for the insane of their sex. It will give me pleasure to
send them to you if they would be of any use to you.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Hiram Corson</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Respectfully,</p>


<p class="ltr-break">As I am within a week of my 82d birthday, and am writing while my
heart is beating one hundred and sixty times per minute, you must
not criticise me too sharply.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">H. C.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>January 24, 1882, Miss Rachel Foster made all the arrangements for
a national convention, to be held in St. George's Hall,
Philadelphia.<a name="FNanchor_272_272" id="FNanchor_272_272"></a><a href="#Footnote_272_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a> She also inaugurated a course of lectures, of
which she took the entire financial responsibility, in the popular
hall of the Young Men's Christian Association. Ex-Governor Hoyt of
Wyoming, in his lecture, gave the good results of thirteen years'
experience of woman's voting in that Territory. Miss Foster
employed a stenographer to report the address, had 20,000 copies
printed, and circulated them in the Nebraska campaign during the
following summer.</p>

<p>At its next session (1883) the legislature passed a resolution
recommending congress to submit a sixteenth amendment, securing to
women the right to vote:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Harrisburg</span>, Pa., March 21, 1883.&mdash;In the House, Mr. Morrison of
Alleghany offered a resolution urging congress to amend the
national constitution so that the right of suffrage should not be
denied to citizens of any State on account of sex. It was adopted
by 78 ayes<a name="FNanchor_273_273" id="FNanchor_273_273"></a><a href="#Footnote_273_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> to 76 noes, the result being greeted with both
applause and hisses. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Philadelphia <i>Evening Bulletin</i> of November 8, 1882, mentions
an attempt to open the University of Pennsylvania to women:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_475" id="Page_475">[Pg 475]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>The trustees held several meetings to consider the applications.
Beside Miss Craddock's, there were two others which the faculty
referred to the trustees, and which appear not to have been
reached in the regular course of business. Miss Florence Kelley,
a post-graduate from Cornell University, daughter of Judge
Kelley, who applied for admission as a special student in Greek,
and Miss Frances Henrietta Mitchell, a junior student from
Cornell, who asked to be admitted in the junior class. Our
information comes from these ladies, who were notified that their
cases would be presented. The question of coëducation, which has
been seriously occupying the minds of the trustees of the
University of Pennsylvania, was settled last evening, at least
for the present, by the passage of a resolution refusing the
admission of girls to the department of arts, but proposing to
establish a separate collegiate department for them, whenever the
requisite cost, about $300,000, is provided. There has been an
intelligent and honest difference among both trustees and
professors on this interesting question, and the diversity has
been complicated by the various grounds upon which the <i>pros</i> and
<i>cons</i> are maintained. There are those who advocate the admission
of girls to the University as a proper thing <i>per se</i>. Others
consent to it, because the University cannot give the desired
education separately. Others hold that girls should be admitted
because of their equal rights to a university education, although
their admission is very undesirable. Others oppose coëducation in
the abstract, conceding that girls should be as well educated as
boys, but insisting that they must be differently and therefore
separately educated. These draw a clear line between "equal" and
"similar" education, and hold that no university course of
studies can be laid out that will not present much of classical
literature and much of the mental, moral and natural sciences,
that cannot be studied and recited by boys and girls together,
without serious risk of lasting injury to both. </p></blockquote>

<p>Would it not be better, all things considered, to abjure this kind
of classical literature, and instead of subjecting our sons to its
baneful influence, give them the refining, elevating companionship
of their sisters? If we would preserve the real modesty and purity
of our daughters, it is quite as important that we should pay some
attention to the delicacy and morality of the men with whom they
are to associate.</p>

<p>If a girl cannot read the classics with a young man without
contamination, how can she live with him in all the intimacies of
family life without a constant shock to her refined sensibilities?
So long as society considers that any man of known wealth is a fit
husband for our daughters, all this talk of the faculties and
trustees of our colleges about protecting woman's modesty is the
sheerest nonsense and hypocrisy. It is well to remember that these
professors and students have mothers, wives and sisters, and if man
is coarse and brutal, he invariably feels free to show his worst
passions at his own fireside. To warn women against coëducation is
to warn them against association with men in any relation
whatsoever.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_255_255" id="Footnote_255_255"></a><a href="#FNanchor_255_255"><span class="label">[255]</span></a> See Appendix.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_256_256" id="Footnote_256_256"></a><a href="#FNanchor_256_256"><span class="label">[256]</span></a> Carrie S. Burnham after long years of preparation
and persistent effort for admission to the bar of Philadelphia, was
admitted in 1884. She was thoroughly qualified to enter that
profession and to practice in the courts of that State, and the
only reason ever offered for her rejection from time to time was,
"that she was a woman."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_257_257" id="Footnote_257_257"></a><a href="#FNanchor_257_257"><span class="label">[257]</span></a> By an oversight this law was not mentioned in Vol.
I. in its proper place.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_258_258" id="Footnote_258_258"></a><a href="#FNanchor_258_258"><span class="label">[258]</span></a> George W. Childs married Judge Bovier's
grand-daughter.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_259_259" id="Footnote_259_259"></a><a href="#FNanchor_259_259"><span class="label">[259]</span></a><span class="gray">Transcriber's Note: Footnote text is missing in
original.</span></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_260_260" id="Footnote_260_260"></a><a href="#FNanchor_260_260"><span class="label">[260]</span></a> <i>University of Pennsylvania</i>&mdash;Joseph Carson, Robert
E. Rogers, Joseph Leidy, Henry H. Smith, Francis G. Smith, R. A. T.
Penrose, Alfred Stille, George B. Wood, Samuel Jackson, Hugh L.
Hodge, R. La Roche, George W. Norris. <i>Jefferson Medical
College</i>&mdash;Joseph Pancoast, S. D. Gross, Samuel Henry Dickson,
Ellerslie Wallace, B. Howard Rand, John B. Biddle, James Aitken
Meigs. <i>Pennsylvania Hospital</i>&mdash;J. Forsyth Meigs, James H.
Hutchinson, J. M. Da Costa, Addinell Hewson, William Hunt, D. Hayes
Agnew. <i>Philadelphia Hospital</i>&mdash;R. J. Levis, William H. Pancoast,
F. F. Maury, Alfred Stille, J. L. Ludlow, Edward Rhodes, D. D.
Richardson, E. L. Duer, E. Scholfield, R. M. Girvin, John S. Parry,
William Pepper, James Tyson. <i>Medical Staff of Episcopal
Hospital</i>&mdash;John H. Packard., John Ashhurst, jr., Samuel Ashhurst,
Alfred M. Slocum, Edward A. Smith, William Thomson, William S.
Forbes. <i>Wills Hospital for the Blind and Lame</i>&mdash;Thomas George
Morton, A. D. Hall, Harrison Allen, George C. Harlan, R. J. Levis.
<i>St. Joseph's Hospital</i>&mdash;William V. Keating, Alfred Stille, John J.
Reese, George R. Morehouse, A. C. Bournonville, Edward A. Page,
John H. Brinton, Walter F. Atlee, C. S. Boker. <i>St. Mary's
Hospital</i>&mdash;C. Percy La Roche, J. Cummiskey, A. H. Fish, J. H.
Grove, W. W. Keen, W. L. Wells, L. S. Bolles. <i>German
Hospital</i>&mdash;Albert Fricke, Emil Fischer, Joseph F. Koerper, Julius
Schrotz, Julius Kamerer, Karl Beeken, Theodore A. Demme,
<i>Children's Hospital</i>&mdash;Thomas Hewson Bache, D. Murray Cheston, H.
Lenox Hodge, F. W. Lewis, Hilborn West. <i>Charity Hospital</i>&mdash;A. H.
Fish. L. K. Baldwin, Horace Y. Evans, John M. McGrath, H. St. Clair
Ash, J. M. Boisnot, N. Hatfield, W. M. Welch, H. Lycurgus Law, H.
Leaman, J. A. McArthur. <i>Howard Hospital</i>&mdash;Thomas S. Harper,
Laurence Turnbull, T. H. Andrews, Horace Williams, Joseph Klapp,
William B. Atkinson, S. C. Brincklee. <i>Physicians-at-Large of the
City of Philadelphia</i>&mdash;E. Ward, George H. Beaumont, William W.
Lamb, Thomas B. Reed, Charles Schaffer, J. Heritage, W. Stump
Forwood, W. J. Phelps, Richard Maris, Frank Muhlenberg, George M.
Ward, James Collins, William F. Norris, Samuel Lewis, Isaac Hays,
G. Emerson, W. W. Gerhard, Caspar Morris, B. H. Coates, George
Strawbridge, S. Weir Mitchell, I. Minis Hays, Edward B. Van Dyke,
J. Sylvester Ramsey, G. W. Bowman, W. H. H. Githens, T. W. Lewis,
T. M. Finley, S. W. Butler, Robert P. Harris, C. Moehring, George
L. Bomberger, Philip Leidy, D. F. Willard, James V. Ingham, Edward
Hartshorne, W. S. W. Ruschenberger, Thomas Stewardson, James
Darrach, S. L. Hollingworth, William Mayburry, Lewis Rodman, Casper
Wister, A. Nebinger, Horace Binney Hare, Edward Shippen, S.
Littell, F. W. Lewis, Robert Bridges, William H. Gloninger, James
Markoe, Charles Hunter, D. F. Woods, Herbert Norris, Harrison
Allen, Charles B. Nancrede, W. J. Grier, Edward J. Nolan, Richard
Thomas, Lewis H. Adler, G. B. Dunmire, John Neill, Wharton Sinkler,
George Pepper, J. J. Sowerby, Henry C. Eckstein, Eugene P.
Bernardy, Charles K. Miles, J. Solis Cohen.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_261_261" id="Footnote_261_261"></a><a href="#FNanchor_261_261"><span class="label">[261]</span></a> C. L. Schlatter, J. Wm. White, Daniel Bray, C. E.
Cassady, Robert B. Burns, Albert Trenchard, John G. Scott, J. J.
Bowen, P. Collings, E. Cullen Brayton, joint committee of the
University and Jefferson Medical Colleges.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_262_262" id="Footnote_262_262"></a><a href="#FNanchor_262_262"><span class="label">[262]</span></a> As through the influence of Dr. Truman Miss
Hirschfeld had first been admitted to the college, he felt in a
measure responsible for the fair treatment of her countrywomen who
came to the United States to enjoy the same educational advantages.
When the discussion in regard to expelling the young women was
pending, Dr. Truman promptly and decidedly told the faculty that if
such an act of injustice was permitted he should leave the college
also. Much of Dr. Truman's clearsightedness and determination may
be traced to the influence of his noble wife and no less noble
mother-in-law, Mary Ann McClintock, who helped to inaugurate the
movement in 1848 in Central New York. She lamented in her declining
years that she was able to do so little. But by way of consolation
I often suggested that her influence in many directions could never
be measured; and here is one: Her influence on Dr. Truman opened
the Dental College to women, and kept it open while Miss Hirschfeld
acquired her profession. With her success in Germany, in the royal
family, every child in the palace for generations that escapes a
toothache will have reason to bless a noble friend, Mary Ann
McClintock, that she helped to plant the seeds of justice to woman
in the heart of young James Truman. We must also recognize in Dr.
Truman's case that he was born and trained in a liberal Quaker
family, his own father and mother having been disciples of Elias
Hicks.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_263_263" id="Footnote_263_263"></a><a href="#FNanchor_263_263"><span class="label">[263]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Philadelphia</span>, Nov. 10, 1870.&mdash;The formal opening of
Swarthmore College took place this afternoon, when a large number
of its friends were conveyed thither in a special train on the
Westchester railroad. The audience assembled in the lecture room,
where addresses were delivered by Samuel Willets and John D. Hyoks,
of New York, Edward Parrish, president of the college, Wm. Dorsey,
and Lucretia Mott. It was stated that the amount spent in land and
buildings amounted to $205,000 and contributions were solicited for
$100,000 additional to fully furnish the building, and supply a
library, philosophical and astronomical apparatus. The building is
a massive one of five stories, constructed of Pennsylvania granite,
and appointed throughout, from dormitory, bathroom,
recitation-hall, to parlor, kitchen and laundry, in the most
refined and substantial taste. It is 400 feet in length, by 100
deep, presenting two wings for the dormitories of the male and
female students respectively, and a central part devoted to parlor,
library, public hall, etc. Especially interesting in this division
of the college is a room devoted to Quaker antiquities, comprising
portraits and writings of the founders of the sect. Among them we
notice the treaty of William Penn, a picture of the treaty
assembly, a letter of George Fox, etc. The college opens with 180
pupils, about equally divided between the sexes, the system of
instruction being a joint education of boys and girls, though each
occupy separate wings of the building. The institution was built by
the Hicksite branch of the Society of Friends, but the pupils are
not confined to members of that persuasion.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_264_264" id="Footnote_264_264"></a><a href="#FNanchor_264_264"><span class="label">[264]</span></a> The speakers at this convention were Lucretia Mott,
Frances Dana Gage, Wendell Phillips, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan
B. Anthony, Edward M. Davis, Robert Purvis, Aaron M. Powell. The
officers of the society were: <i>President</i>, Robert Purvis;
<i>Vice-presidents</i>, Lucretia Mott, William Whipper, Dinah
Mendenhall; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mary B. Lightfoot;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Frances B. Jackson; <i>Treasurer</i>, John K.
Wildman; <i>Executive Committee</i>, William Still, Ellen M. Child,
Harriet Purvis, Elisha Meaner, Octavius Catts, Sarah S. Hawkins,
Sarah Pugh, Clementina Johns, Alfred H. Love, Louisa J. Roberts,
Jay Chapel.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_265_265" id="Footnote_265_265"></a><a href="#FNanchor_265_265"><span class="label">[265]</span></a> J. K. Wildman, Miss A. Ramborger, Clementina L.
John, Ellen M. Child, and Passmore Williamson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_266_266" id="Footnote_266_266"></a><a href="#FNanchor_266_266"><span class="label">[266]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mary Grew; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Edward M.
Davis, Mrs. C. A. Farrington, Mary K. Williamson; <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Annie Heacock; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Eliza Sproat
Turner; <i>Treasurer</i>, Gulielma M. S. P. Jones; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, John K. Wildman, Ellen M. Child, Annie Shoemaker,
Charlotte L. Pierce, and Dr. Henry T. Child.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_267_267" id="Footnote_267_267"></a><a href="#FNanchor_267_267"><span class="label">[267]</span></a> Among those who addressed the members of the
convention were Bishop Matthew Simpson, Rev. Charles G. Ames, Fanny
B. Ames, Mary Grew, Sarah C. Hallowell, Matilda Hindman, Elizabeth
S. Bladen and Elizabeth Cady Stanton.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_268_268" id="Footnote_268_268"></a><a href="#FNanchor_268_268"><span class="label">[268]</span></a> Among the men who spoke for woman's enfranchisement
were John M. Broomall, John M. Campbell, Lewis C. Cassidy, Benjamin
L. Temple, Levi Rooke, George F. Horton, H. W. Palmer, William
Darlington, Harry White, Frank Mantor, Thomas MacConnell, Henry
Carter, Thomas E. Cochran. In addition to those who spoke, those
who voted <i>yes</i> are John E. Addicks, William H. Ainey, William D.
Baker, Charles O. Bowman, Charles Brodhead, George N. Corson, David
Craig, Matthew Edwards, J. Gillingham Tell, Thomas Howard, Edward
C. Knight, George Lear, John S. Mann, H. W. Patterson, T. H. B.
Patton, Thomas Struthers, John W. F. White.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_269_269" id="Footnote_269_269"></a><a href="#FNanchor_269_269"><span class="label">[269]</span></a> <i>Ayes</i>&mdash;William Styles, William McLain, clerks in
the water department; A. W. Lyman, clerk in the custom-house; M. C.
Coppeck, clerk in the highway department, who was defeated by one
of the ladies for school directorship; John B. Green, a member of
the board of education; John Buckley, clerk in the post-office;
Theodore Canfield, sergeant of police; John Murray, contractor of
the highway department; George W. Schrack, an ex-clerk, lately
resigned from the tax receiver's office; Daniel T. Smith,
ex-detective; Asher W. Dewees, Oliver Bowler, Mr. Agnew, Ezra
Lukens, clerk in the United States assistant treasurer's office,
president of the Republican Invincibles, candidate last year
against Mr. Jonathan Pugh for commissioner of city property, and a
candidate for the same office next year; William B. Elliott,
collector of internal revenue; Charles M. Carpenter, alderman, who
signed Mrs. Paist's certificate; Jackson Keyser, an employé in the
navy yard; Alfred Ruhl, clerk in the custom-house; Mr. Jones, and
Henry C. Dunlap, who is Republican candidate for common
council&mdash;20. <i>Nays</i>&mdash;James W. Sayre, Joseph B. Ridge, Samuel
Caldwell, Dr. Charles Hooker, John E. Lane, Lewis Bogy, John
Mansfield. Daniel Rieff, William Githens, Thomas Evans, George
Schimpf and F. Theodore Walton&mdash;12. So the resolution was carried
by 20 yeas to 12 nays.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_270_270" id="Footnote_270_270"></a><a href="#FNanchor_270_270"><span class="label">[270]</span></a> Their modest home at 114 North Eleventh street has
long been a hospitable retreat for reformers, where many of us
identified with the suffrage movement have been most courteously
entertained. Anna and Adeline Thomson after long lives of industry
have been, too, the steadfast representatives of great principles
in religious and political freedom, always giving freely of their
means to the unpopular reforms of their day and generation.&mdash;[E. C.
S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_271_271" id="Footnote_271_271"></a><a href="#FNanchor_271_271"><span class="label">[271]</span></a> The Executive Board of the New Century Club for
1879-1880, was: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Eliza S. Turner;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. Emily W. Taylor, Mrs. S. C. F. Hallowell;
Mrs. Henry C. Townsend, Mrs. Aubrey H. Smith; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Miss Louise Stockton; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Miss Anna
C. Bliss; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Charlotte L. Pierce; <i>Directors</i>, Mrs.
Susan I. Lesley, Mrs. Henry Cohen, Mrs. Huldah Justice, Miss Emily
Sartain, Miss Mary Grew, Mrs. S. B. F. Greble, Mrs. M. W. Coggins,
Miss Mary A. Burnham, Mrs. Ellison L. Perot, Mrs. Thomas Roberts.
Others names found in its annual report as contributing to the
efficiency of the club are: Mrs. Fannie B. Ames, Miss Grace Anna
Lewis, Mrs. Emma J. Bartol, Mrs. E. L. Head, Miss Mary C. Coxe,
Mrs. Charlotte L. Pierce, Madam Emma Seiler, Miss Amanda L. Dods,
Miss Lelia Patridge, Miss Lily Ray, Miss Ella Cole, Mrs. Susan I.
Lesley, Mrs. E. C. Mayer, Miss Bennett, Mlle. Frasson. The work of
the club has its divisions of science, literature, art, music,
entertainment, cooking, hospitalities, charities, employment for
women, legal protection for working women, prisons and reformatory
institutions.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_272_272" id="Footnote_272_272"></a><a href="#FNanchor_272_272"><span class="label">[272]</span></a> See <a href="#Page_198">Chapter 30</a> for an account of this Philadelphia
convention.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_273_273" id="Footnote_273_273"></a><a href="#FNanchor_273_273"><span class="label">[273]</span></a> The <i>yeas</i> were as follows: Messrs. Ayers, Barnes,
Blackford, Boyer, Boyle, Brooks, W. C. Brown, I. B. Brown, J. L.
Brown, Brosius, Burnite, Burchfield, Chadwick, Coburn, E. L. Davis,
Deveney, Duggan, Eckels, Ellsworth, Emery, Fetters, Gahan, Gardner,
Gavitt, Gentner, Glenn, Grier, G. W. Hall, F. Hall, A. W. Hayes,
Hines, Higgins, Hoofnagle, Hulings, Hughes, Jenkins, Klein,
Kavanaugh, Landis, Lafferty, Merry, B. B. Mitchell, S. N. Mitchell,
Millor, Molineaux, A. H. Morgan, W. D. Morgan, J. W. Morrison, E.
Morrison, Myton, McCabe, McClaran, Neill, Neeley, Nelson, Nesbit,
Nicholson, Parkinson, Powell, Romig, Schwartz, Short, Sinex,
Slocum, J. Smith, Sneeringer, Snodgrass, Stees, Sterett, Stewart,
Stubbs, Sweeney, Trant, Vanderslice, Vaughn, Vogdes, Wayne and
Ziegler&mdash;78.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_476" id="Page_476">[Pg 476]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XXXIX" id="CHAPTER_XXXIX"></a>CHAPTER XXXIX.</h2>

<h3>NEW JERSEY.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Women Voted in the Early Days&mdash;Deprived of the Right by
Legislative Enactment in 1807&mdash;Women Demand the Restoration of
Their Rights in 1868&mdash;At the Polls in Vineland and Roseville
Park&mdash;Lucy Stone Agitates the Question&mdash;State Suffrage Society
Organized in 1867&mdash;Conventions&mdash;A Memorial to the
Legislature&mdash;Mary F. Davis&mdash;Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford&mdash;Political
Science Club&mdash;Mrs. Cornelia C. Hussey&mdash;Orange Club, 1870&mdash;July 4,
1874, Mrs. Devereux Blake Gives the Oration&mdash;Dr. Elizabeth
Blackwell's Letter&mdash;The Laws of New Jersey in Regard to Property
and Divorce&mdash;Constitutional Commission, 1873&mdash;Trial of Rev. Isaac
M. See&mdash;Women Preaching in His Pulpit&mdash;The Case Appealed&mdash;Mrs.
Jones, Jailoress&mdash;Legislative Hearings. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">New Jersey</span> was the only State that, in adopting her first
constitution, recognized woman's right to suffrage which she had
exercised during the colonial days, and from time immemorial in the
mother country. The fact that she was deprived of this right from
1807 to 1840 by a legislative enactment, while the constitution
secured it,<a name="FNanchor_274_274" id="FNanchor_274_274"></a><a href="#Footnote_274_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a> proves that the power of the legislature, composed
of representatives from the people, was considered at that early
day to be above the State constitution. If, then, the legislature
could abridge the suffrage, it must have the power to extend it,
and all the women of this State should demand is an act of the
legislature. They need not wait for the slow process of a
constitutional amendment submitted to the popular vote. In 1868, in
harmony with a general movement in many other States, the women of
New Jersey began to demand the restoration of their ancient rights.
The following is from <i>The Revolution</i> of November 19, 1868,
written by Elizabeth A. Kingsbury:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Vineland, N. J.</span>, Nov. 5, 1868.</p>

<p>At a meeting of women, held the week before election, a unanimous
vote was taken that we would go to the polls. John Gage, chairman
of the Woman Suffrage Association of Vineland, called a meeting,
and though the day was an inclement one, there was a good
attendance. A number of earnest men as well as women addressed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_477" id="Page_477">[Pg 477]</a></span>
the audience. Among them were Colonel Moss of Missouri, and James
M. Scovel of Camden, State senator, who strengthened us by their
words of earnest eloquence. At 7:30 <span class="smcap">a. m.</span>, November 3, John and
Portia Gage and myself entered Union Hall, where the judges of
election had already established themselves for the day. Instead
of occupying the center of the platform, they had taken one side
of it, apparently for the purpose of leaving us room on the
other. We seated ourselves in chairs brought for the occasion,
when one gentleman placed a small table for our use. Another
inquired if we were comfortable and the room sufficiently warm.
"Truly," we thought, "this does not look like a very terrible
opposition." As time passed, there came more men and women into
the hall. Quite a number of the latter presented their votes
first at the table where those of men were received, where they
were rejected with politeness, and then taken to the other side
of the platform and deposited in our box. Shall I describe this
box, twelve inches long and six wide, and originally a grape-box?
Very significant of Vineland. Soon there came to the aid of Mrs.
Gage and myself a blooming and beautiful young lady, Estelle
Thomson, who, with much grace and dignity, sat there throughout
the day, recording the names of the voters. It would have done
you good to have witnessed the scene. Margaret Pryor,<a name="FNanchor_275_275" id="FNanchor_275_275"></a><a href="#Footnote_275_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a> who is
better known to you perhaps than to many of your readers, as one
whose life has been active in the cause of freedom for the negro
and for woman; a charming old lady of eighty-four years, yet with
the spirit, elasticity and strength of one of thirty-five, sat
there in her nice Quaker bonnet by the side of Miss Thomson a
great part of the day. Sarah Pearson, also advanced in years and
eminent for her labors of love for the suffering and oppressed
everywhere; with her peculiarly delicate organization and placid
countenance, remained with us till the last moment. There was no
lack of friends and supporters. The platform was crowded with
earnest, refined, intellectual women, who felt that it was good
for them to be there. One beautiful girl said in my hearing, "I
feel so much stronger for having voted." It was pleasant to see
husbands and wives enter the hall together, only they had to
separate, one turning to the right hand and the other to the
left, when no separation should have taken place.</p>

<p>Some women spent the day in going after their friends and
bringing them to the hall. Young ladies, after voting, went to
the homes of their acquaintances, and took care of the babies
while the mothers came out to vote. Will this fact lessen the
alarm of some men for the safety of the babies of enfranchised
women on election day? One lady of refinement and aristocratic
birth brought her little girl of ten years with her, and I assure
you it did the men good as well as us. They said they never had
so quiet and pleasant a time at the polls before, though it is
always more quiet here than in many other towns, because the sale
of ardent spirits is forbidden. John Gage&mdash;bless his dear
soul&mdash;identifies himself completely with this glorious cause, and
labors with an earnestness and uniformity of purpose that is
truly charming. His team was out all day, bringing women to vote,
half-a-dozen at a time, while his personal efforts were
unremitting and eminently successful. He and his noble wife,
Portia, seem to be, indeed, one in thought and action. Some time
ago he sent a pledge to the candidates for office in this State.
By signing it, they promise to sustain the cause of woman
suffrage by every means in their power. Nixon, candidate for the
Senate, signed it last year. House, candidate for the Assembly,
signed the pledge at the eleventh hour, and though he lost two of
our votes by the delay, yet he, too, is elected. Thus we have, at
least, three public men in New Jersey pledged to sustain<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_478" id="Page_478">[Pg 478]</a></span> the
woman suffrage cause. We think it is time to say to candidates
for office: "You tell us we have a good deal of influence, and
ask us to exert it for your election. We will do so, if you will
promise to advocate our cause. If you do not, we will oppose your
election." The result of the ballots cast by the women of
Vineland is this: For president&mdash;Grant, 164; Seymour, 4; E. Cady
Stanton, 2; Fremont, 1; and Mrs. Governor Harvey of Wisconsin, 1.
The president of the Historical Society of Vineland, S. C.
Campbell, has petitioned for the ballot-box and list of voters,
to put into its archives. He will probably get them.</p>

<p>A gentleman said to me last week: "What is the use of your doing
this? Your votes will count nothing in the election." "It will do
good in two ways," I replied. "You say there will not be five
women there. We will show you that you are mistaken; that women
do want to vote, and it will strengthen them for action in the
future." Both these ends have been accomplished; and on November
12 we are to meet again, to consider and decide what to do about
the taxation that is soon coming upon us. </p></blockquote>

<p>While the Vineland women expressed their opinion by voting, other
true friends of woman's enfranchisement were moved to do the same.
<i>The Revolution</i> of November 12, 1868, gave the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Newark <i>Daily Advertiser</i> says that Mrs. Hannah Blackwell, a
highly esteemed elderly lady, long resident in Roseville, and
Mrs. Lucy Stone, her daughter-in-law, both of them
property-holders and tax-payers in the county, appeared at the
polls in Roseville Park, accompanied by Messrs. Bathgate and
Blackwell as witnesses, and offered their votes. The judges of
election were divided as to the propriety of receiving the votes
of the ladies, one of them stating that he was in favor of doing
so, the two others objecting on the ground of their illegality.
The ladies stated that they had taken advice of eminent lawyers,
and were satisfied that in New Jersey, women were legally
entitled to vote, from the fact that the old constitution of the
State conferred suffrage upon "all inhabitants" worth $250. Under
that constitution women did in fact vote until, in 1807, by an
arbitrary act of the legislature, women were excluded from the
polls. The new constitution, adopted in 1844, was framed by a
convention and adopted by a constituency, from both of which
women were unconstitutionally excluded, so that they have never
been allowed to vote upon the question of their own
disfranchisement. The article in the present constitution on the
right of suffrage confers it upon white male citizens, but does
not expressly limit it to such. It is claimed that from the
absence of any express limitation in the present constitution,
and from the compulsory exclusion of the parties interested from
its adoption, the political rights of women under the old
constitution still remain. Mrs. Stone stated these points to the
judges of election with clearness and precision. After
consultation, the votes of the ladies were refused. The crowd
surrounding the polls gathered about the ballot-box and listened
to the discussion with respectful attention; but every one
behaved with the politeness which gentlemen always manifest in
the presence of ladies. </p></blockquote>

<p>The women of New Jersey may have been roused to assert their right
to vote by an earnest appeal of that veteran of equal rights,
Parker Pillsbury, in <i>The Revolution</i> of March 25, 1868, suggested
by the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>At the recent election in Vineland, New Jersey, a unanimous vote
in favor of "no rum" was polled. The Vineland <i>Weekly</i> says:
"Among the incidents of the late election was the appearance of a
woman at the polls. Having provided herself with a ballot, she
marched up to the rostrum and tendered it to the chairman of the
board of registry. The veteran politician, John Kandle, covered
with blushes, was obliged to inform the lady that no one could
vote unless his name was registered.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_479" id="Page_479">[Pg 479]</a></span> She acquiesced in the
decision very readily, saying she only wished to test a
principle, and retired very quietly from the hall." </p></blockquote>

<p>While thus mentioning the women with uncounted votes, it may be
well to embalm here a historical fact, published in April, 1868:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the year 1824 widows were allowed to vote in New Jersey on
their husbands' tax receipts. The election officers paid great
deference to the widows on these occasions, and took particular
care to send carriages after them, so as to get their votes early
and make sure of them. The writer of this has often heard his
grandmother state that she voted for John Quincy Adams for
president of the United States when he was elected to that
office. Her name was Sarah Sparks, and she voted at Barnsboro',
her husband having died the year previous.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">N. M. Wallington</span>, Washington, D. C.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Miss Anthony held a spirited meeting in Rahway on Christmas eve,
December 24, 1867. The following October, 1868, Mrs. Stanton and
Miss Anthony attended a two days' convention in Vineland, and
helped to rouse the enthusiasm of the people. A friend, writing
from there, gives us the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Unitarian church in this town is highly favored in having for
its pastor a young man of progressive and thoroughly liberal
ideas. Rev. Oscar Clute is well known as an earnest advocate in
the cause of woman. Last Sunday the communion or Lord's Supper
was administered in his church. One of the laymen who usually
assists in the distribution of the bread and wine, was absent,
and Mr. Clute invited one of the women to officiate in his stead.
She did so in such a sweet and hospitable manner that it gave new
interest to the occasion. Even those who do not like innovations
could not find fault. And why should any one be displeased? The
Christ of the sacrament was the emancipator of women. In olden
time they had deaconesses, and in most of our churches women
constitute a majority of the communicants, so it seems
particularly appropriate that they should be served by women.
Women vote on all matters connected with this church, they are on
all "standing committees," and sometimes are chosen and act as
trustees. </p></blockquote>

<p>Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford sends us the following reports of the
progress of the movement in this State:</p>


<blockquote><p>While Lucy Stone resided in New Jersey, she held several series
of meetings in the chief towns and cities before the formation of
the State Society.<a name="FNanchor_276_276" id="FNanchor_276_276"></a><a href="#Footnote_276_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> The agitation that began in 1867 was
probably due to her, more than to any other one person in that
State. The State society was organized in the autumn of 1867, and
from year to year its annual meetings have been held in Vineland,
Newark, Trenton, and other cities. On its list of officers<a name="FNanchor_277_277" id="FNanchor_277_277"></a><a href="#Footnote_277_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a>
are some of the best men and women in the State.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_480" id="Page_480">[Pg 480]</a></span> Several
distinguished names from other States are among the speakers<a name="FNanchor_278_278" id="FNanchor_278_278"></a><a href="#Footnote_278_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a>
who have taken part in their conventions. County and local
societies too have been extensively organized. These associations
have circulated tracts and appeals, memorialized the legislature,
and had various hearings before that body. At the annual meeting
held in Newark February 15, 1871, the following memorial to the
legislature, prepared by Mary F. Davis, was unanimously adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Honorable the Senate and General Assembly of the State of
New Jersey:</i></p>

<p>Section 2, Article 1, of the constitution of the State of New
Jersey, expressly declares that "All political power is inherent
in the people. Government is instituted for the protection,
security, and benefit of the people, and they have the right at
all times to alter or reform the same, whenever the public good
may require it." Throughout the entire article the words "people"
and "person" are used, as if to apply to all the inhabitants of
the State. In direct contradiction to this broad and just
affirmation, section 1, article 2, begins with the restrictive
and unjust sentence: "Every white male citizen of the United
States, at the age of twenty-one years <span class="spacious">* * *</span> shall be entitled to
vote," etc., and the section ends with the specification that "no
pauper, idiot, insane person, or person convicted of a crime <span class="spacious">* *
*</span> shall enjoy the right of an elector."</p>

<p>Of the word "white" in this article your memorialists need not
speak, as it is made a dead letter by the limitations of the
fifteenth amendment to the United States constitution. To the
second restriction, indicated by the word "male" we beg leave to
call the attention of the legislature, as we deem it unjust and
arbitrary, as well as contradictory to the spirit of the
constitution, as expressed in the first article. It is also
contrary to the precedent established by the founders of
political liberty in New Jersey. On the second of July, 1776, the
provincial congress of New Jersey, at Burlington, adopted a
constitution which remained in force until 1844; in which section
4 specified as voters, "all the inhabitants of this Colony, of
full age," etc. In 1790, a committee of the legislature reported
a bill regulating elections, in which the words "he and she" are
applied to voters, thus giving legislative endorsement to the
alleged meaning of the constitution.</p>

<p>The legislature of 1807 departed from this wise and just
precedent, and passed an arbitrary act, in direct violation of
the constitutional provision, restricting the suffrage to white
male adult citizens, and this despotic ordinance was deliberately
endorsed by the framers of the State constitution which was
adopted in 1844. This was plainly an act of usurpation and
injustice, as thereby a large proportion of the law-abiding
citizens of the State were disfranchised, without so much as the
privilege of signifying their acceptance or rejection of the
barbarous fiat which was to rob them of the sacred right of
self-protection by means of a voice in the government, and to
reduce them to the political level of the "pauper, idiot, insane
person, or person convicted of crime."</p>

<p>If this flagrant wrong, which was inflicted by one-half the
citizens of a free commonwealth on the other half, had been aimed
at any other than a non-aggressive and self-sacrificing class,
there would have been fierce resistance, as in the case of the
United Colonies under the British yoke. It has long been borne in
silence. "The right of voting for representatives," says Paine,
"is the primary right, by which other rights<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_481" id="Page_481">[Pg 481]</a></span> are protected. To
take away this right is to reduce man to a state of slavery, for
slavery consists in being subject to the will of another, and he
that has not a vote in the electing of representatives is in this
condition." Benjamin Franklin wrote: "They who have no voice nor
vote in the electing of representatives do not enjoy liberty, but
are absolutely enslaved to those who have votes and to their
representatives; for to be enslaved is to have governors whom
other men have set over us, and be subject to laws made by the
representatives of others, without having had representatives of
our own to give consent in our behalf." This is the condition of
the women of New Jersey. It is evident to every reasonable mind
that these unjustly disfranchised citizens should be reïnstated
in the right of suffrage. Therefore, we, your memorialists, ask
the legislature at its present session to submit to the people of
New Jersey an amendment to the constitution, striking out the
word "male" from article 2, section 1, in order that the
political liberty which our forefathers so nobly bestowed on men
and women alike, may be restored to "all inhabitants" of the
populous and prosperous State into which their brave young colony
has grown. </p></blockquote>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 396px;">
<a name="v3_481" id="v3_481">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_481.jpg" width="396" height="500" alt="Cornelia Collins Hussey" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>With but a slight change of officers and arguments, these
conventions were similar from year to year. There were on all
occasions a certain number of the clergy in opposition. At one of
these meetings the Rev. Mr. McMurdy condemned the ordination of
women for the ministry. But woman's fitness<a name="FNanchor_279_279" id="FNanchor_279_279"></a><a href="#Footnote_279_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a> for that
profession was successfully vindicated by Lucretia Mott and Phebe
A. Hanaford. Mrs. Portia Gage writes, December 12, 1873:</p>

<blockquote><p>There was an election held by the order of the township committee
of Landis, to vote on the subject of bonding the town to build
shoe and other factories. The call issued was for all legal
voters. I went with some ten or twelve other women, all
taxpayers. We offered our votes, claiming that we were citizens
of the United States, and of the State of New Jersey, also
property-holders in and residents of Landis township, and wished
to express our opinion on the subject of having our property
bonded. Of course our votes were not accepted, whilst every
<i>tatterdemalion</i> in town, either black or white, who owned no
property, stepped up and very pompously said what he would like
to have done with his property. For the first time our claim to
vote seemed to most of the voters to be a just one. They gathered
together in groups and got quite excited over the injustice of
refusing our vote and accepting those of men who paid no taxes. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1879, the Woman's Political Science Club<a name="FNanchor_280_280" id="FNanchor_280_280"></a><a href="#Footnote_280_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a> was formed in
Vineland, which held its meetings semi-monthly, and discussed a
wide range of subjects. Among the noble women in New Jersey who
have stood for many years steadfast representatives of the suffrage
movement, Cornelia Collins Hussey of Orange is worthy of mention. A
long line of radical and brave ancestors<a name="FNanchor_281_281" id="FNanchor_281_281"></a><a href="#Footnote_281_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a> made it comparatively
easy for her to advocate an unpopular<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_482" id="Page_482">[Pg 482]</a></span> cause. Her father, Stacy B.
Collins, identified with the anti-slavery movement, was also an
advocate of woman's right to do whatever she could even to the
exercise of the suffrage. He maintained that the tax-payer should
vote regardless of sex, and as years passed on he saw clearly that
not alone the tax-payer, but every citizen of the United States
governed and punished by its laws, had a just and natural right to
the ballot in a country claiming to be republican. The following
beautiful tribute to his memory, by Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, is
found in a letter to his daughter:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">London</span>, July 27, 1873.</p>

<p>My last letter from America brought me the sad intelligence of
your dear father's departure from amongst you; and I cannot
refrain from at once writing and begging you to accept the
sincere sympathy and inevitable regret which I feel for your
loss. The disappearance of an old friend brings up the long past
times vividly to my remembrance&mdash;the time when, impelled by
irresistible spiritual necessity, I strove to lead a useful but
unusual life, and was able to face, with the energy of youth,
both social prejudice and the hindrance of poverty. I have to
recall those early days to show how precious your father's
sympathy and support were to me in that difficult time; and how
highly I respected his moral courage in steadily, for so many
years, encouraging the singular woman doctor, at whom everybody
looked askance, and in passing whom so many women held their
clothes aside, lest they should touch her. I know in how many
good and noble things your father took part; but, to me, this
brave advocacy of woman as physician, in that early time, seems
the noblest of his actions. </p></blockquote>

<p>Speaking of the general activity of the women of Orange, Mrs.
Hussey says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Women's Club of Orange was started in 1871. It is a social
and literary club, and at present (1885) numbers about eighty
members. Meetings are held in the rooms of the New England
Society once in two weeks, and a reception, with refreshments,
given at the house of some member once a year. Some matter of
interest is discussed at each regular meeting. This is not an
equal suffrage club, yet a steady growth in that direction is
very evident. Very good work has been done by this club. An
evening school for girls was started by it, and taught by the
members for awhile, until adopted by the board of education, a
boys' evening school being already in operation. Under the
arrangements of the club, a course of lectures on physiology, by
women, was recently given in Orange, and well attended. At the
house of one of the members a discussion was held on this
subject: "Does the Private Character of the Actor Concern the
Public?" Although the subject was a general one, the discussion
was really upon the proper course in regard to M'lle Sarah
Bernhardt, who had recently arrived in the country. Reporters
from the New York <i>Sun</i> attended the meeting, so that the views
of the club of Orange gained quite a wide celebrity. </p></blockquote>

<p>Of Mrs. Hussey's remarks, the Newark <i>Journal</i> said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The sentiments of the first speaker, Mrs. Cornelia C. Hussey,
were generally approved, and therefore are herewith given in
full: "I have so often maintained in argument that one has no
right to honor those whose lives are a dishonor to virtue or
principle, that I cannot see any other side to our question than
the affirmative. That the stage wields a potent influence cannot
be doubted. Let the plays be immoral, and its influence must be
disastrous to virtue. Let the known character of the actor be
what we cannot respect, the glamour which his genius or talent
throws around that bad character will tend to diminish our
discrimination between virtue and vice, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_483" id="Page_483">[Pg 483]</a></span> our distaste for the
latter. Some one says: 'Let me write the songs of a nation, and I
care not who makes the laws.' The poetry that Byron wrote,
together with his well-known contempt for a virtuous life, is
said to have had a very pernicious influence on the young men of
his time, and probably, too, blinded the eyes of the young women.
I recall being quite startled by reading the essay of Whittier on
Byron, which showed him as he was, and not with the halo of his
great genius thrown around his vices. It seemed to me that our
national government dethroned virtue when it sent a homicide, if
not a murderer, to represent us at a foreign court; and again
when it sent as minister to another court on the continent a man
whose private character was well known to be thoroughly immoral.
Even to trifle with virtue, or to be a coward in the cause of
principle, is a fearful thing; but when, a person comes before
the public, saying by his life that he prefers the pleasures of
sin to the paths of virtue, it seems to me that the way is
plain&mdash;to withhold our patronage as a matter of public policy."</p>

<p>On the Fourth of July, 1874, Mrs. Lillie Devereux Blake was
invited to make the usual address in East Orange, which she did
before a large audience in the public hall. Says the <i>Journal</i>:
"Mrs. Blake's speech was characterized by simplicity of style and
appropriateness of sentiment." She made mention of Molly Pitcher,
Mrs. Borden and Mrs. Hall of New Jersey, and of noted women of
other States, who did good service in Revolutionary times, when
the country needed the help of her daughters as well as her sons.</p>

<p>In the summer of 1876 a noteworthy meeting was held in Orange in
the interest of women. A number of ladies and gentlemen met in my
parlor to listen to statements in relation to what is called the
"social evil," to be made by the Rev. J. P. Gledstone and Mr.
Henry J. Wilson, delegates from the "British, Continental and
General Federation for the Abolition of Government Regulation of
Prostitution." It is due to the English gentlemen to say that
they gave some very strong reasons for bringing the disagreeable
subject before the meeting, and that they handled it with
becoming delicacy, though with great plainness.</p>

<p>"Ann A. Horton, who died in June, 1875, at the Old Ladies' Home,
Newark, bequeathed $2,000 to Princeton College, to found a
scholarship to be called by her name." Would not the endowment of
a "free bed" in Mrs. Horton's true alma-mater, the Old Ladies'
Home, have been a far wiser bequest than the foundation of a
scholarship in Princeton&mdash;a college which, while fattening on
enormous dole received from women, offers them nothing in return? </p></blockquote>

<p>In relation to the law giving the mothers of New Jersey some legal
claim to their children, Mrs. Hussey writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>I have often heard it said that Kansas is the only State where
the married mother has any legal ownership in her children; but
the women of New Jersey have enjoyed this <i>privilege</i> since 1871,
when it was gained for them by the efforts of Mrs. Ann H.
Connelly of Rahway. She was an American woman, the mother of one
daughter, and unhappily married. She desired to be divorced from
her husband, but she knew that in such case he might legally take
her child from her. Such a risk could not be thought of for a
moment; so she applied to the legislature for a change of the
law. She was assisted by many influential citizens, both men and
women; petitions largely signed were presented, and the result
was the amendment of the law making the mother and father equal
in the ownership of their children. When a copy of the new law
appeared in our papers I wrote to Mrs. Connelly, inclosing a
resolution of thanks from the Essex County Woman Suffrage
Society, of which I was then secretary. In her reply she said:
"This unexpected and distinguishing recognition of my imperfect,
but earnest, efforts for justice is inexpressibly gratifying."
Several years after, I went with my daughter to Rahway to see
Mrs. Connelly. She seemed to be well known and much respected.
She was teaching in one of the public schools, but seemed quite
feeble in health. In 1881 I saw the notice of her death. She was
a woman of much intelligence, and strongly interested in
suffrage, and should certainly be held in grateful remembrance by
the mothers of New Jersey, to whom she restored<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_484" id="Page_484">[Pg 484]</a></span> the right which
nature gave them, but which men had taken away by mistaken
legislation. </p></blockquote>

<p>This law of February 21, 1871, composed of several acts purporting
to give fathers and mothers equal rights in cases of separation and
divorce, is not so liberal as it seems in considering this
provision:</p>

<blockquote><p>Upon a decree of divorce the court may make such further decree
as may be deemed expedient concerning the custody and maintenance
of minor children, and determine with which of the parents the
children shall remain. </p></blockquote>

<p>This act, though declaring that the mother and father are equal,
soon shows by its specifications that the courts can dispose of all
woman's interests and affections as they may see fit. What avails a
decree of divorce or separation for woman, if the court can give
the children to the father at its pleasure? Here is the strong cord
by which woman is held in bondage, and the courts, all composed of
men, know this, and act on it in their decisions.</p>

<p>A petition was addressed to the constitutional commission of 1873,
requesting an amendment restoring to the women of New Jersey their
original right to vote, which that body decided would be
"inexpedient." A bill introduced in the legislature by Senator
Cutler, of Morris county, making women eligible to the office of
school-trustee, became a law March 25, 1873:</p>

<blockquote><p>Be it enacted, That hereafter no person shall be eligible to the
office of school-trustee, unless he or she can read and write;
and women who are residents in the district and over twenty years
of age, shall also be eligible to the office of school-trustee,
and may hold such office and perform the duties of the same, when
duly elected by ten votes of the district.&mdash;[Chap. 386. </p></blockquote>

<p>February 26, 1874, a law for the better protection of the property
of married women was passed:</p>

<blockquote><p>1. Be it enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State
of New Jersey, That any married woman who now is, or may
hereafter become, entitled, by gift, devise or bequest, to any
contingent estate, or any interest in any real or personal
property or estate, may, with the concurrence of her husband,
compound and receipt for, assign and convey the same, in all
cases where she lawfully might, if a <i>feme sole</i>; and every
release, receipt, assignment, discharge, agreement, covenant, or
contract, thereupon entered into by her in regard to the same and
to the said property, shall be as valid and binding in every
respect, upon her, her heirs, executors, administrators, and
assigns, and any and all persons claiming under her, them or
either of them, as if she were at the time of entering into the
same, a <i>feme sole</i>, and when duly executed and acknowledged in
the manner provided by law for conveyance of real estate, may be
recorded in the surrogate's office, and whenever it relates to
real estate in the clerk's or recorder's office, of the proper
county or counties, in the same manner and with like effect as
other receipts and discharges may now be recorded therein. 2. And
be it enacted. That this act shall take effect immediately. </p></blockquote>

<p>A most remarkable trial, lately held in Newark, New Jersey, which
involved the question whether it was contrary to Scripture, and a
violation of the rules of the Presbyterian Church, to admit women
to the pulpit, is well reported by the New York <i>World</i>, January 1,
1877:</p>

<blockquote><p>Since the time that the Rev. Theodore Cuyler was obliged by the
Presbytery of Long Island to apologize for inviting Miss Sarah
Smiley, the Quaker preacher, to occupy the pulpit of the
Lafayette Avenue Church in Brooklyn, the question of the right of
women<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_485" id="Page_485">[Pg 485]</a></span> to preach in Presbyterian churches, has come up in various
parts of the country, but has never been brought judicially
before any ecclesiastical body until yesterday, when it occupied
the attention of the Newark Presbytery, under the following
circumstances. October 29, 1876, Mrs. L. S. Robinson and Mrs. C.
S. Whiting, two ladies who were much interested in the temperance
movement, asked and received permission of the Rev. Isaac M. See,
of the Wickliffe Presbyterian Church at Newark, to occupy his
pulpit, morning and evening of that day. They accordingly
addressed the congregation on the subject of temperance. To this
the Rev. E. R. Craven, of the Third Presbyterian Church, of
Newark, objected, and brought before the Newark Presbytery the
following charge:</p>

<p>"The undersigned charges the Rev. Isaac M. See, pastor of the
Wickliffe Church, of Newark, N. J., a member of your body, with
disobedience to the divinely enacted ordinance in reference to
the public speaking and teaching of women in churches, as
recorded in I. Corinthians, xiv., 33 to 37, and I. Timothy, ii.,
13, in that: First specification&mdash;On Sunday, October 29, 1876, in
the Wickliffe Church of the city of Newark, N. J., he did, in the
pulpit of the said church, and before the congregation there
assembled for public worship at the usual hour of the morning
service, viz., 10:30 <span class="smcap">a.m.</span>, introduce a woman, whom he permitted
and encouraged then and there publicly to preach and teach." The
second specification is couched in similar language, except that
it charges Mr. See with introducing another woman at the evening
service upon the same day. The charge was presented at the
regular meeting of the Presbytery, a short time ago, and the
hearing of the case was adjourned until yesterday. The meeting
was held in the lecture room of the Second Presbyterian Church in
Washington street. Rev. John L. Wells, pastor of the Bethany
Mission Chapel, presided, and there was a fair attendance of the
members of the body. Of the audience at least nine-tenths were
women.<a name="FNanchor_282_282" id="FNanchor_282_282"></a><a href="#Footnote_282_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> Dr. Craven, the prosecutor, sat on the front row of
seats, near to the clerk's table, while Dr. See, who is very
stout, with a double chin, and the picture of good-nature, sat in
the rear of the members of the Presbytery, and among the front
rows of spectators. Dr. McIllvaine introduced the following
resolution:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That this charge, by common consent of the parties,
be dismissed at this stage of the proceedings, with affectionate
council to the Rev. Dr. See not to go contrary to the usages of
the Presbyterian Church for the future.</p>

<p>This brought Brother See to his feet. He could not, he said,
assent to Brother McIllvaine's resolution. He had not consented
that the charge should be dismissed, as in the resolution.
Brother McIllvaine expressed himself as sure that Brother See had
consented, but Brother See was again equally sure that he had
not. Some member here suggested that Dr. Craven should first have
been asked if he consented to dismiss the charge, and this
brought that gentleman to his feet. A more complete antithesis to
Dr. See cannot be imagined. He is tall, gaunt, with full beard
and mustache, short, bristling hair, that stands upright in a row
from the centre of his forehead to the crown of his head. He said
that at the request of Dr. McIllvaine and another respected
member of the Presbytery he had said that if the party charged
would give full and free consent to the resolution, he would also
assent; "and," he added, "such is now my position." Dr.
McIllvaine then gave at length his reasons for desiring to arrest
the case where it was. No good could come of its discussion, and
the result could not but be productive of discord. The Moderator
reminded Dr. See that they waited for an answer from him.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_486" id="Page_486">[Pg 486]</a></span></p>

<p>Dr. See&mdash;May we have a season of prayer, sir? The Moderator said
there was no objection. Dr. See explained that the matter at
issue was not a personal one; it was a question as to the meaning
of the Scriptures upon a certain point, and he was there simply
to know what the Presbytery would do. Rev. Drs. Brinsmayd and
Fewsmith then prayed, but Dr. See's frame of mind was not in the
least changed. He still insisted that his was the passive part,
to sit and see what they would do with his case. Rev. Dr. Wilson
thought that if Brother See did not desire to do anything
contrary to the usages of the church, he might say so. Brother
See said it was a question of whether God Almighty had said
certain things or not, and that he could not answer. In his
formal answer to the charge the accused then said: "I believe
myself to be not guilty of the charge, but I admit the
specifications." Dr. Craven, in his speech, said it was in no
spirit of animosity that he had brought the charge. He believed
that the law of God had been broken in this case; not designedly,
perhaps, but really. A custom had found lodgment in a
Presbyterian church that would impair its efficiency and would
also injure woman in the sphere which she was called upon by God
to fill. No judicial decision had been arrived at upon this
question. The case of Dr. Cuyler was the first that had come
before a Presbytery, and that was hardly a trial of the question.
"Why should I," he continued, "bring this charge? Because I have
felt it to be wrong, and feeling thus, resolved to take the duty
upon myself, painful and agonizing as the task may be. I deem it
my duty to God to do so." Dr. See (<i>sotto voce</i>)&mdash;"And the Lord
will bless you for it."</p>

<p>Dr. Craven, continuing, read the passages of Scripture referred
to in this charge. He did not, he said, affirm that woman had no
work in the church. She had a great and glorious sphere; she had
no right to teach and speak in public meetings, but she could
teach children and ignorant men in private. He would not affirm
that some women could not preach as well as, or better than some
men, and he did not know but that in the future she might occupy
the platform on an equality with men; but at present she could
not, and it was expressly forbidden in the passages which he had
read. "You may run to hear another man's wife preach, or another
man's daughter," said he, "but who would have his own wife stand
upon the platform, or his own daughter face the mob? Woman is the
heart of man, but man is the head. Let woman go upon the
platform, and she loses that shrinking modesty that gives her
such power over children. What child would wish to have a
public-speaking mother? I trust this evil will not creep in upon
the church. I felt bound to resist it at the outset, and unless I
am convinced of my error shall withstand it to the death."
<span class="spacious">* * * *</span></p>

<p>January 2, 1877, Rev. Dr. See continued his defense of himself
for letting a woman into his pulpit. Then the roll was called for
the views of the Presbytery. Dr. McIllvaine said that the two
sources of light, as he understood it, were the teachings of the
Lord and his disciples. The Lord didn't select women for his
twelve, and vacancies were not filled by women. It wasn't a woman
who was chosen to do Paul's work. He was the chosen teacher of
the church in that and all succeeding ages, and he had said, "I
suffer not women to teach, or to usurp authority in the church."
Dr. Brinsmade, who was the pastor of the Wickliffe Church before
Dr. See was called there, admitted that women could preach well,
but thought the Presbytery had better stick by the divine
command. Dr. Canfield also agreed with Paul. He loved women and
loved their work, but it seemed from the experience of the world
that God intended that the pulpit should be the place for men.
Such, at any rate, had been the principle and the practice of the
Presbyterian Church; and if Brother See could not conform to its
rules, he would say to him, "Go, brother; there are other
churches in which you can find a place." Dr. Canfield was called
to order for that addendum. Dr. Hutchings, of Orange, referred to
the ancient justification of slavery from the Bible, and in view
of honest differences of construction accepted by the church,
thought the question should be left to the discretion of pastors
and church-sessions. Rev. Jonathan F. Stearns, pastor of the
First Church, demurred to this and stood by the Scripture text.
Nine-tenths of the ladies of the church, he said, would vote
against preaching by women.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_487" id="Page_487">[Pg 487]</a></span></p>

<p>Rev. James E. Wilson, pastor of the South Park Church, said that
in churches where women had been permitted to preach, they had
lost ground. "I have never heard a Quaker woman," said he,
"preach a sermon worth three cents (laughter), and yet I have
heard the spirit move them to get up and speak at most improper
times and on most inopportune occasions, and have heard them say
most improper and impertinent things." In the Methodist Church he
did not believe that there were over twenty-five women preachers,
so the women were losing ground, and not gaining. Even the woman
suffragists, who made so much noise a few years ago, had
subsided, and he did not believe there were a hundred agitators
in the whole country now. "See," he said, "where Brother See's
argument would carry him. Any woman that has the spirit upon her
may speak, and so, by and by, two or three women may walk up into
Brother See's pulpit and say,'Come down; it's our turn now, we
are moved by the spirit.' (Laughter). A woman's voice was against
her preaching; a man's voice came out with a 'thud,' but a woman
spoke soft and pleasing; however, here were the plain words of
the text, and any man that could throw it overboard could throw
over the doctrine of the atonement. If a mother should teach her
son from the pulpit by preaching to him, thus disobeying the
plain words of the apostle, she must not be surprised if her son
went contrary to some other teaching of the apostle. But the fact
was, the women did not desire to preach; otherwise they would
have preached long ago. He rejoiced when that convention of
temperance women assembled in Newark, but he could not help
pitying their husbands and families away out in Chicago and
elsewhere. (Laughter).</p>

<p>Rev. Ferd. Smith, the pastor of the Second Church, said the
president of the Woman's Temperance Union had asked him if they
could have the use of the church, and he had said "yes"; "and,"
said Dr. Smith, "I am glad that I did it, and I am sorry that I
was not there to hear the address; and now, brethren, I am going
to confess that I have sinned a little in this matter of women
preaching. Two or three years ago I went and heard Miss Smiley
preach. I had heard in the morning&mdash;I won't mention his name&mdash;one
of the most distinguished men of the country preach a very able
sermon&mdash;a very long one, too. [Laughter.] I had heard in the
afternoon a doctor of divinity; I don't see him here now, but I
have seen him, and I won't mention his name; and I heard Miss
Smiley in the evening. It may be heresy to say it, but I do think
I was more fed that evening than I had been by both the others;
but I do not on that account say that it is good for women to go,
as a regular thing, into the pulpit. If I had heard her a dozen
times, I should not have been so much moved. Woman-preaching may
do for a little time, but it won't do for a permanency. I heard
at Old Orchard, at a temperance convention, the most beautiful
argument I ever listened to, delivered with grace and modesty and
power. The words fell like dew upon the heart, enriching it, and
the speaker was Miss Willard; but for all this, brethren, I do
not approve of women preaching. [Great laughter.] We must not,
for the sake of a little good, sacrifice a great principle." Dr.
Pollock of Lyons Farms wanted to shelter women, to prevent them
from being talked about as ministers are and criticised as
ministers are; it was for this that he would keep them out of the
pulpit. Rev. Drs. Findley and Prentiss de Neuve were in favor of
sustaining the charge. Rev. Dr. Haley contended that Brother See
ought not to be condemned, because he had not offended against
any law of the church. Drs. Seibert, Ballantine and Hopwood spoke
in favor of sustaining the charge. A vote of 16 to 12 found Rev.
Dr. See guilty of violating the Scriptures by allowing women to
preach, and the case was appealed to the General Assembly. </p></blockquote>

<p>The General Assembly adopted the following report on this case:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Rev. Isaac W. See, pastor of the Wickliffe Church, Newark, N.
J., was charged by Rev. Elijah R. Craven, D. D., with
disobedience to the divinely enacted ordinance in reference to
the public speaking and teaching of women in the churches as
recorded in I Corinthians, xiv., 33-37, and in I Timothy, ii.,
11-13, in that twice on a specified Sabbath, in the pulpit of his
said church, at the usual time of public service, he did
introduce a woman, whom he permitted and encouraged then and
there publicly to preach and teach.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_488" id="Page_488">[Pg 488]</a></span></p>

<p>The Presbytery of Newark sustained the charge, and from its
decision Mr. See appealed to the synod of New Jersey, which
refused by a decided vote to sustain the appeal, expressing its
judgment in a minute of which the following is a part:</p>

<p>In sustaining the Presbytery of Newark as against the appeal of
the Rev. I. M. See, the synod holds that the passages of
scripture referred to in the action of the Presbytery, do
prohibit the fulfilling by women of the offices of public
preachers in the regular assemblies of the church.</p>

<p>From this decision Mr. See has further appealed to the General
Assembly, which, having thereupon proceeded to issue the appeal,
and having fully heard the original parties and members of the
inferior judicatory, decided that the said appeal from the synod
of New Jersey be not sustained by the following vote: To sustain,
85. To sustain in part, 71. Not to sustain, 201. </p></blockquote>

<p>From the following description by Mrs. Devereux Blake, we have
conclusive evidence of woman's capacity to govern under most trying
circumstances:</p>

<blockquote><p>A certain little woman living in Jersey City has, from time to
time, occupied a portion of public consideration; this is Mrs.
Ericka C. Jones, for four years and a half warden of the Hudson
county jail, probably the only woman in the world who holds such
a position. Her history is briefly this: Some seven years ago her
husband obtained the appointment of jailor at this institution,
and moved to it with his bride. From the time of their incoming a
marked improvement in the administration of the jail became
apparent, which continued, when, after two years, Mr. Jones was
stricken down with softening of the brain, which reduced him to a
condition of idiocy for six months before his death. When at last
this occurred, by unanimous vote of the board of freeholders the
woman who had really performed the duties of jailor was appointed
warden of Hudson county jail. All this has been a matter of
report in the papers, as well as the attempt to oust her from the
position, which was made last fall, when certain male politicians
wanted the place for some friend and voter, and appealed to
Attorney-General Vanetta, who gave an opinion adverse to the
lady's claims. Resolutions on the subject were passed by various
woman suffrage societies, and anxious to see the subject of so
much dispute, and hear her story from her own lips, a party of
ladies was made up to call upon her.</p>

<p>Hudson-county jail stands in the same inclosure with the
court-house, a small, neatly-kept park, well shaded by fine
trees, and being on very high ground commands a view over the
North River and New York Bay. The building is a substantial one
of stone, with nothing of the repulsive aspect of a jail about
it. Asking for Mrs. Jones, we were at once shown into the office.
We had expected to see a woman of middle age and somewhat stern
aspect. Instead, we beheld a pretty, young person, apparently not
more than twenty-five years old, with bright, black eyes, waving
brown hair, good features and plump figure. She was very neatly
dressed and pleasant in manner, making us cordially welcome. We
were conducted into the parlor and at once begged her to tell us
all about her case, which she did very clearly and concisely.
When she was left a widow with two little children she had no
idea that this place would be given her, but it was tendered to
her by unanimous vote of the board of freeholders. At that time
there were in jail three desperate criminals, Proctor, Demsing
and Foley, bank robbers, and some persons feared that a woman
could not hold them, but they were safely transferred at the
proper time from the jail to the state-prison. "And," she added,
with a bright smile, "I never have lost a prisoner, which is more
than many men-jailors can say. Some of them tried to escape last
fall, but I had warning in time, sent for the police, and the
attempt was prevented."</p>

<p>"And do you think there is any danger of your being turned out?"
"I don't know. I intend to remain in the place until the end of
my term, if possible, since as long as the effort to dismiss me
is based solely on the ground of my sex and not of my
incompetency, it ought justly to be resisted." "But
Attorney-General Vanetta gave<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_489" id="Page_489">[Pg 489]</a></span> an adverse opinion as to the
legality of your appointment?" "Yes, but ex-Attorney-General
Robert Gilchrist, a very able lawyer, has given an opinion in my
favor, while Mr. Lippincott, counsel of the board when I was
appointed, also held that I was eligible for the place."</p>

<p>She then went on to tell us some of the petty persecutions and
indirect measures Which have been resorted to in order to induce
her to resign, as her term of office will not expire for two
years. When her husband was given the position, the allowance
consisted of 40 cents a day for each prisoner, 50 cents for each
sick person, 25 cents for every committal, and 12&frac12; cents for
every discharge. The daily allowance has been cut down from 40 to
25 cents, and all the other allowances have been entirely done
away with. She is, therefore, at this moment running that jail on
25 cents a day for each prisoner. Out of this sum she must pay
for all food, all salaries of assistant jailors, etc., all wages
of servants, and even the furniture of the place. She is supplied
with fuel and gas, but no stores of any description. She has also
had other annoyances. The payment of money justly due has been
opposed or delayed; and whereas her husband was required to give
bond for only $5,000, she has been forced to give one for
$10,000. She has also been troubled by the visits of persons
representing themselves to be reporters of papers, who have
wished to borrow money of her, and failing in this, have printed
disagreeable articles about her. She has, of course, no salary
whatever. "However, I do as well as I can with the money I
receive," she said, with that pleasant smile. "And now would you
like to see the jail?" <span class="spacious">* * * *</span></p>

<p>Ex-Attorney Gilchrist's opinion on her case is an able
indorsement of her position. He says, in the first place, that as
Attorney-General Vanetta's adverse view was not given officially,
it is not binding on the Board of Freeholders, and then goes on
to cite precedents. "Alice Stubbs, in 1787, was appointed
overseer of the poor in the county of Stafford, England, and the
Court of King's Bench sustained her in the office. A woman was
appointed governor of the work-house at Chelmsford, England, and
the court held it to be a good appointment. Lady Brangleton was
appointed keeper of the Gate-House jail in London. Lady Russell
was appointed keeper of the Castle of Dunnington. All these cases
are reported in <i>Stranges R.</i>, as clearly establishing the right
and duty of woman to hold office. The case of Ann, Countess of
Pembroke, Dorsett and Montgomery, who was sheriff of
Westmoreland, is very well known." The opinion winds up by
saying: "The argument that a woman is incompetent to perform the
duties of such an office is doubly answered&mdash;first, by the array
of cases in which it is held that she is competent; second, by
the resolution of the board when Mrs. Jones was appointed, that
she had for a long time prior thereto actually kept the jail
while her husband was jailor." How this whole matter would be
simplified if women could vote and hold office, so that merit and
not sex should be the only qualification for any place.&mdash;<i>New
York Record, 1876.</i> </p></blockquote>

<p>The following incident shows not only what physical training will
do in giving a girl self-reliance in emergencies, but it shows the
nice sense of humor that grows out of conscious power with which a
girl can always take a presuming youth at disadvantage. No doubt
Miss McCosh, as a student in Princeton, could as easily distance
her compeers in science, philosophy and the languages, as she did
the dude on the highway. Why not open the doors of that institution
and let her make the experiment?</p>

<blockquote><p>The distinguished president of Princeton College, Dr. McCosh, has
two daughters who are great walkers. They are in the habit of
going to Trenton and back, a distance of about twenty miles,
where they do their shopping. One day a dude accosted Miss
Bridget on the road, and said, in the usual manner: "Beg pardon,
but may I walk with you?" She replied, "Certainly," and quickened
her pace a little. After the first half-mile the masher began to
gasp, and then, as she passed on with a smile, he sat down
panting on a mile-stone, and mopped the perspiration from his
brow. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_490" id="Page_490">[Pg 490]</a></span></p>

<p>At the sixteenth national convention, held in Washington, March,
1884, the State was well represented;<a name="FNanchor_283_283" id="FNanchor_283_283"></a><a href="#Footnote_283_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> Mrs. Hanaford gave an
address on "New Jersey as a Leader." In her letter to the
convention, Mrs. Hussey wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p>An old gentleman, Aaron Burr Harrison, a resident of East Orange,
has just passed on to his long home, full of
years&mdash;eighty-eight&mdash;and with a good record. He told me about his
sister's voting in New jersey, when he was a child&mdash;probably
about 1807. The last time I took a petition for woman suffrage to
him, he signed it willingly, and his daughter also. </p></blockquote>

<p>February 12, 1884, a special committee of the New Jersey Assembly
granted a hearing<a name="FNanchor_284_284" id="FNanchor_284_284"></a><a href="#Footnote_284_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a> on the petition of Mrs. Celia B. Whitehead,
and 220 other citizens of Bloomfield, asking the restoration of
woman's right to vote; fully one-half of the members of the
Assembly were present. Mrs. Seagrove handed the committee an
ancient printed copy of the original constitution of New Jersey,
dated July 2, 1776. The name of James Seagrove, her husband's
grandfather, is endorsed upon it in his own hand-writing. In the
suffrage clause of this document the words "all inhabitants" were
substituted for those of "male freeholders" in the provincial
charter. Hence the constitution of 1776 gave suffrage to women and
men of color. Mrs. Seagrove made an appeal on behalf of the women
of the State. Mr. Blackwell gave a résumé of the unconstitutional
action of the legislature in its depriving women of their right to
vote. Mrs. Hanaford, in answer to a question of the committee,
claimed the right for women not only to vote but to hold office;
and instanced from her own observation the need of women as police
officers, and especially as matrons in the police stations. The
result of these appeals may be seen in a paragraph from the Boston
<i>Commonwealth</i>, a paper in hearty sympathy:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the lower House of the New Jersey legislature a Democratic
member recently moved that the word "male" be stricken from the
constitution of the State. After some positive discussion a
non-partisan vote of 27 to 24 defeated the motion. This
occurrence, it is to be observed, is chronicled of one of the
most conservative States in the Union. The arguments used on both
sides were not new or remarkable. But the vote was very close. If
such a measure could in so conservative a State be nearly
carried, we can have reasonable hope of its favorable reception,
in more radical sections. In New Jersey we did not expect success
for the resolution proposed. The favorable votes really surprised
us. We do not mistake the omen. Gradually the point of woman's
responsibility is being conceded. The arbitrary lines now drawn
politically and socially are without reason. Indeed, one of the
members of the New Jersey Assembly called attention to the fact
that to grant suffrage now would not be the conferring of a new
gift on women, but only a restoration of rights exercised in
colonial times. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_274_274" id="Footnote_274_274"></a><a href="#FNanchor_274_274"><span class="label">[274]</span></a> See <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_447">Vol. I., page 447</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_275_275" id="Footnote_275_275"></a><a href="#FNanchor_275_275"><span class="label">[275]</span></a> Mrs. Pryor lived formerly in Waterloo, New York. She
was present at the first convention at Seneca Falls, and sustained
the demand for woman suffrage with earnest sympathy. I have been
indebted to her for a splendid housekeeper, trained by her in all
domestic accomplishments, who lived in my family for thirty years,
a faithful, devoted friend to me and my children. Much that I have
enjoyed and accomplished in life is due to her untiring and
unselfish services. My cares were the lighter for all the heavy
burdens she willingly took on her shoulders. The name of Amelia
Willard should always be mentioned with loving praise by me and
mine. Her sympathies have ever been in our reform. When Abby Kelly
was a young girl, speaking through New York in the height of the
anti-slavery mobs, Margaret Pryor traveled with her for company and
protection. Abby used to say she always felt safe when she could
see Margaret Pryor's Quaker bonnet.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_276_276" id="Footnote_276_276"></a><a href="#FNanchor_276_276"><span class="label">[276]</span></a> In a letter to Mary F. Davis, February 13, 1882,
asking her for some facts in regard to that period, Lucy Stone
says: "I have never kept any diary or record of my work. I have
been too busy with the work itself. I could not answer your
questions without a search among old letters and papers, which have
been packed away for years, and I have not time to make the search,
and cannot be accurate without. I know we had many meetings in New
Jersey in all the large towns, beginning in Newark and Orange, and
following the line of the railroad to Trenton, Camden, and
Vineland, and then another series that included towns reached by
stage, Salem being one, but I cannot tell whether these meetings
were before or after the formation of the State Society." The
records show that they were before, says Mrs. Davis; newspaper
reports of them are in the archives of the Historical Society.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_277_277" id="Footnote_277_277"></a><a href="#FNanchor_277_277"><span class="label">[277]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Lucy Stone, Roseville;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Thomas B. Peddie,
Portia Gage, Rev. Robert McMurdy, Cornelia Collins Hussey, George
T. Cobb, Sarah E. Webb, Dr. James Brotherton, Isaac Stevens, Rev.
H. A. Butler, A. J. Davis, James H. Nixon, Dr. G. H. Haskell, I. M.
Peebles, Rev. C. H. Dezanne, William Baldwin; <i>Corresponding
Secretaries</i>, Phebe A. Pierson, Miss P. Fowler; <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, C. A. Paul; <i>Treasurer</i>, S. G. Silvester; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Mary F. Davis, Mrs. E. L. Bush, H. B. Blackwell, Rev.
Oscar Clute, Miss Charlotte Bathgate, Rowland Johnson, Mrs. Robert
McMurdy, Dr. D. N. Allen, Sarah Pierson, Lizzie Prentice, W. D.
Conan, John Whitehead.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_278_278" id="Footnote_278_278"></a><a href="#FNanchor_278_278"><span class="label">[278]</span></a> Among those who addressed the conventions and the
legislature we find the names of Lucretia Mott, Ernestine L. Rose,
Lucy Stone, Antoinette Brown Blackwell, Mary F. Davis, Charlotte B.
Wilbour, Elizabeth R. Churchill, Elizabeth A. Kingsbury, Deborah
Butler, Olive F. Stevens, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Mrs. Devereux
Blake, Rev. Oscar Clute, Rev. Olympia Brown, Rev. Mr. McMurdy, Mr.
Taylor, John Whitehead, Mrs. Seagrove, Henry B. Blackwell, Hon.
James Scovell.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_279_279" id="Footnote_279_279"></a><a href="#FNanchor_279_279"><span class="label">[279]</span></a> This has been well illustrated by Mrs. Hanaford in
her own case, she having preached for nearly twenty years with but
three changes of place, and ten of these passed successively in the
Universalist churches in Jersey City.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_280_280" id="Footnote_280_280"></a><a href="#FNanchor_280_280"><span class="label">[280]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Vineland</span>, July 15, 1879.&mdash;Club met at the residence
of Mrs. Bristol. The meeting was opened with music by Mrs.
Parkhurst, followed by a recitation by Miss Etta Taylor. Mrs.
Andrew read an excellent essay, opposing the national bank system.
Mrs. Bristol gave an instructive lesson in political economy on
"Appropriation." The next lesson will be upon "Changes of Matter in
Place." Appropriate remarks were made by Mrs. Neyman of New York,
Mr. Broom, Mrs. Duffey and Mr. Bristol. Several new names were
added to the list of membership. Miss Etta Taylor gave another
recitation, which closed the exercises of the afternoon. In the
evening a pleasant reception was held, and many invited guests were
present. The exercises consisted of vocal and instrumental music,
social converse and dancing. The club will meet again in two
weeks.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">C. L. Ladd</span>, <i>Secretary</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_281_281" id="Footnote_281_281"></a><a href="#FNanchor_281_281"><span class="label">[281]</span></a> Isaac Collins, her grandfather, died at Burlington,
March 21, 1817, a man remarkable alike for his uprightness,
industry, intelligence and enterprise. He was a Quaker by birth and
conviction, and a printer, appointed by King George III. for the
province of New Jersey. He printed many valuable books, almanacs,
Bibles, revised laws, government money, and a weekly paper, <i>The
New Jersey Gazette</i>. In making his will he so divided his property
that each of his six daughters received twice the sum that he gave
to each of the seven sons. This he explained by saying that the
latter could go into business and support themselves, but his
daughters must have enough to live upon, if they chose to remain
single; he did not wish them to be forced to marry for a support.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_282_282" id="Footnote_282_282"></a><a href="#FNanchor_282_282"><span class="label">[282]</span></a> In the audience were several advocates of woman
suffrage, probably there to take observations of the manner in
which Christian clergymen conduct their meetings. This class of men
had been so severe in their criticisms of woman suffrage
conventions that we hoped to learn lessons of wisdom from the
dignity, refinement and parliamentary order of their proceedings.
Among these ladies were Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Miss Arathusia
Forbes, Mrs. Devereux Blake and Miss Susan King of New York, a
wealthy tea-merchant and extensive traveler, and myself. That day
the Rev. Dr. Craven was the principal speaker. The whole tenor of
his remarks were so insulting to women that Miss King proposed to
send an artist the following Sunday to photograph the women
possessing so little self-respect as to sit under his
ministrations. He punctuated his four-hours' vulgar diatribe by a
series of resounding whacks with the Bible on the table before
him.&mdash;[M. J. G.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_283_283" id="Footnote_283_283"></a><a href="#FNanchor_283_283"><span class="label">[283]</span></a> Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Miss Ellen Miles and Mrs.
Jackson of Jersey City.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_284_284" id="Footnote_284_284"></a><a href="#FNanchor_284_284"><span class="label">[284]</span></a> Mrs. Theresa Walling Seagrove of Keyport, Rev. Phebe
A. Hanaford of Jersey City and Henry B. Blackwell of Boston were
the speakers.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_491" id="Page_491">[Pg 491]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XL" id="CHAPTER_XL"></a>CHAPTER XL.</h2>

<h3>OHIO.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>The First Soldiers' Aid Society&mdash;Mrs. Mendenhall&mdash;Cincinnati
Equal Rights Association, 1868&mdash;Homeopathic Medical College and
Hospital&mdash;Hon. J. M. Ashley&mdash;State Society, 1869&mdash;Murat
Halstead's Letter&mdash;Dayton Convention, 1870&mdash;Women Protest against
Enfranchisement&mdash;Sarah Knowles Bolton&mdash;Statistics on
Coëducation&mdash;Thomas Wentworth Higginson&mdash;Woman's Crusade,
1874&mdash;Miriam M. Cole&mdash;Ladies' Health Association&mdash;Professor
Curtis&mdash;Hospital for Women and Children, 1879&mdash;Letter from J. D.
Buck, M. D.&mdash;March, 1881, Degrees Conferred on Women&mdash;Toledo
Association, 1869&mdash;Sarah Langdon Williams&mdash;<i>The Sunday
Journal</i>&mdash;<i>The Ballot-Box</i>&mdash;Constitutional Convention&mdash;Judge
Waite&mdash;Amendment Making Women Eligible to Office&mdash;Mr. Voris,
Chairman Special Committee on Woman Suffrage&mdash;State Convention,
1873&mdash;Rev. Robert McCune&mdash;Centennial Celebration&mdash;Women Decline
to Take Part&mdash;Correspondence&mdash;Newbury Association&mdash;Women Voting,
1871&mdash;Sophia Ober Allen&mdash;Annual Meeting, Painesville, 1885&mdash;State
Society, Mrs. Frances M. Casement, President&mdash;Adelbert College. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">Early</span> in the year 1862, Cincinnati became a hospital for the army
operations under General Grant and was soon filled with wounded
heroes from Fort Donelson and Pittsburg Landing, and the women
here, as in all other cities, were absorbed in hospital and
sanitary work. To the women of Cleveland is justly due the honor of
organizing the first soldiers' aid society, a meeting being called
for this purpose five days after the fall of Fort Sumter. Through
the influence of Mrs. Mendenhall were inaugurated the great
sanitary fairs<a name="FNanchor_285_285" id="FNanchor_285_285"></a><a href="#Footnote_285_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a> there, and by her untiring energy and that of
the ladies who labored with her, many of our brave soldiers were
restored to health. Mrs. Annie L. Quinby writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the autumn of 1867 Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony made a
lecturing tour through Ohio and roused popular thought on the
question of suffrage. March 28, 1868, the Cincinnati Equal Rights
Association<a name="FNanchor_286_286" id="FNanchor_286_286"></a><a href="#Footnote_286_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a> was formed, auxiliary to the National Society,
of which Lucretia Mott was president. April 7, 1869, Mrs. Ryder
called the attention of the meeting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_492" id="Page_492">[Pg 492]</a></span> to a resolution offered by
Mr. Gordon in the State legislature, to amend the constitution so
as to strike out the word male, proposing that at the October
election, "in all precincts in the State, there shall be a
separate poll, at which all white women over 21 years of age
shall be permitted to vote, and if the votes cast be a majority
of all the white women, the constitution shall be amended." Mrs.
Ryder seemed to think the proposition a very fair one, or
intended by the mover to give the women, if they wanted to vote,
the opportunity of saying so on this amendment to the
constitution. Mrs. Blangy also concurred in this view of the
subject. Mrs. Quinby expressed her indignation at the
proposition, saying she believed its passage by the legislature
would be detrimental to the cause, both on account of its
provisions and the mode of accomplishing the object of the
resolution. As it stood, it could but fail, as women were not
prepared for it at the present time, and the proposition was not
that the majority of votes cast should settle the question, but
that the number cast in favor of it should be a majority of all
the women in the State 21 years of age. She therefore thought we
should express our decided disapproval of this amendment. Mrs.
Leavitt also declared her opposition to this resolution,
believing it to have been offered for the sole purpose of
stalling the woman suffrage movement for years to come. She
thought this association should express its decided opposition to
this resolution. Mrs. Butterwood and others followed in the same
strain, and it was finally agreed unanimously that the
corresponding secretary be instructed to write to the mover of
the resolution, expressing disapprobation of some of the terms of
the amendment, with the hope that it will not pass in the form
offered, and politely requesting Mr. Gordon to define his
position as the resolution is susceptible of being construed both
for and against equal rights.</p>

<p>At a meeting held April 21, 1869, delegates<a name="FNanchor_287_287" id="FNanchor_287_287"></a><a href="#Footnote_287_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a> were elected to
attend the May anniversary of the American Equal Rights
Association in New York. Mrs. Margaret V. Longley was placed on
the executive committee of the National Association to represent
Ohio. On her return from New York she joined with the Cincinnati
Equal Rights Society in a call for a convention in Pike's Hall,
September 15, 16, 1869, for the organization of an Ohio State
Society.<a name="FNanchor_288_288" id="FNanchor_288_288"></a><a href="#Footnote_288_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a> Mrs. Longley presided; the audiences were large and
enthusiastic;<a name="FNanchor_289_289" id="FNanchor_289_289"></a><a href="#Footnote_289_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a> the press of the city gave extended reports.
Murat Halstead, editor of the Cincinnati <i>Commercial</i>, sent the
following reply to his invitation: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_493" id="Page_493">[Pg 493]</a></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Cincinnati</span>, July 28, 1869.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">M. V. Longley</span>: <i>Dear Madam</i>&mdash;I cannot sign your call for a
woman suffrage convention, for I do not feel a serious interest
in the subject. That there are woman's wrongs that the law-makers
should right, I believe. For instance, I think married women
should hold property independently; that they should be able to
save and enjoy the fruits of their own industry; and that they
should not be absolutely in the power of lazy, dissipated or
worthless husbands. But I cannot see clearly how the possession
of the ballot would help women in the reform indicated. If,
however, a majority of the women of Ohio should signify by means
proving their active interest in the subject that they wanted to
acquire the right of suffrage, I don't think I would offer
opposition.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">M. Halstead.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Livermore and Miss Anthony made some amusing strictures on Mr.
Halstead's letter, which called out laughter and cheers from the
audience. April 27 and 28, 1870, a mass-meeting was held in Dayton.
Describing the occasion, Miss Sallie Joy, in a letter to a Boston
paper, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The west is evidently wide awake on the suffrage question. The
people are working with zeal almost unknown in the East, except
to the more immediately interested, who are making a life-labor
of the cause. The two days' convention at Dayton was freighted
with interest. Earnest women were there from all parts of the
State. They of the west do not think much of distances, and
consequently nearly every town of note was represented. Cleveland
sent her women from the borders of the lake; Cincinnati sent hers
from the banks of the Ohio; Columbus, Springfield, Toledo and
Sydney were represented. Not merely the leaders were there, but
those who were comparatively new to the cause; all in
earnest,&mdash;young girls in the first flush of youth, a new light
dawning on their lives and shining through their eyes, waiting,
reaching longing hands for this new gift to womanhood,&mdash;mothers
on the down-hill side of life, quietly but gladly expectant of
the good that was coming so surely to crown all these human
lives. Most of the speakers were western women&mdash;Mrs. Cutler, Mrs.
Cole, Mrs. Stewart, of Ohio, and Miss Boynton, of Indiana. The
East sent our own Susan B. Anthony, and Mrs. Livermore of Boston.
Like every other convention, it grew more interesting the longer
it continued, and just when the speakers were so tired that they
were glad the work for the time was done, the listeners, like a
whole army of Oliver Twists, were crying for more. They are
likely to have more&mdash;a great deal more&mdash;before the work is done
completely, for it is evident the leaders don't intend to let the
thing rest where it is, but to push it forward to final success.
From the list of resolutions considered and adopted, I send the
following:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That as the Democratic party has long since abolished
the political aristocracy of wealth; and the Republican party has
now abolished the aristocracy of race; so the true spirit of
Republican Democracy of the present, demands the abolition of the
political aristocracy of sex.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That as the government of the United States has, by
the adoption of the fifteenth amendment, admitted the theory that
one man cannot define the rights and duties of another man, so we
demand the adoption of a sixteenth amendment on the same
principle, that one sex cannot define the rights and duties of
another sex.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we rejoice in the noble action of the men of
Wyoming, by which the right of suffrage has been granted to the
women of that territory.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we feel justly proud of the action of those
representatives of the General Assembly of Ohio, who have
endeavored to secure an amendment to the State constitution,
striking out the word "male" from that instrument. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>It is rather remarkable that in a State which so early established
two colleges admitting women&mdash;Oberlin in 1834, and Antioch in
1853&mdash;any intelligent women should have been found at so late a
date as April 15, 1870, to protest against the right of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_494" id="Page_494">[Pg 494]</a></span>
self-government for themselves, yet such is the case, as the
following protest shows:</p>

<blockquote><p>We acknowledge no inferiority to men. We claim to have no less
ability to perform the duties which God has imposed upon us than
they have to perform those imposed upon them. We believe that God
has wisely and well adapted each sex to the proper performance of
the duties of each. We believe our trusts to be as important and
as sacred as any that exist on earth. We feel that our present
duties fill up the whole measure of our time and abilities; and
that they are such as none but ourselves can perform. Their
importance requires us to protest against all efforts to compel
us to assume those obligations which cannot be separated from
suffrage; but which cannot be performed by us without the
sacrifice of the highest interests of our families and of
society. It is our fathers, brothers, husbands and sons, who
represent us at the ballot-box. Our fathers and brothers love us.
Our husbands are our choice, and one with us. Our sons are what
<i>we</i> make them. We are content that they represent us in the
corn-field, the battle-field, at the ballot-box and the jury-box,
and we them, in the church, the school-room, at the fireside and
at the cradle; believing our representation, even at the
ballot-box, to be thus more full and impartial than it could
possibly be, were all women allowed to vote. We do, therefore
respectively protest against legislation to establish woman
suffrage in Ohio. </p></blockquote>

<p>The above paper, signed by more than one hundred ladies of Lorain
county, was presented, March 14, 1870, to the legislature assembled
at Columbus. Mrs. Sarah Knowles Bolton, criticising the Oberlin
protestants, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>That so many signed is not strange, because the non-suffrage side
is the popular one at present. Years hence, when it shall be
customary for women to vote, it is questionable whether the lady
who drew up that document would have many supporters.</p>

<p>If "we are not inferior to men," we must have as clear opinions
and as good judgment as they. To say, then, that we are not
capable of judging of political questions, is untrue. To say that
we are not interested in such things is absurd, for who can be
more anxious for good laws and good law-makers than women, who,
for the most part, have sons and daughters in this whirlpool of
temptation, called social and business life. If we are too
ignorant to have an opinion, the fault lies at our own door.</p>

<p>These ladies reason upon the premises that the duties imposed
upon us as we find them in this nineteenth century, are the
duties, conditions, and relations established of God. Two things
we do certainly find in the Bible with regard to this matter;
that women are to bear children, and men to earn bread. The first
duty we believe has been confined entirely to the female sex, but
the male sex have not kept the other in all cases. If anybody has
belonged for any considerable time to a benevolent institution,
he has ascertained that women sometimes are obliged to earn bread
and bear children also. A century or two ago, when women seldom
thought of writing books, or being physicians or lawyers,
professors or teachers, or doing anything but housework, probably
they thought, as the ladies of Lorain county do to-day, they were
in the blessed noonday of woman's enlightenment and happiness.
Their husbands, very likely, needed something of the same
companionship as the men of the present, but it was unpopular for
girls to attend school. If these ladies, after careful study and
thought, believe that woman suffrage will work evil in the land,
they ought to say that, rather than base it upon lack of time.
The enfranchisement of 15,000,000 women will be a balance of
power for good or evil that will need looking after. As for our
representing men at the fireside, I think it a great deal
pleasanter that they be there in person. Nothing is more blessed
than the home circle, and here I think if husbands were not so
often represented by their wives, while they are absent evening
after evening on "important business," the condition of things
would be improved. If the ladies aforesaid cannot vote without
the highest interests of their families being sacrificed, they
ought to be allowed to remain in peace. I am glad they made this
protest, not only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_495" id="Page_495">[Pg 495]</a></span> because this is a country where honest views
ought to be expressed, but because agitation pushes forward
reform. I am glad that nearly half of our representatives were in
favor of submitting this question to the women of the State, and
that our interests were so ably defended by a talented
representative from our own district. I do not think, however, by
submitting it to the women, they would get a correct expression
upon the subject. A good many would vote for suffrage, a few
against it, and thousands would be afraid to vote. If it is
granted, I do not suppose all women will vote immediately. Many
prejudices will first have to give way. If women vote what they
wish to vote, and there is no disorderly conduct at the polls in
consequence, and no general disorder in the body politic, I do
not see any objection to the voting being continued from year to
year.</p>

<p>When women like Miss Jones of our city, now in California, take a
few more professorships in a university over half-a-hundred
competitors, write a few more libraries, show themselves capable
of solving great questions, become ornaments to their
professions, it will seem more absurd for them not to be
enfranchised than it does now for them to be so. </p></blockquote>

<p>Hon. J. M. Ashley, of Toledo, in a speech on the floor of congress,
June 1, 1868, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I want citizenship and suffrage to be synonymous. To put the
question beyond the power of States to withhold it, I propose the
amendment to article fourteen, now submitted. A large number of
Republicans who concede that the qualifications of an elector
ought to be the same in every State, and that it is more properly
a national than a State question, do not believe congress has the
power under our present constitution to enact a law conferring
suffrage in the States, nevertheless they are ready and willing
to vote for such an amendment to the constitution as shall make
citizenship and suffrage uniform throughout the nation. For this
purpose I have added to the proposed amendment for the election
of president a section on suffrage, to which I invite special
attention.</p>

<p>This is the third or fourth time I have brought forward a
proposition on suffrage substantially like the one just presented
to the House. I do so again because I believe the question of
citizenship suffrage one which ought to be met and settled now.
Important and all-absorbing as many questions are which now press
themselves upon our consideration, to me no one is so vitally
important as this. Tariffs, taxation, and finance ought not to be
permitted to supersede a question affecting the peace and
personal security of every citizen, and, I may add, the peace and
security of the nation. No party can be justified in withholding
the ballot from any citizen of mature years, native or foreign
born, except such as are <i>non compos</i> or are guilty of infamous
crimes; nor can they justly confer this great privilege upon one
class of citizens to the exclusion of another class. </p></blockquote>

<p>The <i>Revolution</i> of March 19, 1868, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Notwithstanding the most determined hostility to the demands of
the age for female physicians, institutions for their educational
preparation for professional responsibilities are rapidly
increasing. The ball first began to move in the United
States,<a name="FNanchor_290_290" id="FNanchor_290_290"></a><a href="#Footnote_290_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a> and now a female medical college is in successful
operation in London, where the favored monopolizers of physic and
surgery were resolved to keep out all new ideas in their line by
acts of parliament. But the ice-walls of opposition have melted
away, and even in Russia a woman has graduated with high medical
honors. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_496" id="Page_496">[Pg 496]</a></span></p>

<p>The following statistics from Thomas Wentworth Higginson settle
many popular objections to a collegiate education for women:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Graduates of Antioch College</span>.&mdash;In a paper read before the Social
Science Association in the spring of 1874 I pointed out the
presumption to be, that if a desire for knowledge was implanted
in the minds of women, they had also as a class the physical
capacity to gratify it; and that therefore the burden of proof
lay on those who opposed such education, on physiological
grounds, to collect facts in support of their position. In
criticising Dr. Clarke's book, "Sex in Education," I called
attention to the fact that he has made no attempt to do this, but
has merely given a few detached cases, whose scientific value is
impaired by the absence of all proof whether they stand for few
or many. We need many facts and a cautious induction; not merely
a few facts and a sweeping induction. I am now glad to put on
record a tabular view<a name="FNanchor_291_291" id="FNanchor_291_291"></a><a href="#Footnote_291_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> of the graduates of Antioch, with
special reference to their physical health and condition; the
facts being collected and mainly arranged by Professor J. B.
Weston of Antioch&mdash;who has been connected with that institution
from its foundation&mdash;with the aid of Mrs. Weston and Rev. Olympia
Brown, both graduates of the college. For the present form of the
table, however, I alone am responsible.</p>

<p>It appears that of the 41 graduates, ranging from the year 1857
to 1873, no fewer than 36 are now living. Of these the health of
11 is reported as "very good"; 19<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_497" id="Page_497">[Pg 497]</a></span> "good"; making 30 in all; 1 is
reported as "fair"; 1 "uncertain"; 1 "not good," and 3 "unknown."
Of the 41 graduates, 30 are reported as married and 11 are
single, five of these last having graduated within three years.
Of the 30 married, 24 have children, numbering 48 or 49 in all.
Of the 6 childless, 3 are reported as very recently married; one
died a few months after marriage, and the facts in the other
cases are not given. Thirty-four of the forty-one have taught
since graduated, and I agree with Professor Weston that teaching
is as severe a draft on the constitution as study. Taking these
facts as a whole, I do not see how the most earnest advocate of
higher education could ask for a more encouraging exhibit; and I
submit the case without argument, so far as this pioneer
experiment at coëducation is concerned. If any man seriously
believes that his non-collegiate relatives are in better physical
condition than this table shows, I advise him to question
forty-one of them and tabulate the statistics obtained. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the following editorial in the <i>Woman's Journal</i> Mr. Higginson
pursues the opposition still more closely, and answers their
frivolous objections:</p>

<blockquote><p>I am surprised to find that Professor W.S. Tyler of Amherst
College, in his paper on "The Higher Education of Woman," in
<i>Scribner's Monthly</i> for February, repeats the unfair statements
of President Eliot of Harvard, in regard to Oberlin College. The
fallacy and incorrectness of those statements were pointed out on
the spot by several, and were afterwards thoroughly shown by
President Fairchild of Oberlin; yet Professor Tyler repeats them
all. He asserts that there has been a great falling off in the
number of students in that college; he entirely ignores the
important fact of the great multiplication of colleges which
admit women; and he implies, if he does not assert, that the
separate ladies' course at Oberlin has risen as a substitute for
the regular college course. His words are these, the italics
being my own:</p>

<blockquote><p>In Oberlin, where the experiment has been tried under the most
favorable circumstances, it has proved a failure so far as the
regular college course is concerned. The number of young women in
that course, instead of increasing with the prosperity of the
institution, <i>has diminished, so that it now averages only two or
three to a class</i>. The rest pursue a different curriculum, live
in a separate dormitory, and study by themselves in a course of
their own, reciting, indeed, with the young men, and by way of
reciprocity and in true womanly compassion, allowing some of them
to sit at their table in the dining-hall, but yet constituting
substantially a female seminary, or, if you please, a woman's
college in the university.&mdash;<i>Scribner, February, page 457.</i> </p></blockquote>

<p>Now, it was distinctly stated by President Fairchild last summer,
that this "different curriculum" was the course originally marked
out for women, and that the regular college course was an
after-thought. This disposes of the latter part of Professor
Tyler's statement. I revert, therefore, to his main statement, that
"the number of young women in the collegiate course has diminished,
so that it now averages only two or three to a class." Any reader
would suppose his meaning to be that taking one year with another,
and comparing later years with the early years of Oberlin, there
has been a diminution of women. What is the fact? The Oberlin
College triennial catalogue of 1872 lies before me, and I have
taken the pains to count and tabulate the women graduated in
different years, during the thirty-two years after 1841, when they
began to be graduated there. Dividing them into decennial periods,
I find the numbers to be as follows: 1841-1850, thirty-two women
were graduated; 1851-1860, seventeen women were graduated;
1861-1870, forty women were graduated. From this it appears that
during the third decennial period there was not only no diminution,
but actually a higher average than before. During the first period
the classes averaged 3.2 women; during the second period 1.7 women,
and during the third period 4 women. Or if, to complete the
exhibit, we take in the two odd classes at the end, and make the
third period consist of twelve classes, the average will still be
3.8, and will be larger than either of the previous periods. Or if,
disregarding the even distribution of periods, we take simply the
last ten years, the average will be 3.1. Moreover,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_498" id="Page_498">[Pg 498]</a></span> during the
first period there was one class (1842) which contained no women at
all; and during the second period there were three such classes
(1852-3, 7); while during the third period every class has had at
least one woman.</p>

<p>It certainly would not have been at all strange if there had been a
great falling off in the number of graduates of Oberlin. At the
outset it had the field to itself. Now the census gives fifty-five
"colleges" for women, besides seventy-seven which admit both sexes.
Many of these are inferior to Oberlin, no doubt, but some rose
rapidly to a prestige far beyond this pioneer institution. With
Cornell University on the one side, and the University of Michigan
on the other&mdash;to say nothing of minor institutions&mdash;the wonder is
that Oberlin could have held its own at all. Yet the largest class
of women it ever graduated (thirteen) was so late as 1865, and if
the classes since then "average but two or three," so did the
classes for several years before that date. Professor Tyler knows
very well that classes fluctuate in every college, and that a
decennial period is the least by which the working of any system
can be tested. Tried by this test, the alleged diminution assumes a
very different aspect. If, however, there were a great decline at
Oberlin, it would simply show a transfer of students to other
colleges, since neither Professor Tyler nor President Eliot will
deny that the total statistics of colleges show a rapid increase in
the number of women.</p>

<p>Moreover, I confess that my confidence in Professor Tyler's sense
of accuracy is greatly impaired by these assertions about Oberlin,
and also by his statement, which I must call reckless, at least, in
regard to the inferiority in truth, purity and virtue of those
women who seek the suffrage. He asserts (page 456) that
"women&mdash;women generally&mdash;the truest, purest and best of the sex&mdash;do
not wish for the right of suffrage." Now, if the women who oppose
suffrage are truest, purest and best, the women who advocate it
must plainly be inferior at all these points; and that is an
assertion which not only these women themselves, but their
brothers, husbands and sons are certainly entitled to resent. Mr.
Tyler has a perfect right to argue for his own views, for or
against suffrage, but he has no right to copy the Oriental
imprecation, and say to his opponents, "May the grave of your
mother be defiled!." He claims that he holds official relations to
one "woman's college," one "female seminary" and one "young ladies'
institute." Will it conduce to the moral training of those who
enter those institutions that their officers set them the example
of impugning the purity and virtue of those who differ in opinion
from themselves?</p>

<p>But supposing Professor Tyler not to be bound by the usual bonds of
courtesy or of justice, he is at least bound by the consistency of
his own position. Thus, he goes out of his way to compliment Mrs.
Somerville and Miss Mitchell. Both these ladies are identified with
the claim for suffrage. He lauds "Uncle Tom's Cabin," but Mrs.
Stowe has written almost as ably for the enfranchisement of woman
as for the freedom of the blacks. He praises the "sacramental host
of authoresses," who, he says, "will move on with ever-growing
power, overthrowing oppression, restraining vice and crime,
reforming morals and manners, purifying public sentiment,
revolutionizing business, society and government, till every yoke
is broken and all nations are won to the truth." But it has been
again and again shown that the authoresses of America are, with but
two or three exceptions, in favor of woman suffrage, and,
therefore, instead of being "sacramental," do not even belong to
Professor Tyler's class of "wisest, truest and best." He thus
selects for compliment on one page the very women whom he has
traduced on another. His own witnesses testify against him. It is a
pity that such phrases of discourtesy and unfairness should
disfigure an essay which in many respects says good words for
women, recommends that they should study Greek, and says, in
closing, that their elevation "is at once the measure and the means
of the elevation of mankind." </p></blockquote>

<p>In the autumn of 1884 an effort was made to exclude women from
Adelbert College. We give an account thereof from the pen of Mrs.
Sarah Knowles Bolton, published in the <i>English Woman's Review</i> of
January, 1885:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_499" id="Page_499">[Pg 499]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Dear Editor</span>: The city of Cleveland has been stirred for weeks on
this question of woman's higher education. Western Reserve
College, founded in 1826, at Hudson, was moved to Cleveland in
1874, because of a gift of $100,000 from Mr. Amasa Stone, with
the change of name to Adelbert College, in memory of an only son.
A few young women had been students since 1873. In Cleveland,
about twenty young ladies availed themselves of such admirable
home privileges. Their scholarship was excellent&mdash;higher than
that of the young men. They were absent from exercises only half
as much as the men. Their conduct was above reproach. A short
time since the faculty, except the president, Dr. Carroll Cutler,
petitioned the board of trustees to discontinue coëducation at
the college, for the assumed reasons that girls require different
training from boys, never "identical" education; that it is
trying to their health to recite before young men; "the strain
upon the nervous system from mortifying mistakes and serious
corrections is to many young ladies a cruel additional burden
laid upon them in the course of study"; "that the provision we
offer to girls is not the best, and is even dangerous"; that
"where women are admitted, the college becomes second or
third-rate, and that, worst of all, young men will be deterred
from coming to this college by the presence of ladies." An
"annex" was recommended, not with college degrees, but a
subordinate arrangement with "diploma examinations, so far and so
fast as the resources of the college shall allow."</p>

<p>As soon as the subject became known, the newspapers of the city
took up the question. As the public furnishes the means and the
students for every college, the public were vitally interested.
Ministers preached about it, and they, with doctors and lawyers,
wrote strong articles, showing that no "annex" was desired; that
parents wished thorough, high, self-reliant education for their
daughters as for their sons; that health was not injured by the
embarrassment (?) of reciting before young men; that young men
had not been deterred from going to Ann Arbor, Oberlin, Cornell,
and other institutions where there are young women; that it was
unjust to make girls go hundreds of miles away to Vassar or Smith
or Wellesley, when boys were provided with the best education at
their very doors; that, with over half the colleges of this
country admitting women, with the colleges of Italy, Switzerland,
Sweden, Holland and France throwing open their doors to women,
for Adelbert College to shut them out, would be a step backward
in civilization.</p>

<p>The women of the city took up the matter, and several thousands
of our best names were obtained to a petition, asking that girls
be retained members of the college; judges and leading persons
gladly signed. The trustees met November 7, 1884. The whole city
eagerly waited the result. The chairman of the committee, Hon. I.
W. Chamberlain of Columbus, who had been opposed to coëducation
at first, from the favorable reports received by him from
colleges all over the country, had become a thorough convert, and
the report was able and convincing.</p>

<p>President Angell of Michigan University, where there are 1,500
students, wrote: "Women were admitted here under the pressure of
public sentiment against the wishes of most of the professors.
But I think no professor now regrets it, or would favor the
exclusion of women. We made no solitary modification of our rules
or requirements. The women did not become hoydenish; they did not
fail in their studies; they did not break down in health; they
have been graduated in all departments; they have not been
inferior in scholarship to the men. We count the experiment here
successful."</p>

<p>Galusha Anderson, president of Chicago University, wrote: "Our
only law here is that the students shall act as gentlemen and
ladies. They mingle freely together, just as they do in society,
as I think God intended that they should, and the effect in all
respects is good. I have never had the slightest trouble from the
association of the sexes."</p>

<p>Chancellor Manatt of Nebraska University, for four years engaged
in university work at Yale, in answer to the questions as to
whether boys would be driven away from the institution, replied:
"This question sounds like a joke in this longitude. As<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_500" id="Page_500">[Pg 500]</a></span> well say
a girl's being born into a family turns the boys out of doors. It
rather strengthens the home attraction. So in the university. I
believe there is not a professor or student here who would not,
for good and solid reasons, fight for the system."</p>

<p>President Warren of Boston University, lately the recipient of,
£200,000, wrote: "The only opponents of coëducation I have ever
known are persons who know nothing about it practically, and
whose difficulties are all speculative and imaginary. Men are
more manly and women more womanly when concerted in a wholly
human society than when educated in a half-human one."</p>

<p>President White of Cornell wrote: "I regard the 'annex' for women
in our colleges as a mere make-shift and step in the progress
toward the full admission of women to all college classes, and I
think that this is a very general view among men who have given
unprejudiced thought to the subject. Having now gone through one
more year, making twelve in all since women were admitted, I do
not hesitate to say that I believe their presence here is good
for us in every respect."</p>

<p>Professor Moses Coit Tyler of Cornell said: "My observation has
been that under the joint system the tone of college life has
grown more earnest, more courteous and refined, less flippant and
cynical. The women are usually among the very best scholars, and
lead instead of drag, and their lapses from good health are
rather, yes, decidedly, less numerous than those alleged by the
men. There is a sort of young man who thinks it not quite the
thing, you know, to be in a college where women are; and he goes
away, if he can, and I am glad to have him do so. The vacuum he
causes is not a large one, and his departure is more than made up
by the arrival in his stead of a more robust and manlier sort."</p>

<p>The only objectors to coëducation were from those colleges which
had never tried it; President Porter of Yale thought it a
suitable method for post-graduate classes, and President Seeley
for a course of "lower grade" than Amherst.</p>

<p>President Cutler of Adelbert College made an able report, showing
that the progress of the age is towards coëducation. Only
fifty-three Protestant colleges, founded since 1830, exclude
women; while 156 coëducational institutions have been established
since that date.</p>

<p>Some of the trustees thought it desirable to imitate Yale,<a name="FNanchor_292_292" id="FNanchor_292_292"></a><a href="#Footnote_292_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a>
and others felt that <i>they</i> knew what studies are desirable for
woman better than she knew herself! When the vote was taken, to
their honor be it said, it was twelve to six, or two to one, in
favor of coëducation. The girls celebrated this just and manly
decision by a banquet. </p></blockquote>

<p>The inauguration of the women's crusade at this time (1874) in Ohio
created immense excitement, not only throughout that State, but it
was the topic for the pulpit and the press all over the nation.
Those identified with the woman suffrage movement, while deeply
interested in the question of temperance, had no sympathy with what
they felt to be a desecration of womanhood and of the religious
element in woman. They felt that the fitting place for petitions
and appeals was in the halls of legislation, to senators and
congressmen, rather than rumsellers and drunkards in the dens of
vice and the public thoroughfares. It was pitiful to see the faith
of women in God's power to effect impossibilities. Like produces
like in the universe of matter and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_501" id="Page_501">[Pg 501]</a></span> mind, and so long as women
consent to make licentious, drunken men the fathers of their
children, no power in earth or heaven can save the race from these
twin vices. The following letter from Miriam M. Cole makes some
good points on this question:</p>

<blockquote><p>If the "woman's war against whisky" had been inaugurated by the
woman suffrage party, its aspect, in the eyes of newspapers,
would be different from what it now is. If Lucy Stone had set the
movement on foot, it would have been so characteristic of her!
What more could one expect from such a disturber of public peace?
She, who has no instinctive scruples against miscellaneous crowds
at the polls, might be expected to visit saloons and piously
serenade their owners, until patience ceases to be a virtue. But
for women who are so pressed with domestic cares that they have
no time to vote; for women who shun notoriety so much that they
are unwilling to ask permission to vote; for women who believe
that men are quite capable of managing State and municipal
affairs without their interference; for them to have set on foot
the present crusade, how queer! Their singing, though charged
with a moral purpose, and their prayers, though directed to a
specific end, do not make their warfare a whit more feminine, nor
their situation more attractive. A woman knocking out the head of
a whisky barrel with an ax, to the tune of Old Hundred, is not
the ideal woman sitting on a sofa, dining on strawberries and
cream, and sweetly warbling, "The Rose that All are Praising."
She is as far from it as Susan B. Anthony was when pushing her
ballot into the box. And all the difference between the musical
saint spilling the precious liquid and the unmusical saint
offering her vote is, that the latter tried to kill several birds
with one stone, and the former aims at only one.</p>

<p>Intemperance, great a curse as it is, is not the only evil whose
effects bear most heavily on women. Wrong is hydra-headed, and to
work so hard to cut off one head, when there is a way by which
all may be dissevered, is not a far-sighted movement; and when
you add to this the fact that the head is not really cut off, but
only dazed by unexpected melodies and supplications, there is
little satisfaction in the effort. We learn that, outside of town
corporations that have been lately "rectified," the liquor
traffic still goes on, and the war is to be carried into the
suburbs. What then? Where next? Which party can play this game
the longer? Tears, prayers and songs will soon lose their
novelty&mdash;this spasmodic effort will be likely soon to spend
itself; is there any permanent good being wrought? Liquor traffic
opposes woman suffrage, and with good reasons. It knows that
votes change laws, and it also knows that the votes of women
would change the present temperance laws and make them worth the
paper on which they are printed. While this uprising of women is
a hopeful sign, yet it cannot make one law black or white. It
may, for a time, mold public opinion, but depraved passions and
appetites need wholesome laws to restrain them. If women would
only see this and demand the exercise of their right of suffrage
with half the zeal and unanimity with which they storm a man's
castle, it would be granted. This is the only ax to lay at the
root of the tree.</p>

<p>Springfield, Ohio, has just had a case in a Justice Court which
attracted much attention and awakened much interest. A woman
whose husband had reduced his family to utter want by
drunkenness, entered a suit against the rumseller. An appeal from
the drunkard's wife to the ladies of Springfield had been
circulated in the daily papers, which so aroused them that a
large delegation of the most respectable and pious women of the
city came into the court. But the case was adjourned for a week.
During this time the excitement had become so great that when the
trial came on the court-room was full of spectators, and the
number of ladies within the rail was increased three-fold. Mrs.
E. D. Stewart made the plea to the jury. A verdict was rendered
against the rumseller. An appeal will be taken; but the citizens
of Springfield will never forget the influence which the presence
of women, in sympathy with another wronged woman, had upon the
court. And what added power those women<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_502" id="Page_502">[Pg 502]</a></span> would have had as
judges, jurors and advocates; citizens crowned with all the
rights, privileges and immunities justly theirs by law and
constitution. </p></blockquote>

<p>Of the work in Geauga county, Mrs. Sophia Ober Allen, of South
Newbury writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the winter of 1851-2, Anson Read circulated a petition praying
the legislature to protect married women in their property
rights; and from that time the subject of women's rights was
frequently discussed in social and literary gatherings. In 1871,
Mrs. Lima Ober proposed to be one of six women to go to the
township election and offer her vote. Nine<a name="FNanchor_293_293" id="FNanchor_293_293"></a><a href="#Footnote_293_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a> joined her, but
all their votes were rejected, the judges saying they feared
trouble would be the result if they received them. From that year
to 1876 these heroic women of South Newbury persisted in offering
their votes at the town, state and presidential elections; and
though always refused, they would repair to another room with the
few noble men who sustained them, and there duly cast their
ballots for justice and equality. On one occasion they polled
fifty votes&mdash;thirty-one women and nineteen men. In 1876 they
adopted a series of stirring resolutions with a patriotic
declaration of principles.</p>

<p>In 1873, large meetings were held, and a memorial sent to the
constitutional convention, asking for an amendment, that "the
right to vote shall not be denied or abridged to any adult
citizen except for crime, idiocy or lunacy." On January 12, 1874,
a political club was organized,<a name="FNanchor_294_294" id="FNanchor_294_294"></a><a href="#Footnote_294_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> which has been active in
holding meetings and picnics, circulating petitions and tracts.
On July 4, 1874, a basket picnic was held in Ober and Allen's
grove, at which Gen. A. C. Voris was among the speakers.<a name="FNanchor_295_295" id="FNanchor_295_295"></a><a href="#Footnote_295_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a>
Hon. A. G. Riddle, whose early life was spent mostly in Newbury,
encouraged and assisted the work, both by voice and pen. During
the winter of 1878, Susan B. Anthony, in company with my husband
and myself, lectured in several towns under the auspices of the
club. Miss Eva L. Pinney, a native of Newbury, was employed by
the club to canvass the county. Her success was marked. In 1879
the treasury received a bequest of $50, from Reuben H. Ober, who,
though spending much of his time in the East, ever sustained a
live interest in the home society.<a name="FNanchor_296_296" id="FNanchor_296_296"></a><a href="#Footnote_296_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a> </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_503" id="Page_503">[Pg 503]</a></span></p>

<p>Mrs. Sarah Langdon Williams sends us the following report from the
Toledo society:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the winter of 1869, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony returning
from an extended trip through the West, spent a few days in
Toledo. In addition to public meetings, their coming was the
occasion for many pleasant and hospitable gatherings. A large
circle of intelligent and earnest women were longing and waiting
to do something to speed the movement for woman suffrage, when
the coming of these pioneers of reform roused them to action. It
was like the match to the fire all ready for kindling, and an
organization was speedily effected.<a name="FNanchor_297_297" id="FNanchor_297_297"></a><a href="#Footnote_297_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a> From that time forward,
the air seemed magnetized with reform ideas, and to the loyal
band who stood true to their flag, new members were added from
time to time, and from this little band went forth an influence,
a steady force which has operated silently though continuously
through both visible and invisible channels, moulding the thought
and action of the community. The meetings of this association
were regularly reported by the daily press, with more or less
justice, according as the reporter present, or the newspaper
which reported the proceedings, was more or less friendly.</p>

<p>A letter published in <i>The Revolution</i> of June 10, 1869,
indicates the practical work of our association:</p>

<blockquote><p>The first skirmish along the line of the suffrage army in Ohio
has been fought, and the friends of reformation may well rejoice
at the result. In this city there has existed for a long time a
library association to which women were admitted as members, but
in the control or management of which they had no voice. Under
the pressure of influences set in motion by your visit, it was
resolved that this relic of the past should be swept away, that
women should be represented in the management as well as in the
membership of the association. At the late election six directors
were to be chosen among other officers, and Miss Anna C.
Mott,<a name="FNanchor_298_298" id="FNanchor_298_298"></a><a href="#Footnote_298_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a> Mrs. M. W. Bond and Mrs. M. J. Barker were candidates
upon a ticket called the Equal Rights Ticket, headed by Mr. A. W.
Gleason, for president. The dangerous proposition, not only of
allowing women to vote, but of giving them offices, was a
bombshell in the camp of conservatism, and every influence that
could be, was brought to bear against this ticket. After an
exciting contest, the result showed that notwithstanding a
powerful and influential opposition, the ticket was elected by a
vote of from 186 to 220 out of 327 votes. This result has been
all the more grateful, because in the opposition were to be found
many of the most wealthy and respected citizens of Toledo.</p>

<p>As an index of the interest the women manifested in that
election, three-fourths of them voted. It was interesting to
notice the firmness with which the women walked up to the
ballot-box. No trembling was perceptible. They carried the ballot
with ease, deposited it with coolness, watched to see that no
fraud was perpetrated, and then departed as noiselessly as they
came. The deed was done. Woman's honor, woman's purity, woman's
domestic felicity, woman's conjugal love, woman's fidelity to her
home duties, all these and a thousand other of the finer
qualities were destroyed. No more peace in families; no more
quiet home evenings; no more refined domestic women;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_504" id="Page_504">[Pg 504]</a></span> but
wrangling and discords instead. Soldiers and sailors, policemen
and gravel-shovelers had taken the place of wives and mothers.
Sick at heart I went to my home and wept for American womanhood.
But the sun rose as usual, and the world still revolved. I went
to the police-court&mdash;all was quiet. I passed to the county-court,
and looked over the docket&mdash;no new divorce cases met my gaze.
With unsteady hand I have opened the morning papers for the past
few days, but nothing there betrayed the terrible results of that
false step. Oh, women! women! In the days of Indian warfare, the
skilled hunter would tell you that after an attack, when all was
quiet, and you thought the enemy had departed, the greatest
danger awaited, and the most careful vigilance was required. So I
still keep watching, for I know the vengeance of the gods must
fall upon this worse than Sodom, for since women have voted,
surely there be not five righteous within the city. Real estate
is not falling, however, but then!&mdash;</p>

<p>The evening after the election, the friends of the association
and of the successful tickets, gathered to witness the incoming
of the new administration. Hearty words of cheer for the future
were spoken. The president, Mr. Gleason, delivered a beautiful
inaugural address, of which I send you a few sentences, and the
meeting adjourned.</p>

<p>The president said: While thanking you most heartily, ladies and
gentlemen, for the distinguished honor conferred upon me in the
election, I do not forget that it is due to the great principles
of equal rights and universal suffrage&mdash;not to any merits of my
own. We live in an age of progress. In my humble opinion we have
taken a great step forward in admitting ladies to the management
of this association&mdash;not only from the fact that in this
particular institution they hold an equal footing with ourselves,
and of right are entitled to all its privileges, but from the
more important fact that it is a recognition here of those
principles which are now claiming recognition in the political
institutions of our country. It is in the natural order of events
that this "equal rights" movement should meet with opposition.
All movements of a novel and radical character at their
commencement meet with opposition. This is the ordeal through
which they must pass, but their success or failure depends upon
their intrinsic merit. Nothing is to be feared from opposition to
any movement that possesses these elements. Whatsoever idea has
its origin in the recesses of human nature, will, sooner or
later, become embodied in living action, and so we have this
assurance&mdash;that as here, so also in the political institutions of
our country&mdash;this principle of equal rights, both to man and
woman, will at last prevail. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1871 the <i>Sunday Journal</i> offered the association half a column,
which was gratefully accepted, and Mrs. Sarah Langdon Williams
appointed editor. The department increased to a full page, and the
circulation of the paper became as large as that of either of the
city dailies. When there was danger of its being sold to opponents
of the cause, Mrs. Williams purchased one-half interest, and by so
doing kept the other half in the hands of the friendly proprietor.
In the <i>Sunday Journal</i> the association had a medium through which
it could promptly answer all unjust attacks, and thus kept up a
constant agitation. In November, 1875, the sale of the paper closed
for a while direct communication between the association and the
public. But soon becoming restive without any medium through which
to express itself, the society started <i>The Ballot-Box</i> in April,
1876, raising money among the citizens in aid of the enterprise.
With this first assistance the paper became at once
self-supporting, and continued thus until April, 1878,<a name="FNanchor_299_299" id="FNanchor_299_299"></a><a href="#Footnote_299_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a> when it
was transferred to Matilda Joslyn Gage, and published at Syracuse,
N. Y.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_505" id="Page_505">[Pg 505]</a></span></p>

<p>The convention for the remodeling of the constitution of the State,
in 1873-74, afforded an opportunity for unflagging efforts of the
members of the association in the circulation of petitions; and so
successful were they that when their delegates presented themselves
with 1,500 signatures, asking for an amendment securing the right
of suffrage to women, a member of the convention, on scanning the
roll, exclaimed: "Why, you have here all the solid men of Lucas
county." Mr. M. R. Waite, since chief-justice of the Supreme Court
of the United States, was president of the convention, and in
presenting the petition said the names on that paper represented
fifteen millions of dollars. Mr. Waite's courtesy indicated
stronger convictions regarding the rights of women than he really
possessed. In an interview with our committee, appointed to secure
a hearing from the members-elect&mdash;Mr. Waite and Mr. Scribner&mdash;Mr.
Waite declared himself in favor of according equal wages to women,
and believed them entitled to all other rights, except the right to
vote. He thought women were entitled to a hearing in the
convention, and would aid them all he could to secure the
privilege. Mr. Waite, with great kindness of nature, possesses an
inborn conservatism which curbs his more generous impulses. He
adhered to this position in his decision in the case of <i>Minor vs.
Happersett</i>, declaring that "the constitution of the United States
has no voters." Many of the most sanguine friends were greatly
disappointed. They had fully believed his love of justice would
lead him to the broad interpretation of the constitution, so
clearly the true one, set forth in the first article of the
fourteenth amendment. It did prevail, however, when, after saying
the constitution does not confer the right of suffrage with
citizenship, he said: "If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed;
but the power is not with the Supreme Court."</p>

<p>When, in February, 1873, an irascible judge of the Court of Common
Pleas refused to ratify the appointment of a woman&mdash;Miss Mary
Sibley&mdash;to the office of deputy clerk, which she had filled for
eight years with unusual acceptance, on the ground that not being
an elector she was legally disqualified, the association determined
to dispute the decision in her behalf, and on applying through
their president to Mr. Waite to act as counsel, he gave his
unhesitating acceptance, and declared that if the appointment was
illegal, the law ought to be changed at once. True to his promise,
he defended her most ably, and engaged other counsel to act with
him. His services were given gratuitously.</p>

<p>Subsequently, in the constitutional convention, an amendment was
adopted making women eligible to appointive offices, and also to
any office under the school control, with the exception of State
commissioner. But when voted upon, the new constitution was lost,
and with it these amendments. The cause had able advocates in the
convention, leading whom was General A. C. Voris of Akron, who was
made chairman of the Special Committee on Woman Suffrage. The
Standing Committee on Elective Franchise was extremely unfriendly,
conspicuously so the chairman, Mr. Sample. A Special Committee on
Woman Suffrage was appointed, which performed its duty faithfully,
and reported unanimously in favor. Mr. Voris worked for the measure
with an enthusiasm equaled only by his<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_506" id="Page_506">[Pg 506]</a></span> ability. When the report
came up for discussion he made a masterly speech of two hours,
during which the attention was so close that a pin could be heard
to drop. Other able speeches were also made in favor of the measure
by some of the most talented members of the convention. It came
within two votes of being carried. The defeat was largely due to
the liquor influence in the convention. The cause, however,
received a new impetus through the exertions of General Voris, to
whom, second to no other person in Ohio, should the thanks of the
women be rendered. During the contest the Toledo society was
constantly on the alert. On three occasions it sent its delegates
to the convention; but it has not limited its work to Ohio alone;
it has given freely of its means whenever it could to aid the
struggle in other States, and has rolled up large petitions to
congress asking for a sixteenth amendment.</p>

<p>When the State convention met in Toledo, February, 1873, the
members of the city society exerted themselves to the utmost to
have all arrangements for their reception and entertainment of the
most satisfactory character, and the delegates unanimously agreed
they had never before had so delightful and successful a meeting.
Many lasting friendships were formed. The opera-house was well
filled at every session of the three days' convention. At the
opening session a cordial address of welcome was given by Rev.
Robert McCune, one of Toledo's most eloquent Republicans. The mayor
of the city, Dr. W. W. Jones, a staunch Democrat, also made a
courteous speech.</p>

<p>The Toledo Society has always held itself an independent
organization, though its members, individually, have identified
themselves as they chose with other associations. Its attitude has
been of the most uncompromising character. It has never been
cajoled into accepting a crumb in any way in the place of the whole
loaf. Sometimes this has brought upon it the condemnation of
friends, but in the long run it has won respect, even from bitter
opponents. An illustration of this was given in its action with
regard to the centennial celebration. The Fourth of July, 1876, was
to be observed in Toledo as a great gala day. Long before its
arrival preparations were in progress through which patriotic
citizens were to express their gratitude over the nation's
prosperity on the one-hundredth anniversary of freedom. All trades,
professions and organizations were to join in one vast triumphal
procession. A call was issued for a meeting, to which all
organizations were requested to send representatives. The Woman
Suffrage Association was not neglected, and a circular of
invitation was mailed to its president. This raised a delicate
question, for how could women take part in celebrating the triumphs
of their country whose laws disfranchised them? But, having
received a courteous recognition, they must respond with equal
courtesy. The letter was laid before the society, and the president
instructed to politely decline the honor. <i>The Ballot-Box</i> of May,
1876, contains the correspondence:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Toledo</span>, Ohio, April 8, 1876.</p>

<p>At a meeting of citizens, held at White's Hall, on the evening of
the 6th inst., the undersigned were instructed to invite your
organization, with others, to send a representative to a meeting
to be held at White's Hall, on the evening of Monday, April<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_507" id="Page_507">[Pg 507]</a></span> 17,
which will elect an executive committee, and make other
arrangements for a celebration by Toledo of the one-hundredth
anniversary of American independence in a manner befitting the
occasion and the character of our city. It is earnestly desired
that every organization, of whatever nature, in Toledo, be
represented at this meeting. We would, therefore, ask of you that
you lay the matter before your organization at its next regular
meeting, or in case it shall hold no meeting before the 17th,
that you appear as a representative yourself.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Guido Marx</span>, <i>Chairman</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><span class="smcap">D. R. Locke, James H. Emory</span>, <i>Secretaries</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This was laid before the association at a meeting which occurred
the same afternoon, and by the order of the society the invitation
therein conveyed was replied to in season to be read at the meeting
at White's Hall, April 17:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Toledo</span>, Ohio, April 15, 1876.</p>

<p><i>Hon. Guido Marx, Messrs. D. R. Locke and James H. Emory</i>:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>: The printed circular, with your names attached,
inclosed to my address as president of the Toledo Woman Suffrage
Association, inviting that body to send a representative to a
meeting to be held at White's Hall, Monday evening, April 17, to
elect an executive committee and make other arrangements for a
celebration by Toledo of the one-hundredth anniversary of
American independence, was received just in time to lay before
the meeting held April 10. It was there decided that while the
members of the association fully appreciate the generosity of the
men of Toledo, and feel grateful for the implied recognition of
their citizenship, yet they manifestly have no centennial to
celebrate, as the government still holds them in a condition of
political serfdom, denying them the greatest right of
citizenship&mdash;representation.</p>

<p>Conscious, however, of the great results which the nation's
hundred years have achieved in building up a great people, we are
aware that you, as American men, have cause for rejoicing, and we
bid you God-speed in all efforts which you may make in the
approaching celebration. In an equal degree we feel it
inconsistent, as a disfranchised class, to unite with you in the
celebration of that liberty which is the heritage of but one-half
the people. It is the will, therefore, of the association that I
respond to the above effect, thanking you for your courteous
invitation, and recognizing with pleasure among your names those
who have heretofore extended to us their sympathy and aid. I
remain, with sincere respect, yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Sarah R. L. Williams</span>, <i>President T. W. S. A.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The letter was intended to be in all respects courteous, as the
writer and the society which she represented had naught but the
kindest of feelings toward those who, in so friendly a manner,
recognized their citizenship by inviting them to take part in the
meeting, and also toward the Toledo public, who, as a general
thing, had treated their organization with friendly consideration.
It appears, however, that their attitude was misconstrued,
according to articles subsequently published in the <i>Blade</i> and
<i>Commercial</i>, which we reproduce below:</p>

<blockquote><p>The women say they "manifestly have no centennial to celebrate."
If we are not mistaken, the women of this country have enjoyed
greater progress than the men under our free government, and it
illy becomes them now to steadily and persistently pout because
they have not yet attained the full measure of their earthly
desires&mdash;the ballot-box. Better by far give a hearty show of
appreciation of benefits received, and thereby materially aid in
further progress. Nothing can be gained by their refusing to
celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of civil and religious
liberty. The rights of all are necessarily restricted wherever
there is a government, and time and experience can alone
demonstrate just what extension or contraction of rights and
liberties may be essential to the general good. In our judgment
the women, by refusing to participate in the coming Fourth of
July celebration, have committed an error, the influence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_508" id="Page_508">[Pg 508]</a></span> of
which cannot but prove prejudicial to the interests of their
association. The opposite course would undoubtedly have won
friends.&mdash;<i>Blade.</i></p>

<p>A singularly uncourteous letter was the one sent by the Woman
Suffrage Association to the meeting at White's Hall.
Ninety-nine-hundredths of the women of the country will be
surprised to learn that they "have no centennial to celebrate,"
and will be still more surprised when they discover that it is
"inconsistent" for them to unite with their brothers, fathers,
sons and husbands "in the celebration of the liberty which is the
heritage" of <i>all</i> the people. We cannot but feel that the claims
set forth by the association would command more respectful
consideration with the display of a different spirit. The maids
and matrons of 1776 were of a different mold.&mdash;<i>Commercial.</i> </p></blockquote>

<p>The <i>Blade</i> has been a good friend to woman suffrage for many
years, but we feel that the present article was written in a spirit
of needless irritability, such as we should think might ensue from
a fit of indigestion. The <i>Commercial</i>, since its change of
management, has certainly not been unfriendly, and we have thought
fair. Its present comments are unjust. The following editorial
appeared in <i>The Ballot-Box</i> of the same date:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Why We Cannot Celebrate the Centennial</span>.&mdash;The city dailies
criticise the suffrage association somewhat severely for
declining to unite in the centennial celebration. Perhaps from
the outlook of masculine satisfaction it may seem astonishing
that patriotism should not inspire us with gratitude for the
crumbs from the national table; that we should not rejoice at the
great banquet being prepared. But it is as impossible for us to
look from their standpoint, as for them to see from ours. While
appreciating the kindnesses measured out to us in this city by
our friends and the press, yet laboring without visible results
for the recognition of our rights as citizens of the United
States, we cannot, even through the potent incentive of
sympathizing with our "husbands, fathers, brothers and sons," lay
aside our grievances and rejoice in a triumph which more clearly
marks our own humiliation.</p>

<p>Can our friends inform us what is our crime, that we are denied
the right of representation? Can they point to any mental or
moral deficiency, to render justifiable our being denied
political rights? If not&mdash;if there is no just cause for our
disfranchisement, it surely should not excite surprise that we
cannot rejoice with those who systematically persist in
perpetrating this great wrong. With no discredit to any of the
sovereign voters of this nation, we cannot forget that the most
ignorant negro, the most degraded foreigner, even refugees from
justice, are accorded the rights which we have been demanding in
vain; and we are conscious every day and hour these privileges
are denied us, that we are not only wronged by the American
government, but insulted. Every year that our appeals for
political rights to congress and the legislature are denied,
insult is heaped upon injury. Women are told by those who are in
the full enjoyment of all the privileges which this government
can confer, to rejoice in what little they have, and wait
patiently until more is bestowed. Wait we must, because they have
the reins of power, but to wait patiently, with the light we have
to perceive our relative condition, would be doing that for which
we should despise ourselves.</p>

<p>We are not laboring for to-day alone, but for the fruïtion which
must come from the establishment of justice. If we fail in this
memorial year, a brighter day must surely come. Our failure now
will be the failure of the country to improve its opportunities.
All the successes which may be rejoiced over, all the triumphs of
trade, commerce and invention are secondary to the rights of
citizens, to those principles which lie at the foundation of
national liberty. When women are recognized as citizens of this
republic, there will be some occasion for their thankfulness and
rejoicing; then they can join in the jubilee which celebrates the
birthday of a mighty nation. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the June meeting of the association, a declaration of rights,
and a series of radical resolutions were adopted. The president
urged the society to stand firm in the determination to take no
part in the centennial<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_509" id="Page_509">[Pg 509]</a></span> celebration, and the members of the
suffrage association passed the Fourth of July quietly at their own
homes, but they caused a banner, bearing the inscription, "Woman
Suffrage and Equal Rights," to be hung across one of the principal
streets, under which the whole procession passed. Of the original
members of the society,<a name="FNanchor_300_300" id="FNanchor_300_300"></a><a href="#Footnote_300_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a> some who during its earlier years took
an active part have removed elsewhere, and a few have passed to the
beyond. But the majority still remain, and are earnest in their
labors with the hope for a better day, undampened by the delays and
disappointments which attend every step in progress. </p></blockquote>

<p>There is a flourishing association at Cleveland called the Western
Reserve Club;<a name="FNanchor_301_301" id="FNanchor_301_301"></a><a href="#Footnote_301_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> Mrs. Sarah M. Perkins and her highly educated
daughters, graduates of Vassar College, are among the leading
members. They hold regular meetings, have a course of lectures
every winter and are exerting a wide influence. The club consists
of thirty members, paying five dollars annually into the treasury.</p>

<blockquote><p>The Painesville Equal Rights Society,<a name="FNanchor_302_302" id="FNanchor_302_302"></a><a href="#Footnote_302_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a> formed November 20,
1883, is one of the most flourishing county associations in the
State. It numbers 150 members, and it has organized many local
societies in the vicinity. The annual meeting of the State
society,<a name="FNanchor_303_303" id="FNanchor_303_303"></a><a href="#Footnote_303_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a> held at Painesville, May 11, 12, 13, 1885, with a
large representation of the most active friends present, by a
unanimous vote declared itself no longer auxiliary to the
American, and thereby secured the coöperation of the Toledo,
South Newbury, and other independent local organizations of the
State. </p></blockquote>

<p>We are indebted to Annie Laurie Quinby for the following account of
the founding of a hospital for women and children, and of some of
the difficulties women encountered in gaining admittance into the
medical colleges:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Quinby says: In 1867, some Cincinnati ladies met at the
residence of Mrs. J. L. Roberts and organized a health
association, the object of which was to obtain and disseminate
knowledge in regard to the science of life and health. Mrs.
Leavett addressed the ladies on the importance of instituting a
medical school for women, stating a recent conversation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_510" id="Page_510">[Pg 510]</a></span> she had
with Prof. Curtis, and suggesting that he be invited to lay his
views before them. A vote to that effect was passed, and in his
address Professor Curtis touched the following points:</p>

<blockquote><p>Women have greater need than men of the knowledge of the science
of life, and can make more profitable use of it. <i>First</i>: They
need this knowledge. In a practice of thirty-six years, full
seven-tenths of my services have been devoted to women who, had
they been properly instructed in the science of life, and careful
to obey those instructions, would not have needed one-seventh of
those services, while they would have prevented six-sevenths of
their sickness, suffering and loss of time, and a like proportion
of the expenses of doctoring, nursing, medicines, etc., etc.
<i>Second</i>: They can make a far better and more profitable use of
this knowledge than men can, because they can better appreciate
the liabilities, sufferings and wants of their sex, which are far
more numerous and imperative than ours; and they are always with
us, from infancy to boyhood and womanhood, to watch us and
protect us from injury, and to relieve us promptly from the
sufferings that may afflict us, as well as to teach us how to
avoid them. <i>Third</i>: Their intellectual power to learn principles
is as great as ours, their perceptions are quicker than ours,
their sympathies are more tender and persistent, and their
watchfulness and patient perseverance with the sick are untiring.
I regard the teaching and practice of the science of life as
woman's peculiarly appropriate sphere. Its value to the family of
the wife and the mother, is beyond estimation in dollars and
cents, by the husband and father. No money that he can properly
spend to secure it to his daughters, should be otherwise
appropriated; for, should they never enter the family relation,
it will be a means of escape from sickness mortification and
expense to themselves, and of useful and honorable subsistence,
not only priceless in its possession, but totally inalienable by
any reverses of fortune. The possession of this knowledge from
their infancy up, would do more to prevent their becoming poor
and "friendless," than do all the alms houses for the former, and
"homes" for the latter that society can build, while it would
cost less to each individual than does an elegant modern piano.
Forty years ago your speaker obtained from the legislature of
Ohio a liberal university charter under the title of "The
Literary and Botanical Medical College of Ohio," which was
afterwards changed to "The Cincinnati Literary and Scientific
Institute and Physio-Medical College." By the aid of able
assistants he conducted this institution for the benefit of men
only, till, in 1851, the students of the class were between
eighty and ninety. From that time to the present, he has received
women into the classes and demonstrated that they are not only as
competent as men to learn all parts of the science of life, but,
in very many particulars, far better qualified for the practice
of the art of curing disease. The last session of the college was
suspended that he might travel in the country and learn the
disposition of the friends of progress to establish the
institution on a permanent foundation, and is happy to say that
all that seems necessary to that glorious consummation is the
prompt and concentrated effort of a few judicious and influential
ladies and their friends to secure pecuniary aid. </p></blockquote>

<p>June 11, 1879, a dispensary for women and children was opened in
Cincinnati, by Drs. Ellen M. Kirk, and M. May Howells, graduates of
the New York College and Hospital for Women. Their undertaking
proving successful, with other ladies of wealth and ability they
soon after established a hospital. November 1, 1881, the
certificate of incorporation<a name="FNanchor_304_304" id="FNanchor_304_304"></a><a href="#Footnote_304_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> was filed in the office of the
secretary of state. The ladies labored unweariedly for the support
of these institutions. At two public entertainments they realized
nearly a thousand dollars. For the establishment of a homeopathic<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_511" id="Page_511">[Pg 511]</a></span>
college they manifested equal earnestness and enthusiasm. Many of
them interested in this mode of practice, seeing the trials of Dr.
Pulte in introducing this new theory of medicine, determined to
help him in building up a college and hospital for that practice.
By one fair they raised $13,500, net profits, and the Pulte Medical
College was established. But the remarkable fact about these
institutions is that after being started through the labors of
women, women appealed in vain for admission for scholarships for a
long time. For a clear understanding of the matter, and a knowledge
of the defense made in behalf of the right of women to enter the
college, I send you the following from Dr. J. D. Buck:</p>

<blockquote><p>Pulte Medical College, of Cincinnati, was organized under the
common law, and opened in 1872, for the admission of students,
with no provision, either for or against the admission of women.
From time to time, during the first seven years, the subject of
the admission of women was broached, but generally bullied out of
court amid sneers and ridicule. The faculty stood five against
and four for. The opposition was the most pronounced and bitter
imaginable, the staple argument being that the mingling of the
sexes in medical colleges led always and necessarily to
licentiousness.</p>

<p>Finally, in the fall of 1877, seven of the nine members of the
faculty voted to admit women. One professor voted no, and the
leader of the opposition, Prof. S. R. Beckwith&mdash;a life-long
opponent of the broader culture of women&mdash;left the meeting with
the purpose of arresting all action. In this, however, he failed;
the vote was confirmed.</p>

<p>On the following day another meeting was held, when the vote was
re-considered and again confirmed, each of the seven members
agreeing to stand by it. Still again, another meeting was called,
at the instance of the leader of the opposition, and in the
absence of two of the staunch friends, a bare majority of the
whole faculty voted to exclude women, as heretofore, and notified
the applicants for admission, who had been officially informed of
the previous resolution to admit them, that they would not be
admitted.</p>

<p>Forbearance on the part of the friends of justice was no more to
be thought of, and notice was given that the wrong should be
righted, at all hazards. For the next two years war raged
persistent and unflinching on the part of the friends of the
rights of women, bitter and slanderous on the part of the
opposition. All the tricks of the politician were resorted to to
defeat the cause of right, and more than once by
misrepresentation they obtained the announcement in the public
press that the case was decided, and women forever excluded.
Still the cause moved on to complete triumph, and to the disgrace
and final exclusion from the college of two of the most bitter
leaders of the opposition.</p>

<p>In the fall of 1879 it was announced in the annual catalogue,
"that students will be admitted to the lectures of Pulte college
without distinction of sex," a very simple result indeed, as the
outcome of two years' warfare. At the opening of lectures the
first of October, four female students presented themselves, and
were admitted to matriculation. Every prophecy of disaster had
failed. The class was an increase in numbers over that of any
preceding year, and showed a marked improvement in deportment and
moral tone from the presence of ladies, who from their high
character and bearing exerted a restraining influence, as they
always do, on those disposed to be gentlemen. At the commencement
exercises in March, 1881, three women, viz: Miss S. C. O'Keefe,
Mrs. Mary N. Street, and Mrs. M. J. Taylor, received the degree
of the college, after having attended the same lectures and been
submitted to the same examination as the male graduates. The
prize for the best examination (in writing) in physiology, was
awarded to Miss Stella Hunt, of Cincinnati. The right of women to
admittance to this college cannot again be raised except by a
two-thirds vote of both faculty and trustees&mdash;a majority which
will be difficult to obtain after the record which the women have
already made as students in the institution.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">J. D. Buck</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours truly,</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_512" id="Page_512">[Pg 512]</a></span></p>

<p>After all this educational work and this seeming triumph for the
recognition of an equal status in the colleges for women, we find
this item going the rounds of the daily journals, under date of
Cleveland, March 29, 1885:</p>

<blockquote><p>Considerable excitement prevails among the homeopathists of
Cleveland. Commencement exercises of the college are to be held
next Tuesday evening, and Miss Madge Dickson, of Chambers, Pa.,
was to have delivered the salutatory address. Dr. H. H. Baxter, a
prominent professor of the college, objected, saying a woman
salutatorian would disgrace the college. Miss Dickson resigned
the honor, and no address will be delivered. </p></blockquote>

<p>In April, 1873, Miss Nettie Cronise of Tiffin, was admitted to the
bar. In the following September, her sister Florence was admitted,
and they practiced as N. &amp; F. Cronise, until Miss Nettie's marriage
with N. B. Lutes, with whom she has since been associated under the
firm name of Lutes &amp; Lutes. Miss Florence Cronise has her office in
Tiffin. Soon after commencing practice Mrs. Lutes was appointed to
examine applicants for admission to the bar, the first instance of
a woman serving in this capacity in the United States, although
Florence Cronise and one or two other women have since done like
duty. These ladies and Miss Hulett were the first women to open law
offices and begin an active, energetic practice of the profession.</p>

<p>In 1885, Miss Mary P. Spargo of Cleveland, was admitted to the bar.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_285_285" id="Footnote_285_285"></a><a href="#FNanchor_285_285"><span class="label">[285]</span></a> Among those associated with Mrs. Mendenhall were
Mrs. Calvin W. Starbuck, Mrs. W. Woods, Miss Elizabeth Morris, Miss
Ellen Thomas, Mrs. Kendrick, sister to General Anderson, Mrs.
Caldwell, Mrs. Annie Ryder, Mrs. Mary Graham, Mrs. Louisa Hill,
Mrs. Hoadly.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_286_286" id="Footnote_286_286"></a><a href="#FNanchor_286_286"><span class="label">[286]</span></a> The officers of Cincinnati Equal Rights Society
were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. H. A. Leavitt; <i>Vice-President</i>, Mr. J. B.
Quinby; <i>Corresponding-Secretary</i>, Mrs. A. L. Ryder;
<i>Recording-Secretary</i>, Mrs. L. H. Blangy; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Mary
Moulton; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mrs. J. B. Quinby, Mr. &mdash;&mdash; Hill,
Mrs. A. L. Ryder. Mrs. Dr. Mortell, Mrs. Mary Moulton, Mrs. Mary
Graham, Mrs. Annie Laurie Quinby, Mrs. L. H. Blangy and Mrs. Dr.
Gibson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_287_287" id="Footnote_287_287"></a><a href="#FNanchor_287_287"><span class="label">[287]</span></a> The delegates appointed were, Mr. and Mrs. J. B.
Quinby, Mrs. Mary Graham, Mrs. Charles Graham, Mrs. Mary Moulton,
Mrs. Dr. Morrel, Mrs. Blangy, Mrs. M. V. Longley, Mr. and Mrs. A.
G. W. Carter, and Mrs. Soula and daughter.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_288_288" id="Footnote_288_288"></a><a href="#FNanchor_288_288"><span class="label">[288]</span></a> The officers of the State Society were: <i>President</i>,
Mrs. H. Tracy Cutler, M. D., Cleveland; <i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs. M.
V. Longley; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. H. M. Downey, Xenia;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Miriam M. Cole, Sidney;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. L. H. Crall, Cincinnati; <i>Warden</i>, Mr. J. B.
Quinby, Cincinnati; <i>Business Committee</i>, A. J. Boyer, esq.,
Dayton; Elias Longley, esq., Cincinnati; Mrs. R. L. Segur, Toledo;
Mrs. Morgan K. Warwick, Cleveland; Dr. M. T. Organ, Urbana; Mrs. E.
D. Stewart, Springfield; Miss Rebecca S. Rice, Yellow Springs.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_289_289" id="Footnote_289_289"></a><a href="#FNanchor_289_289"><span class="label">[289]</span></a> The speakers at Pike's Hall were Susan B. Anthony,
Mary A. Livermore, Lucy Stone, Henry B. Blackwell, Mrs. Dr. Chase,
Miriam M. Cole, Mr. A. J. Boyer, Dr. Mary Walker, J. J. Bellville,
Mary B. Hall, Mrs. Dr. Keckeler, Mrs. Longley, Mrs. Graham, Mrs.
Griffin, and Elizabeth Boynton.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_290_290" id="Footnote_290_290"></a><a href="#FNanchor_290_290"><span class="label">[290]</span></a> At a meeting of the corporators of the Cleveland
Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital for Women, the following
board of trustees was appointed: Stillman Witt, T. S. Beckwith,
Bolivar Butts, N. Schneider, M. D., T. S. Lindsey, Mrs. D.R.
Tilden, Mrs. S. F. Lester, Mrs. Peter Thatcher, Mrs. C. A. Seaman,
M. D., Mrs. M. K. Merrick, M. D., Mrs. S. D. McMillan, Mrs. M. B.
Ambler, Mrs. Lemuel Crawford, Mrs. Henry Chisholm, Mrs. G. B.
Bowers. At a subsequent meeting of the board of trustees, the
following officers were chosen: <i>President</i>, Mrs. C. A. Seaman, M.
D.; <i>Vice-president</i>, Mrs. S. F. Lester; <i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. M. B.
Ambler; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. S. D. McMillan.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_291_291" id="Footnote_291_291"></a><a href="#FNanchor_291_291"><span class="label">[291]</span></a>
</p>

<div class="center">
<table class="smallprint"  summary="Health">
<tr><td class="center bt bb">Individual.</td><td class="center bt bb">Year of Graduation.</td><td class="center bt bb">Married or Single.</td><td class="center bt bb">Number of Children.</td><td class="center bt bb">Health.</td><td class="center bt bb">Remarks</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">1</td><td align="center">1857</td><td align="center">Married</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">Not living</td><td align="left">Died, 1874.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">2</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">Good</td><td align="left">Taught eleven years; now in Indiana.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right" valign="top">3</td><td align="center" valign="top">"</td><td align="center" valign="top">"</td><td align="center" valign="top">2</td><td align="center" valign="top">"</td><td align="left" valign="top">Has taught ever since graduating; now in Ohio.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">4</td><td align="center">1858</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">Very&nbsp;good</td><td align="left">Taught five years; now in Ohio.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">5</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">6</td><td align="center">Good</td><td align="left">Has taught school; slight bronchial trouble.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">6</td><td align="center">1859</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">"</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">7</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">Uncertain</td><td align="left">Has taught school.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">8</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">Good</td><td align="left">Taught thirteen years, till married, in 1872.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right" valign="top">9</td><td align="center" valign="top">"</td><td align="center" valign="top">"</td><td align="center" valign="top">2 or 3</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="left" valign="top">No recent intelligence; health good so far as known.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">10</td><td align="center">1860</td><td align="center">Single</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Taught some years; now in England.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">11</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">Married</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">Taught three years.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">12</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">Single</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Has taught school.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">13</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">Very good</td><td align="left">Physician in Missouri.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">14</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">Married</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">" "</td><td align="left">Has taught school.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right" valign="top">15</td><td align="center" valign="top">"</td><td align="center" valign="top">Single</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center" valign="top">" "</td><td align="left" valign="top">Constantly a teacher, except two years in Europe.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">16</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">Married</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">" "</td><td align="left">Minister in Connecticut; lately married.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">17</td><td align="center">1861</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">Good</td><td align="left">Taught three years; journalist in Ohio.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">18</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">Has taught school.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">19</td><td align="center">1862</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">Not living</td><td align="left">Died of hereditary consumption.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">20</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">" "</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">21</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">Good</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">22</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">Very good</td><td align="left">Resides in Ohio.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">23</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">" "</td><td align="left">Resides in Vermont.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">24</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">" "</td><td align="left">Resides in New York.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">25</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">Good</td><td align="left">Lately married.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">26</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Has taught school.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">27</td><td align="center">1863</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">Very good</td><td align="left">Taught four years, till married.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">28</td><td align="center">1864</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">3</td><td align="center">" "</td><td align="left">Taught one year.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right" valign="top">29</td><td align="center" valign="top">1866</td><td align="center" valign="top">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center" valign="top">Not good</td><td align="left" valign="top">Troubled with scrofula, dating back earlier than her school days; practices medicine in Missouri.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right" valign="top">30</td><td align="center" valign="top">1868</td><td align="center" valign="top">Single</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center" valign="top">Good</td><td align="left" valign="top">Has just returned from three years in Europe, where she took long pedestrian journeys.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">31</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">Married</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Has taught school and is teaching now.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">32</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Taught three years.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">33</td><td align="center">1869</td><td align="center">Single</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="left">Taught constantly and is teaching now.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">34</td><td align="center">1870</td><td align="center">Married</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">Not living</td><td align="left">Died, 1871.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">35</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">Good</td><td align="left">Has taught school in Missouri.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">36</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="left">Taught one year.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right" valign="top">37</td><td align="center" valign="top">1871</td><td align="center" valign="top">Single</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center" valign="top">Unknown</td><td align="left" valign="top">Came to college in delicate health, which improved while there; the youngest woman ever graduated at Antioch.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">38</td><td align="center">1872</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">Not living</td><td align="left">Died, 1873, of hereditary consumption.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">39</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">Fair</td><td align="left">Teaching in Massachusetts.</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">40</td><td align="center">1873</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">Good</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
<tr><td align="right">41</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">"</td><td align="center">&nbsp;</td><td align="center">"</td><td>&nbsp;</td></tr>
</table></div>
</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_292_292" id="Footnote_292_292"></a><a href="#FNanchor_292_292"><span class="label">[292]</span></a> But even old Yale has to succumb to the on-sweeping
tide of equal chances to women, as will be seen by the following
Associated Press item in the New York <i>Sun</i> of October 2, 1885:
"<span class="smcap">New Haven</span>, Conn., Oct. 1.&mdash;Miss Alice B. Jordin, of Coldwater,
Mich., a graduate of the academic and law departments of the
University of Michigan, entered the Yale law school to-day. She is
the first woman ever entered in any department of Yale outside of
the art school.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_293_293" id="Footnote_293_293"></a><a href="#FNanchor_293_293"><span class="label">[293]</span></a> Mesdames Lima H. Ober, Lovina Greene, Hophni Smith,
Ruth F. Munn, Perleyette M. Burnett, Sophia L. O. Allen, Mary
Hodges, Lydia Smith, Sarah A. Knox. The men who sustained and voted
with these women were Deacon Amplias Greene, Darius M. Allen,
Ransom Knox, Apollos D. Greene, Wesley Brown. Their tickets were
different each year; their first read, "Our Motto&mdash;Equal Rights for
all&mdash;Taxation without Representation is Tyranny. Our
Foes&mdash;Tradition and Superstition." Among the speakers invited to
address the people at the polls were Mrs. Organ, of Yellow Springs,
and Mrs. Hope Whipple, of Clyde.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_294_294" id="Footnote_294_294"></a><a href="#FNanchor_294_294"><span class="label">[294]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Ruth F. Munn; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Joel
Walker, D. M. Allen; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Ellen Munn;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Julia P. Greene; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mary
Hodges; <i>Executive Committee</i>, William Munn, Sophia L. O. Allen,
Amanda M. Greene, Apollos D. Greene, Ransom Knox.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_295_295" id="Footnote_295_295"></a><a href="#FNanchor_295_295"><span class="label">[295]</span></a> At other picnics the speakers were, Mrs. S. B.
Chase, M. D., Colonel S. D. Harris, J. W. Tyler Jane O. DeForrest,
T. W. Porter.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_296_296" id="Footnote_296_296"></a><a href="#FNanchor_296_296"><span class="label">[296]</span></a> The Society of South Newbury, like that of Toledo,
refrained from auxiliaryship with the State Association from the
time of its organization to June, 1885, when such relationship was
made possible by the State Society voting itself an independent
organization, free to coöperate with all national or local
associations that have for their object the enfranchisement of
women; and to Mrs. Allen may be ascribed a large share of the
credit for the good work and broad platform of the South Newbury
club.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_297_297" id="Footnote_297_297"></a><a href="#FNanchor_297_297"><span class="label">[297]</span></a> The presidents of the Toledo Society have been, Emma
J. Ashley, Elizabeth R. Collins, Sarah R. L. Williams, Rosa L.
Segur, Julia P. Cole, Sarah S. Bissell, Ellen S. Fray, Mary J.
Cravens. The vice-presidents, Martha Stebbins, Julia Harris, S. R.
L. Williams, Sarah S. Bissell, Ellen Sully Fray, Mary J. Barker.
Miss Charlotte Langdon Williams rendered valuable service in the
business department of <i>The Ballot-Box</i>, and served for three years
as secretary and treasurer of the association.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_298_298" id="Footnote_298_298"></a><a href="#FNanchor_298_298"><span class="label">[298]</span></a> Miss Anna C. Mott, and her father, Richard Mott,
were two strong pillars of the woman suffrage movement in Ohio;
their beautiful home has for many years been a harbor of rest alike
to the advocates of anti-slavery, temperance and woman's rights.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_299_299" id="Footnote_299_299"></a><a href="#FNanchor_299_299"><span class="label">[299]</span></a> Mrs. Williams further adds that <i>The Ballot-Box</i>
became also a foster child of the National Association, Miss
Anthony canvassing for it after each of her lectures during the
winters of 1877 and 1878, thus largely increasing the circulation.
It, on the other hand, gave full and faithful account of the work
of the National Association, so that in reality it was the organ of
the National as well as of the Toledo society.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_300_300" id="Footnote_300_300"></a><a href="#FNanchor_300_300"><span class="label">[300]</span></a> The officers of the Toledo Society are, 1885,
<i>President</i>, Mrs. Mary J. Cravens; <i>Vice-president</i>, Sarah R. L.
Williams; <i>Recording Secretary</i> Mrs. E. R. Collins; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Mrs. Sarah S. Bissell; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Mary J.
Barker; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mrs. Rosa L. Segur, Mrs. Julia P.
Cole, Mrs. Caroline T. Morgan, Miss Anna C. Mott, Mrs. E. M.
Hawley.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_301_301" id="Footnote_301_301"></a><a href="#FNanchor_301_301"><span class="label">[301]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mrs. Judge Caldwell; <i>Secretary</i>, Mrs.
Bushnell; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Ammon.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_302_302" id="Footnote_302_302"></a><a href="#FNanchor_302_302"><span class="label">[302]</span></a> The officers of the Painesville Society, 1885, are,
<i>President</i>, Mrs. Frances Jennings Casement; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>,
Mrs. Eliza P. Chesney, Mrs. Lydia Wilcox, Mrs. Cornelia Swezey;
<i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. Martha Paine; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Mrs. Lou J. Bates; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Adelia J. Bates;
<i>Trustees</i>, Mrs. J. B. Burrows, Mrs. A. G. Smith, Mrs. C. C.
Beardslee.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_303_303" id="Footnote_303_303"></a><a href="#FNanchor_303_303"><span class="label">[303]</span></a> The officers of the Ohio State Association for 1885
are, <i>President</i>, Mrs. Frances M. Casement, Painesville;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. N. Coe Stewart, Cleveland; Mrs. C. C.
Swezey, Painesville; Hon. Richard Mott, Toledo; Mrs. U. R. Walker,
Cincinnati; Mrs. Dr. Warren, Elyria; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Miss
Mary P. Spargo, Cleveland; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Rosa L.
Segur, Toledo; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Elizabeth Coit, Columbus;
<i>Executive Committee</i>, Dr. N. S. Townshend, Columbus; Mrs. M. B.
Haven, Cleveland; Mrs. M. Cole, Painesville; Mrs. W. J. Sheppard,
Cleveland; Mrs. Elizabeth Coit, Columbus; Mrs. Ports Wilson,
Warren; Mrs. Sarah M. Perkins, Cleveland.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_304_304" id="Footnote_304_304"></a><a href="#FNanchor_304_304"><span class="label">[304]</span></a> The incorporators were, Mrs. Davies Wilson, Mrs.
John Goddard, Mrs. Jane Wendte, Mrs. William N. Hobart, Dr. Ellen
M. Kirk, Dr. M. May Howells, Miss Jennie S. Smith, and Miss Harriet
M. Hinsdale; <i>Resident Physician</i>, Dr. Sarah J. Bebout; <i>Visiting
Physicians</i>, Drs. Ellen M. Kirk, M. May Howells.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_513" id="Page_513">[Pg 513]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLI" id="CHAPTER_XLI"></a>CHAPTER XLI.</h2>

<h3>MICHIGAN.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Women's Literary Clubs and Libraries&mdash;Mrs. Lucinda H.
Stone&mdash;Classes of Girls in Europe&mdash;Ernestine L. Rose&mdash;Legislative
Action, <i>1849-1885</i>&mdash;State Woman Suffrage Society, 1870&mdash;Annual
Conventions&mdash;Northwestern Association&mdash;Wendell Phillips'
Letter&mdash;Nannette Gardner Votes&mdash;Catharine A. F. Stebbins
Refused&mdash;Legislative Action&mdash;Amendments Submitted&mdash;An Active
Canvass of the State by Women&mdash;Election Day&mdash;The Amendment Lost,
40,000 Men Voted in Favor&mdash;University at Ann Arbor Opened to
Girls, 1869&mdash;Kalamazoo Institute&mdash;J. A. B. Stone, Miss Madeline
Stockwell and Miss Sarah Burger Applied for Admission to the
University in 1857&mdash;Episcopal Church Bill&mdash;Local
Societies&mdash;Quincy&mdash;Lansing&mdash;St. Johns&mdash;Manistee&mdash;Grand
Rapids&mdash;Sojourner Truth&mdash;Laura C. Haviland&mdash;Sybil Lawrence. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">Traveling</span> through the State of Michigan, sufficiently at leisure to
make acquaintances, one would readily remark the unusual
intelligence and cultivation of the women. Every large town can
boast a woman's literary club, a reading-room, nicely furnished,
with a library containing, in many cases, one and two thousand
volumes, a choice collection of scientific, historical and
classical works. This may be attributed in part to the fact that
the population is largely from New York and New England, partly to
the many institutions of learning early opened to girls, and partly
to the extensive social influence of Mrs. Lucinda H. Stone,<a name="FNanchor_305_305" id="FNanchor_305_305"></a><a href="#Footnote_305_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a>
whose rare culture, foreign travels and liberal views have fitted
her, both as a woman and as a teacher, to inspire the girls of
Michigan with a desire for thorough education. Mrs. Stone has
traveled through many countries in the old world with large classes
of young ladies under her charge, superintending their reading and
studies, and giving them lectures on history and art on classic
ground, where some of the greatest tragedies of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_514" id="Page_514">[Pg 514]</a></span> past were
enacted; in ancient palaces, temples and grand cathedrals; upon the
very spots still rich with the memories of kings and popes, great
generals, statesmen, poets and philosophers. We cannot estimate the
advantages to these young travelers of having one always at hand,
able to point out the beauties in painting and statuary, to
interpret the symbols and mysteries of architecture, the language
of music, the facts of history, and the philosophy of the rise and
fall of mighty nations. Mrs. Stone has also given courses of parlor
lectures to large classes of ladies in every city of the State,
thus, with her rare experiences and extensive observations,
enriching every circle of society in which she moved.</p>

<p>To Catharine A. F. Stebbins we are indebted for compiling many of
the facts contained in this chapter. Reviewing the last forty
years, she says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The agitation on the question of woman suffrage began in this
State in 1846, with the advent of Ernestine L. Rose,<a name="FNanchor_306_306" id="FNanchor_306_306"></a><a href="#Footnote_306_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a> who
spoke twice in the legislative hall in Detroit&mdash;once on the
"Science of Government," and once on the "Antagonisms in
Society." A resolution was passed by the House of
Representatives, expressing a high sense of her ability,
eloquence and grace of delivery. Her work in Detroit, Ann Arbor
and other places was three or four years prior to the first
report by the Special Committee of the Senate in the general
revision of the constitution, nine years before the House
Committee's report on elections in response to women's petitions,
and a dozen years before the favorable "report of the Senate upon
the memorial of ladies praying for the privilege of the elective
franchise," signed by Thomas W. Ferry.</p>

<p><i>The Revolution</i> of April 30, 1868, gives an account of the
manner the women of Sturgis voted on the question of prohibition:</p>

<blockquote><p>"A few weeks ago, at a large meeting of the citizens of Sturgis,
Michigan, the ladies were asked to help in the coming election
the cause of prohibition. They replied that they would if they
were allowed to vote. At a subsequent meeting the gentlemen could
do no less than to invite them. A committee of twelve was
appointed. They canvassed the village and invited all the ladies
to come out and join in the demonstration. At 2 o'clock on
election day they assembled at Union School Hall and marched to
the room where the election was held, and one hundred and
fourteen deposited their votes in favor of prohibition, and six
against it. Whilst they were marching through the room the utmost
order prevailed, and when they were retiring three hearty cheers
were given for the ladies of Sturgis. Great credit is due to Mrs.
William Kyte, chairman of the committee, as well as to all the
other members, for their management of the whole affair. The
utmost good feeling prevailed, and not a sneer or a jeer was
heard from the lords of creation, but a large majority seemed to
hail this as a precursor of what they expect in the future, when
the people shall be educated to respect the rights of all."</p>

<p>We find the above in the Sturgis <i>Journal</i>, by the way, one of
the best in tone and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_515" id="Page_515">[Pg 515]</a></span> talent of all our western exchanges. Its
editor, Mr. Wait, is a prominent leader in the State, a member of
the legislature, and a believer in the equal civil and political
rights of women. We have more than once suggested in <i>The
Revolution</i> that the women should appear at the polls on election
days and demand their rights as citizens. The effect could not
but be beneficial wherever tried. Any considerable number of
intelligent women in almost any locality would in this way soon
inaugurate a movement to result in a speedy triumph. Let these
noble Sturgis women persevere. Methodist Bishop Simpson was right
when he declared the vote of woman at the polls would soon
extinguish the perdition fires of intemperance. The Sturgis women
have begun the good work, a hundred and fourteen to six! Surely,
blessed are the husbands and children of such wives and mothers.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">P. P.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In <i>The Revolution</i> of September 3, 1868, we find the following
from the Sturgis <i>Star</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>Last spring the ladies of Sturgis went to the polls one
hundred and twenty in number, and demonstrated the propriety
of the movement. Their votes did not count, for they could
only be cast in a separate box, and the movement was only
good in its moral effect. But at the school meeting the
ladies have an equal right to vote with the men. Whatever
qualifications a man must possess to exercise privileges in
that meeting, any woman possessing like qualifications can
exercise like privileges there. To substantiate this, it is
only necessary to read the school law. Section 145 of the
Primary School law: "The words 'qualified voter' shall be
taken and construed to mean and include <i>all taxable
persons</i> residing in the district of the age of twenty-one
years, and who have resided therein three months next
preceding the time of voting."</p>

<p>Ex-State Superintendent John M. Gregory's opinion of that
is, that "under this section (145) all persons liable to be
taxed in the district, and twenty-one years of age, and
having resided three months in the district, without
distinction of sex, color, or nationality, may vote in the
district meetings." In districts where they elect only a
director, assessor and moderator, the women can vote on all
questions except the election of officers. In graded
districts they can vote on all questions, election of
trustees included. Men having no taxable property, but who
vote at town meetings and general elections, can only vote
for trustees at a school meeting. Any woman, then, having a
watch, cow, buggy, or personal property of any kind, subject
to tax, or who has real estate in her own name, or jointly
with her husband, can vote. Here, then, is a lawful right
for women to vote at school meetings, and as there can be no
impropriety in it, we advocate it. We believe that it will
work good. Our Union school is something that all should
feel an active interest in. We hope, then, that those ladies
entitled to vote will exercise the rights that the law
grants them. To give these suggestions a practical effect,
we cheerfully publish the following notice:</p>

<p>The undersigned respectfully request those ladies residing
in District No. 3, of the township of Sturgis, who are
entitled to vote at the annual meeting, to assemble in Mrs.
Pendleton's parlor, at the Exchange Hotel, on Friday evening
next, August 28, at 7:30 o'clock, to consider the matter of
exercising the privilege which the law gives them.</p>

<p>This call is signed by about twenty of the best women of the
borough. Last week we called attention in <i>The Revolution</i>
to the earnestness of the English women in urging their
claim to the right of suffrage, and appealed to American
women from their example. We hear from different sources
that American women will attempt, to some extent, to be
registered this year as voters, and we hope so brave an
example will become a contagion. A boastful warrior once
demanded of his foe, "Deliver up your arms." The answer was,
"Come, if you dare, and take them!" Let women become brave
enough to take their rights, and there will not be much
resistance. According to their faith and their courage, so
shall it be.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">P. P.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Michigan State Suffrage Society&mdash;always an independent
association&mdash;was organized at the close of the first convention
held in Hamblin's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_516" id="Page_516">[Pg 516]</a></span> Opera-house, Battle Creek,<a name="FNanchor_307_307" id="FNanchor_307_307"></a><a href="#Footnote_307_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a> January 20,
1870, and has done the usual work of aiding in the formation of
local societies, circulating tracts and petitions, securing
hearings before the legislature, and holding its annual meetings
from year to year in the different cities of the State.</p>

<p>The Northwestern Association held its first annual convention in
the Young Men's Hall, Detroit, November 28, 29, 1870, with large
and appreciative audiences.<a name="FNanchor_308_308" id="FNanchor_308_308"></a><a href="#Footnote_308_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> Legislative action on the question
of woman suffrage began in Michigan in 1849, when:</p>

<blockquote><p>The special report favorable to Senate document No. 10, for
universal suffrage, was signed by Dwight Webb, Edward H. Thompson
and Rix Robinson.&mdash;House document No. 31, legislature of 1855:
"The Committee on Elections, to whom was referred the petition of
Betsy P. Parker, Lucinda Knapp, Nancy Fleming, Electa Myers, and
several other 'strong-minded' ladies of Lenawee county, asking
such amendments to the constitution of the State as will secure
to women an equal right to the elective franchise with men,"
reported adversely, ridiculed the petitioners, and was signed by
A. P. Moorman.&mdash;Senate document No. 27, in the session of 1857:
On a memorial of ladies praying the legislature to grant them the
elective franchise, the report was signed by Thomas W. Ferry, and
was favorable and respectful.&mdash;House document No. 25, legislature
of 1859: On constitutional amendments in favor of universal
suffrage, the report was favorable for extending suffrage to
colored men, but doubtful as to the wisdom of extending it to
women. This was signed by Fabius Miles, chairman.&mdash;Senate
document No. 12: Upon the same constitutional amendments, in the
legislature of 1859, the report signed by R. E. Trowbridge,
chairman of the committee, was adverse to extending suffrage to
women.</p>

<p>On February 13, 1873, Mr. Lamb introduced "a joint resolution
granting the privilege of the elective franchise to the women of
the State." Mr. Bartholomew introduced "a joint resolution
proposing an amendment to section 1, article 1., of the
constitution, in relation to the qualifications of electors."
Both were referred to the Committee on Elections, which made the
following report:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines ltr-break">The Committee on Elections, to whom was referred the joint
resolution granting the privilege of the elective franchise to
women of this State, respectfully report that they have had the
same under consideration, and have directed me to report the same
back to the House without recommendation. We think the time has
not arrived for us to decide on so important a matter. We await
further developments, and are under the impression that there is
no popular demand for the change&mdash;at least not sufficient<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_517" id="Page_517">[Pg 517]</a></span> to
warrant us in recommending so important a change in our form of
government at the present session of the legislature&mdash;and ask to
be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">A. Hewitt</span>, <i>Acting Chairman.</i></p>
<p class="ltr-left">[Signed:]</p>

<p class="ltr-clear">Motion carried to lay the joint resolution on the table. March 4,
it was taken from the table and referred to the Committee of the
Whole, who recommended its passage, and April 10 it was lost by a
vote of 50 to 24:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines ltr-break">The committee have considered the matters embraced in the several
resolutions referred to them relative to providing for woman's
suffrage, and have instructed me to report against adding any
such provision to the constitution at present. The committee ask
to be discharged from the further consideration of the subject.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">E. W. Meddaugh</span>, <i>Chairman.</i></p>
<p class="ltr-left">[Signed:]</p>

<p class="ltr-clear">October 14.&mdash;A bill for separate submission to a vote of the
people of an amendment to the constitution relating to woman's
suffrage, was lost by a tie vote&mdash;7 for and 7 against.</p>

<p>At the extra session of the legislature, 1874, in the House,
March 10, Mr. Hoyt introduced a joint resolution for separate
submission to a vote of the people of an amendment to the
constitution relating to woman suffrage. Referred to the
Committee on Elections and State Affairs, jointly. On March 12
the following memorial from the State Woman Suffrage
Association<a name="FNanchor_309_309" id="FNanchor_309_309"></a><a href="#Footnote_309_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a> was presented in the House:</p>


<p class="hang ltr-break ltr-closelines"><i>To the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of
Michigan, in Special Session Convened: </i></p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">The Executive Committee of the Michigan State Woman Suffrage
Association, at their meeting held in Kalamazoo, February 10,
1874, voted to memorialize your honorable body, at your special
session now being held.</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">We beg leave to represent to you that the object of this
association is to secure, in a legal way, the enfranchisement of
the women of the State. They are, as you well know, already
recognized as citizens of the State according to the laws of the
United States. They are now taxed for all purposes of public
interest as well as the men. But they are not represented in the
legislature, nor in any branch of the State government, thus
affording a great example, and an unjust one for women, of
taxation without representation, which our fathers declared to be
tyranny; and which is contrary to the genius of our republican
institutions, and to the general polity of this commonwealth.
Women are also governed, while they have no direct voice in the
government, and made subject to laws affecting their property,
their personal rights and liberty, in whose enactment they have
no voice.</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">We therefore petition your honorable body, that in preparing a
new constitution, to be submitted for adoption or rejection by
the people of this State, you will strike out the word "male"
from the article defining the qualifications of electors; or if
deemed best by you, will provide for the separate submission of
an article for the enfranchisement of the women of Michigan,
giving them equal rights and privileges with the men. By thus
taking the lead of the States of the Union, to more fully secure
the personal rights of all the citizens, you will show yourselves
in harmony with the spirit of the age and worthy to be called
pioneers in this cause, as you are already most honorably
accounted pioneers in your educational system, which affords
equal and impartial advantages to the population of our State,
irrespective of sex or condition in life&mdash;thus aiming to elevate
the entire people to the highest practicable plane of
intelligence and true civilization.</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">By order, and in the name of the Michigan Woman Suffrage
Association.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Lucinda H. Stone</span>, <i>Corresponding Secretary.</i></p>
<p class="ltr-to">Mrs. <span class="smcap">A. H. Walker</span>, <i>President.</i></p>

<p class="ltr-break">On March 14, the joint committee made the following report:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">The committees on State affairs and elections, to whom was
referred the joint resolution proposing an amendment to section
I, article VII., of the constitution, in relation to the
qualifications of electors, respectfully report that they have
had the same under consideration, and have directed us to report
the same back to the House without amendment, and recommend that
it do pass and ask to be discharged from the further
consideration of the subject.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_518" id="Page_518">[Pg 518]</a></span></p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">The reasons which have influenced the committee in recommending
an amendment so radical and sweeping in the changes which it will
create if finally adopted by the people, are briefly these: The
question of granting the right of suffrage to women equally with
men, is one that has been seriously and widely agitated for
years, and while, like other political reforms which change in
any considerable degree the old and established order of things,
it has met with strong opposition, on the other hand it has been
ably advocated by men and women distinguished alike for their
intellectual ability and their excellent judgment. Although we
believe that there should be certain necessary and proper
restrictions to the exercise of the elective franchise, we are of
the opinion that there are reasonable grounds to doubt whether
the distinction of sex in the matter of voting, is not, in a
large measure, a fictitious one. The interests of women in all
matters pertaining to good government are certainly identical
with those of men. In the matter of property their rights
conceded by law are equal, and in some respects superior to those
of men; and if the principle of no taxation without
representation is a just one as applied among men, it would seem
that it might in justice be extended to women. As the reasons
given above are strongly urged by the advocates of woman
suffrage, and as several petitions, numerously signed by citizens
of the State, asking for some action on the part of the House in
this matter, are in the hands of the committee, we have deemed it
advisable, although not equally agreed as to the main question
involved, to recommend the passage of the resolution by the
House, in order that the people of the State may have an
opportunity of expressing their will at the ballot-box as to the
expediency of extending the right of suffrage to women.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">
<span class="smcap">Samuel H. Blackman</span>, <i>Chairman of Committee on State Affairs.</i><br />
<span class="smcap">James Burnes</span>, <i>Chairman of Committee on Elections.</i><br />
</p>

<p>Report accepted, and joint resolution placed on the general
order.</p>

<p>On March 18 the following joint resolution passed the House by a
vote of 67 to 27, and passed the Senate by a vote of 26 to
4,<a name="FNanchor_310_310" id="FNanchor_310_310"></a><a href="#Footnote_310_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> proposing an amendment to section I of article VII. of
the constitution, in relation to the qualification of electors:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines"><i>Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the
State of Michigan</i>, That at the election when the amended
constitution shall be submitted to the electors of this State for
adoption or rejection, there shall be submitted to such electors
the following propositions, to be substituted in case of
adoption, for so much of section I, of article VII., as precedes
the proviso therein, in the present constitution of this State as
it now stands, and substituted for section I, article VII., in
said amended constitution, if the latter is adopted, to wit:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines"><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> In all elections, every person of the age of
twenty-one years who shall have resided in this State three
months, and in the township or ward in which he or she offers to
vote ten days next preceding an election, belonging to either of
the following classes, shall be an elector and entitled to vote:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines"><i>First</i>&mdash;Every citizen of the United States; <i>Second</i>&mdash;Every
inhabitant of this State, who shall have resided in the United
States two years and six months, and declared his or her
intention to become a citizen of the United States pursuant to
the laws thereof, six months preceding an election;
<i>Third</i>&mdash;Every inhabitant residing in this State on the
twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred and
seventy-five.</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">Said proposition shall be separately submitted to the electors of
this State for their adoption or rejection, in form following, to
wit: A separate ballot may be given by every person having the
right to vote, to be deposited in a separate box. Upon the ballot
given for said proposition shall be written, or printed, or
partly written and partly printed, the words, "Woman
Suffrage,&mdash;Yes"; and upon ballots given against the adoption
thereof, in like manner, the words, "Woman Suffrage,&mdash;No." If at
said election a majority of the votes given upon said proposition
shall contain the words, "Woman Suffrage,&mdash;Yes," then said
proposition shall be substituted for so much of section I, of
article VII., as includes the proviso therein in the present
constitution of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_519" id="Page_519">[Pg 519]</a></span> the State as it now stands, or substituted for
section I, of article VII., in said amended constitution, if the
latter is adopted. </p></blockquote>

<p>This bill was promptly signed by Governor Bagley, and from that
hour the attention of the advocates of suffrage for women was
centered on Michigan.</p>

<p>The submission of this amendment to a vote of the people, gave an
unusual interest and importance to the annual meeting held at
Lansing, May 6, 1874,<a name="FNanchor_311_311" id="FNanchor_311_311"></a><a href="#Footnote_311_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a> at which plans were to be made, and
money raised for a vigorous campaign throughout the State. The
large number of women ready to do the speaking, and the equally
large number of men ready to make generous contributions, were most
encouraging in starting. Women who could not aid the cause in any
other way cast their gold watches into the treasury. From the large
number of letters received at this convention we may judge how
thoroughly aroused the friends were all over the country. Lydia
Maria Child wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is urged, that if women participated in public affairs,
puddings would be spoiled, and stockings neglected. Doubtless
some such cases might occur; for we have the same human nature as
men, and men are sometimes so taken up with elections as to
neglect their business for a while. But I apprehend that puddings
and stockings, to say nothing of nurseries, suffer much greater
detriment from the present expenditure of time and thought upon
the heartless ostentation of parties, and the flounces and
fripperies of fashion, than can possibly accrue from the
intellectual cultivation of women, or their participation in
public affairs. Voting is a mere incident in the lives of men. It
does not prevent the blacksmith from shoeing horses, or the
farmer from planting fields, or the lawyer from attending courts;
so I see no reason why it need to prevent women from attending to
their domestic duties. On certain subjects, such as intemperance,
licentiousness and war, women would be almost universally sure to
exert their influence in the right directions, for the simple
reason that they peculiarly suffer from the continuance of these
evils. In the discharge of this new function, they would
doubtless make some mistakes, and yield to some temptations, just
as men do. But the consciousness of being an acknowledged portion
of the government of the country would excite a deeper interest
in its welfare, and produce a serious sense of responsibility,
which would gradually invigorate and ennoble their characters.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Thomas Wentworth Higginson</span> wrote: I believe that we fail to
establish a truly republican government, or to test the principle
of universal suffrage, so long as we enfranchise one sex only.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">A. Bronson Alcott</span> wrote: <span class="spacious">* * *</span> Where women lead&mdash;the best
women&mdash;is it unsafe for men to follow? Woman's influence cannot
be confined to her household;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_520" id="Page_520">[Pg 520]</a></span> woman is, and will be, womanly
wherever placed. No condition can unsex the sexes. The ten
commandments will not suffer in her keeping. Her vote will tell
for the virtues, against the vices all. Plato said: "Either sex
alone is but half itself." Socially, we admit his assertion, and
are just beginning to suspect that our republican institutions
need to be complemented and rounded with woman's counsels, and
administrations also. Good republicans are asking if our
legislation is not unsettled, demoralized by the debauchery of
hasty politics, by private vices, and the want of manly
integrity, woman's honor. Let our courtesy to women be
sincere&mdash;paid to her modesty as to her person; her intelligence
as to her housekeeping; her refining influence in political as in
social circles. Where a husband would blush to take his wife and
daughters, let him blush to be seen by his sons. "Revere no god,"
says Euripides, "whom men adore by night." And Sophocles: "Seek
not thy fellow-citizens to guide till thou canst order well thine
own fireside." Mrs. Alcott and Louisa join in hearty hopes for
your success.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Edna D. Cheney</span> wrote: <span class="spacious">* * *</span> How I long for the time when this
question being settled, we can all go forward, working together,
to discuss and settle the really great questions of political and
social economy, of labor, of education, and the full development
of human life in State and society.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">John Greenleaf Whittier</span> wrote: <span class="spacious">* * *</span> I hope and trust the
electors will be wise and generous enough to decide it in your
favor. Were I a citizen of the State I should esteem it alike a
duty and a privilege to vote in the affirmative.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Asa Mahan</span>, president of Oberlin College, wrote: The cause which
has called you together is a very plain one. It is simply this,
whether "taxation without representation" is tyranny to all but
one-half of the human race, and the principle that rulers derive
their authority to make and administer law from the consent of
the governed, holds true of the white man and the black man, of
man native or foreign born, and even of the "heathen Chinee," if
he belong to the male sex, and is a lie in its application to
woman.<a name="FNanchor_312_312" id="FNanchor_312_312"></a><a href="#Footnote_312_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>Dr. Stone, of Kalamazoo, read an able report of what had been done,
and all it was necessary to do if the friends desired to carry the
pending amendment. The following extract will give some idea of the
momentous undertaking in canvassing a State:</p>

<blockquote><p>When the governor decided to call an extra session of the
legislature, so as to submit the new constitution to a popular
vote next November, the committee had but little time for the
circulation of petitions; but enough was done to secure the vote
in favor of submission. This was the more easily accomplished
because we have in the present legislature so many warm and
active friends, who gave that body no rest until their point was
carried. And here we find ourselves suddenly brought into a
campaign almost as novel as momentous, with scarce a precedent to
guide us. We ask the electors of Michigan to share their civil
and political power with those who have always been denied all
electoral rights&mdash;to vest the popular sovereignty not merely in
themselves, in a quarter of a million of men, as hitherto, but in
half a million of men and women, and so make our State what it is
not now, a truly republican commonwealth. We have a great work
before us, and no time should be lost in organizing a general
canvass of the entire State. Competent lecturers should be
employed wherever hearers can be found, and money raised to
defray the expenses. Printed documents too, must be circulated;
arguments and conclusions framed by those who have thought on
these subjects for men, and sometimes for women, who are too
indolent to think for themselves. And there are many other things
which we must do before the November election; ballots must be
furnished for every township and polling place, especially
affirmative ballots, and placed in the hands of all the voters.
The Executive Committee cannot<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_521" id="Page_521">[Pg 521]</a></span> be ubiquitous enough to discharge
all these multifarious duties. We therefore suggest that there be
appointed during this meeting, <i>First</i>, a Committee on Finance.
<i>Second</i>, a Committee on Printed Documents. <i>Third</i>, a Committee
on Lecturers. <i>Fourth</i>, a County Committee of perhaps three
persons in each county, who shall have power also to appoint a
sub-committee in each township. Whether so many distinct
committees will be needed, or more than one class of duties can
be entrusted to the same committee, the association can
determine. We do not want too much, nor too complicated
machinery, but just enough to accomplish the work. We must fall
into line; woman expects every man to do his duty; surely she
will not fail to be true to herself. </p></blockquote>

<p>Representatives from the different counties gave their names<a name="FNanchor_313_313" id="FNanchor_313_313"></a><a href="#Footnote_313_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a>
as ready to begin the work arranged by the several committees. With
this large and enthusiastic convention the campaign may be said
fairly to have opened at Lansing early in May, a political
organization being formed of Republicans and Democrats alike,
representing nearly every district in the State. Governor Bagley
having promptly signed the bill, and his wife being an earnest
advocate of the measure, the social influence of the family was all
in the right direction. The influence of the church, too, was in a
measure favorable. The Methodist denomination, in its general
conference, passed a resolution indorsing woman suffrage. Mrs.
Stanton, in a letter to the <i>Golden Age</i>, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>During the time I spent in Michigan, speaking every night and
twice on Sunday to crowded houses, I had abundant opportunities
of feeling the pulse of the people, both in public and private,
and it seemed to me that the tide of popular thought and feeling
was running in the right direction. The people are beginning to
regard the idea of woman's equality with man as not only a
political, but a religious truth, Methodist, Congregational,
Presbyterian, Baptist and Unitarian churches being all alike
thrown open to its consideration. Sitting Sunday after Sunday in
the different pulpits with reverend gentlemen, my discourses
given in the place of the sermon, in the regular services, I
could not help thinking of the distance we had come since that
period in civilization when Paul's word was law, "Let your women
keep silence in the churches." Able men and women are speaking in
every part of the State, and if our triumph should not be
complete at the next election, at all events a great educational
work will have been accomplished in the distribution of tracts,
in the public debates,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_522" id="Page_522">[Pg 522]</a></span> and in reviewing the fundamental
principles of our government and religion. Being frequently told
that women did not wish to vote, I adopted the plan of calling
for a rising vote at the close of my lectures, and on all
occasions a majority of the women would promptly rise. Knowing
that the men had the responsibility of voting before their eyes,
and might be diffident about rising, I reversed the manner of
expression in their case, requesting all those in favor of woman
suffrage to keep their seats, and those opposed to rise up, thus
throwing the onerous duty of changing their attitudes on the
opposition. So few arose under such circumstances that it was
somewhat embarrassing for those who did. </p></blockquote>

<p>Those who were engaged in the canvass<a name="FNanchor_314_314" id="FNanchor_314_314"></a><a href="#Footnote_314_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> had enthusiastic
meetings everywhere. They not only filled all their regular
appointments, but spoke in the prisons, asylums; even the deaf and
dumb were refreshed with the gospel of woman suffrage. The press,
too, was generally favorable, though the opposition magnified the
occasional adverse criticisms out of all proportion to their
severity and number. Towards the last of September Miss Anthony, by
invitation of Mrs. Briggs and Mrs. Bliss of Grand Rapids, came into
the State and remained until election day. She often brought down
the house with her witty comments on the criticisms of the
press.<a name="FNanchor_315_315" id="FNanchor_315_315"></a><a href="#Footnote_315_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a></p>

<p>Everything that could be done was done by the friends of the
amendment throughout the State; meetings held and tracts on every
phase of the question scattered in all the most obscure
settlements; inspiring songs sung, earnest prayers offered, the
press vigilant in its appeals, and on election day women everywhere
at the polls, persuading voters to cast their ballots for
temperance, moral purity and good order, to be secured only by
giving the right of suffrage to their mothers, wives and daughters.
But the sun went down, the polls were closed, and in the early dawn
of the next morning the women of Michigan learned that their status
as citizens of the United States had not been advanced one iota by
the liberal action of their governor, their legislature, the
appeals of the women nor the votes of 40,000 of the best men of the
State.</p>

<p>When the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the national
constitution were passed, many advocates of suffrage believed that
the right was conferred on women. In a letter to a State convention
held at that time, Wendell Phillips said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The new phase of the woman movement&mdash;that claiming the right to
vote under the fourteenth amendment&mdash;is attracting great
attention in Washington. Whether it ever obtains judicial
sanction or not, it certainly gives a new and most effective
means of agitation. The argument of the minority report,
understood to be written by General Butler, is most able. <span class="spacious">* * *</span>
The statement of the argument, and the array of cases<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_523" id="Page_523">[Pg 523]</a></span> and
authorities, are very striking. Nothing more cogent can be
imagined or desired. When two years ago a Western advocate of
woman's rights started this theory, we never expected to see it
assume such importance. </p></blockquote>

<p>In accordance with this opinion, certain women resolved to apply
for registration, and offer their votes. On March 25, 1871,
Catherine A. F. Stebbins and Mrs. Nannette B. Gardner of Detroit
made the attempt to have their names regularly enrolled as legally
qualified voters. Mrs. Stebbins, accompanied by her husband, made
application in the fifth ward to have her name registered, but was
refused. She then proposed to her friend, Mrs. Gardner, to make the
trial in her ward, to which she assented. Accordingly, they went to
the first district of the ninth ward, where Peter Hill was the
enrolling officer. Mrs. Gardner gave her name, saying she was a
"person" within the meaning of the fourteenth amendment, and that
she was a widow, and a tax-payer without representation. Mr. Hill,
seeing the justice of her demand, entered her name upon the
register.</p>

<p>This action took some of the board of registration by surprise, and
a motion was made to erase her name, but was decided in the
negative.<a name="FNanchor_316_316" id="FNanchor_316_316"></a><a href="#Footnote_316_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a> The board was now asked for a decision in regard to
Mrs. Stebbins' name, as the question very naturally suggested
itself to the inspectors, if one woman can vote why not another.
Mrs. Stebbins was notified that her case would have a hearing. When
asked to submit her reasons for demanding the right to vote, Mrs.
S. stated that she asked it simply as the right of a human being
under the constitution of the United States. She had paid taxes on
personal and real estate, and had conformed to the laws of the land
in every respect. Since the fourteenth amendment had enfranchised
woman as well as the black man, she had the necessary
qualifications of an elector.</p>

<p>A long debate followed. Inspectors Bagg, Hill and Folsom argued in
favor of the petitioner; Allison, Brooks, Henderson and Hughes
against. The opposition confessed that the negro had voted before
the word "white" had been expunged from the State constitution; but
that was done from a "political necessity." The question of
acceptance being put to vote, was negatived&mdash;13 to 10. This was
counted a victory, and stimulated the opposition to make another
effort to strike Mrs. Gardner's name from the register; but failing
in that, the board adjourned. There was now much curiosity to know
if Alderman Hill would have the nerve to stand by his initiative;
but with him the Rubicon was passed, and on April 3, Messrs. Hill
and Durfee accepted Mrs. Gardner's vote, Mr. Bond protesting. The
Detroit <i>Post</i> gave the following account:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Gardner arrived at the polls of the first precinct of the
ninth ward at about half-past ten o'clock in a carriage,
accompanied by her son, a lad of ten years, Mrs. Starring and
Mrs. Giles B. Stebbins. Barely a dozen by-standers were present,
and the larger part of these were laboring men. No demonstration
followed the appearance of the ladies, the men remaining quiet,
and contenting themselves with comments <i>sotto voce</i> on this last
political development, and with speculations as to how the newly
enfranchised would vote. Mrs. Gardner presented herself at the
polls with a vase of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_524" id="Page_524">[Pg 524]</a></span> flowers and also a prepared ballot, which
she had decorated with various appropriate devices. The
inspectors asked the questions usually put to all applicants, and
her name being found duly registered, her ballot was received and
deposited in the box. There was no argument, no challenge, no
variation from the routine traversed by each masculine exerciser
of the elective franchise. Mrs. Gardner voted, as we understand;
for the Republican candidates generally, with one Democrat and
one lady. </p></blockquote>

<p>At Battle Creek, Mrs. Mary Wilson voted at the election of 1871.
When she registered, she was accompanied by her lawyer.</p>

<p>In the fall of 1872, Peter Hill again registered Mrs. Gardner, and
received her vote. Mr. Hill had been exposed to many animadversions
for his persistence, and as an acknowledgment of her appreciation
of his course, Mrs. Gardner presented him a silk banner suitably
inscribed. A city paper gives this account of it:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Gardner, who has for years been a recognized voter in the
ninth ward of Detroit, again voted on Tuesday. She came on foot,
with Mrs. Stebbins, in a drenching rain, as no carriage could be
obtained. After voting, she presented a beautiful banner of white
satin, trimmed with gold fringe, on which was inscribed, "A
Woman's Voting Hymn." The reverse side, of blue silk, contained
the dedication: "To Peter Hill, Alderman of the Ninth Ward,
Detroit. First to Register a Woman's Vote. By recognizing civil
liberty and equality for woman, he has placed the last and
brightest jewel on the brow of Michigan." </p></blockquote>

<p>The city board now felt called upon to pass a vote of censure upon
Mr. Hill's action. The record runs thus:</p>

<blockquote><p>Canvasser <span class="smcap">Baxter</span>: <i>Resolved</i>, That the act of the inspectors of
election of the first district of the ninth ward, in receiving
the vote of Mrs. Nannette B. Gardner at the election just passed,
is emphatically disapproved by this board, on the ground that
said act is a plain violation of the election laws and
constitution of the State of Michigan, and is liable to lead to
the grossest abuses and complications.</p>

<p>Canvasser <span class="smcap">Fulda</span> moved to lay the resolution on the table&mdash;lost.
Adopted as follows: <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Langley, Flower, House, Lichtenberg,
Phelps, Parsons, Christian, Allison, Buehle, Dullea, Daly,
Barbier, Baxter&mdash;13. <i>Nays</i>&mdash;Wooley and Fulda&mdash;2.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Philo Parsons</span>, <i>Chairman</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><span class="smcap">Chas A. Borgman</span>, <i>Secretary</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="ltr-clear">Mrs. Stebbins attempted to register at this election with the same
result as before. Upon the fourth of November she provided herself
with a sworn statement that she had been "wrongfully prevented" the
record of her name, and offered her vote at the polls, calling
attention to the "enforcing act," provided for such cases. It had
no terror, however, for the valiant inspectors of the fifth ward.
In the fall of 1873, there was the following correspondence between
the board and the city counselor:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Hon. D. C. Holbrook, City Counselor</i>: <span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>:&mdash;Mrs. Giles B.
Stebbins has applied to this board and demands the right to
register. This board has declined to grant the request on the
ground that it does not believe her to be a legal elector. Mrs.
Stebbins would have all the required qualifications of an
elector, but for the fact of her being a woman, and we therefore
respectfully request that you instruct us as to our duty in the
premises.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF">
<span class="smcap">S. B. Woolley</span>,<br />
<span class="smcap">Albert Botsford</span>,<br />
<i>Inspectors of First Ward</i>.<br />
</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully,</p>


<p class="ltr-clear">Woman cannot be enrolled or registered. Let her try it on.<a name="FNanchor_317_317" id="FNanchor_317_317"></a><a href="#Footnote_317_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a></p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">D. C. Holbrook</span>, <i>City Counselor</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left0"><i>Oct. 24, 1873.</i></p>

</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_525" id="Page_525">[Pg 525]</a></span></p>

<p class="ltr-clear">In company with Mrs. H. J. Boutelle, Mrs. Stebbins offered her vote
in the fifth ward. Mr. Farwell was in favor of receiving it, and
wished to leave the question to a dozen responsible citizens whom
he called in as referees, but Col. Phelps would not be influenced
by the judgment of outsiders, and would not agree to the
proposal.<a name="FNanchor_318_318" id="FNanchor_318_318"></a><a href="#Footnote_318_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a></p>

<p>Mrs. Gardner's name was retained on the ward voting list, and she
voted every year until she left the city for the education of her
children.</p>

<p>Before the University at Ann Arbor was opened to girls in 1869,
there had been several attempts to establish seminaries for girls
alone.<a name="FNanchor_319_319" id="FNanchor_319_319"></a><a href="#Footnote_319_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a> But they were not successful for several reasons. As
the State would not endow these private institutions, it made the
education of daughters very expensive, and fathers with daughters,
seeing their neighbors' sons in the State University educated at
the public expense, from financial considerations were readily
converted to the theory of coëducation. Again the general drift of
thought was in favor of coëducation throughout the young western
States. Then institutions of learning were too expensive to build
separate establishments for girls and boys, and the number of boys
able to attend through a collegiate course could not fill the
colleges ready for their reception. Hence from all considerations
it was a double advantage both to the State and the girls, to admit
them to the universities.</p>

<p>James A. B. Stone and Mrs. Lucinda H. Stone went to Kalamazoo in
1843, immediately after his election to take charge of the Literary
Institute. The name was afterwards changed to Kalamazoo College. It
is the oldest collegiate institute in the State, having been
chartered in 1833, and was designed from the outset for both sexes.
In the beginning it did not confer degrees, but was the first,
after Oberlin, to give diplomas to women. Kalamazoo was an object
of derision with some of the professors of the University, because
it was, they averred, of doubtful gender. But a liberal-minded
public grew more and more in favor of epicene colleges. Literary
seminaries had been established for coëducation at Albion, Olivet,
Adrian and Hillsdale, but some of their charters were not exactly
of a collegiate grade, and it was doubtful whether under the new
constitution, new college charters would be granted, so that
Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor had the field. In January, 1845, a bill was
introduced in the legislature to organize literary institutions
under a general law, no collegiate degrees being allowed, unless on
the completion of a curriculum equal to that of the State
University. The championship of this bill fell to Dr. Stone, for
while it would have no special effect on Kalamazoo, it concerned
the cause of coëducation in the State, and the friends of the
University made it a kind of test of what the State policy should
be in reference to the higher learning for women. Dr. Tappan, then
the able president of the University, appeared at Lansing,
supported by Rev. Dr.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_526" id="Page_526">[Pg 526]</a></span> Duffield and a force of able lawyers, to
oppose it, and the far-seeing friends of education in the
legislature and in the lobby, rallied with Dr. Stone for its
support. For several weeks the contest was carried on with
earnestness, almost with bitterness, before the legislative
committees, before public meetings called in the capitol for
discussion, and on the floor of both houses. Dr. Tappan made
frantic appeals to Michigan statesmen not to disgrace the State by
such a law, which he prophesied would result in "preparatory
schools for matrimony," and, shocking to contemplate, young men
would marry their classmates. Among the friends of the measure
present, were President Fairfield, Professor Hosford, and Hon. Mr.
Edsell, of Otsego, all graduates of Oberlin, who had married their
classmates, and "been glad ever since." They replied, "What of it?
Are not those who have met daily in the recitation-room for four
years, as well prepared to judge of each other's fitness for
life-companionship, as if they had only met a few times at a ball,
a dress party, or in private interview?" The legislature was an
intelligent one, and the bill passed amid great excitement, crowds
of interested spectators listening to the final discussions in the
lower House. Governor Bingham was friendly to the bill from the
first. After its passage, he sent a handsome copy signed by himself
and other officers, to Dr. and Mrs. Stone, at Kalamazoo, to be
preserved as a record of the Thermopylæ fight for coëducation in
Michigan.</p>

<p>Rev. E. O. Havens succeeded Dr. Tappan in the presidency, and was
supposed to be less strong in his prejudices, but when efforts were
made to open the doors to both sexes, he reported it difficult and
inexpedient, if not impossible. But he counted without the
broad-minded people of Michigan. A growing conviction that the
legislature would stop the appropriations to the University unless
justice was done to the daughters of the State, finally brought
about, at Ann Arbor, a change of policy. Under the light that broke
in upon their minds, the professors found there was really no law
against the admission of women to that very liberal seat of
learning. "To be sure, they never had admitted women, but none had
formally applied." This, though somewhat disingenuous, was received
in good faith, and soon tested by Miss Madeline Stockwell, who had
completed half her course at Kalamazoo, and was persuaded by Mrs.
Stone to make application at Ann Arbor. Mrs. Stone knew her to be a
thorough scholar, as far as she had gone, especially in Greek,
which some had supposed that women could not master. When she
presented herself for examination some members of the faculty were
far from cordial, but they were just, and she entered in the grade
for which she applied. She sustained herself ably in all her
studies, and when examined for her degree&mdash;the first woman graduate
from the literary department&mdash;she was commended as the peer of any
of her class-mates, and took an honorable part in the commencement
exercises. Moreover, she fulfilled the doleful prophecy of Dr.
Tappan, as women in other schools had done before her, and married
her class-mate, Mr. Turner, an able lawyer.</p>

<p>The statement by the faculty, or regents, that "no woman had
formally applied," was untrue, as we shall see. The University was
opened to them in 1869; eleven years before, Miss Sarah Burger, now
Mrs. Stearns, made<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_527" id="Page_527">[Pg 527]</a></span> the resolve, the preparation, and the
application to enter the University of Michigan; and young as she
was, her clear-sightedness and courage called forth our admiration.
As a child, in Ann Arbor, from 1845, to 1852, she had often
attended the commencement exercises of the University, and on those
occasions had felt very unhappy, because all the culture given to
mind and heart and soul by this institution was given to young men
alone. It seemed a cruel injustice to young women that they could
not be there with their brothers, enjoying the same. In connection
with her efforts and those of her friends to enter those enchanted
portals, she bears grateful testimony to the discussions on the
question of woman's rights, as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>When it was my blessed privilege to attend a women's rights
convention at Cleveland, Ohio, in 1853,&mdash;and it was a grand
meeting&mdash;where dear Lucretia Mott, Ernestine L. Rose, Frances D.
Gage, Antoinette Brown, Lucy Stone, and others, dwelt upon the
manifold wrongs suffered by women, and called upon them to awake
and use their powers to secure justice to all, I felt their words
to mean that the Michigan University as well as all others,
should be opened to girls, and that women themselves should first
move in the matter. </p></blockquote>

<p>Thus aroused, though but sixteen years old, she resolved at once to
make application for admission to the State University. Early in
the autumn of 1856, she entered the high school at Ann Arbor, and
studied Greek and Latin two years, preparatory to taking the
classical course. Four young ladies besides herself, recited with
the boys who were preparing for college, and they were all declared
by a university professor who had attended frequent examinations,
to stand head and shoulders in scholarship above many of the young
men. Miss Burger wishing as large a class as possible to appeal for
admission, wrote to a number of classical schools for young women,
asking coöperation, and secured the names of eleven<a name="FNanchor_320_320" id="FNanchor_320_320"></a><a href="#Footnote_320_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a> who would
gladly apply with her. In the spring of 1858, she sent a note to
the regents, saying a class of twelve young ladies would apply in
June, for admission to the University in September. A reporter said
"a certain Miss B. had sent the regents warning of the momentous
event." At the board meeting in June, the young ladies presented
their promised letter of application, and received as reply, that
the board should have <i>more time to consider</i>. In September their
reply was, that it seemed inexpedient for the University to admit
ladies at present. In the meantime, a great deal had been said and
done on the subject; some members of the faculty had spoken in
favor, some against. University students, and citizens of Ann Arbor
also joined in the general discussion. The subject was widely
discussed in the press and on the platform; members of the faculty
and board of regents applied to the presidents of universities east
and west, for their opinions. The people of Michigan, thus brought
to consider the injustice of the exclusion of their daughters from
this State institution, there was offered for signature during the
winter of 1859, the following petition:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Regents of the University of Michigan:</i></p>

<p>The undersigned, inhabitants of &mdash;&mdash;, in the county of &mdash;&mdash;, and
State of Michigan, respectfully request that young women may be
admitted as students in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_528" id="Page_528">[Pg 528]</a></span> the University, for the following among
other reasons: <i>First</i>&mdash;It is incumbent on the State to give
equal educational advantages to both sexes. <i>Second</i>&mdash;All can be
educated in the State University with but little more expense
than is necessary to educate young men alone. <i>Third</i>&mdash;It will
save the State from the expenditure of half a million of dollars,
necessary to furnish young ladies in a separate institution with
the advantages now enjoyed by young men. <i>Fourth</i>&mdash;It will admit
young ladies at once to the benefits of the highest educational
privileges of the State. </p></blockquote>

<p>Among the most active in lectures, debates, circulation of
petitions and general advocacy were James B. Gott, Judge Edwin
Lawrence, Giles B. Stebbins and O. P. Stearns, the last at that
time a student, since a lawyer, and the husband of Mrs. Sarah
Burger Stearns of Minnesota.</p>

<p>In the spring of 1859 formal application was again made to the
regents by a class of young ladies, only to receive the same
answer. But the discussion was not dropped; indeed, that was
impossible. Some of the most intelligent on this question believe
that the final admission of women to the University was due to a
resolve on the part of the people of the State to place upon the
board of regents, as the terms of old members expired, men well
known to be favorable. On the election of Professor Estabrook of
the State Normal School there was one more noble man "for us," who,
with other new members, made a majority in favor of justice. In the
autumn of that year (1869) young women were admitted to full
privileges in Michigan University, and, like political freedom in
Wyoming, it has for years been confessed to have yielded only
beneficent results. As long ago, however, as the first application
was made (1858) women were permitted to attend certain lectures.
They could not join a class or read a book, but it was the custom
for them to go and listen to the beautiful and highly instructive
lectures by Professor Andrew D. White on history, sculpture, and
mediæval architecture, and they highly appreciated the privilege.</p>

<p>In March, 1869, President Havens said in the House of
Representatives at Lansing, "he believed the University should be
opened to those who desired to obtain the benefit of the branches
of education which they could not obtain elsewhere." The Rev.
Gilbert Haven wrote to the American Society's meeting held in
Detroit, in 1874: "I have been identified with your cause through
its evil report, and, I was going to add, good report, but that
part has not yet very largely set in. I also had the honor to
preside over the first ecclesiastical body that has, just now,
pronounced in your favor." This church assembly was the Methodist
State Association, which adopted the following in October, 1874,
without a negative vote, though several of the delegates refused to
vote:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The legislature of Michigan, at its recent session, has
submitted to the electors of the State a proposition to change
the State constitution so as to admit the women of Michigan to
the elective franchise; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That this convention recognizes the action of the
legislature as a step toward a higher and purer administration of
the government of our country, and we hope the provision will be
adopted. </p></blockquote>

<p>But the above was not the strongest utterance of Bishop Gilbert
Haven. Once at an equal rights society convention in the Academy of
Music, Brooklyn, where from floor to ceiling was gathered an
admirable and immense audience, with profound respect I heard these
memorable words:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_529" id="Page_529">[Pg 529]</a></span></p>

<p>"I shall never be satisfied until a <i>black woman</i> is seated in the
presidential chair of the United States," than which no more
advanced claim for the complete legal recognition of woman has been
made in our country.</p>

<p>In February, 1879, a spirited debate took place in the legislature
upon an amendment to the Episcopal Church bill, which struck out
the word "male" from the qualification of voters. The Detroit <i>Post
and Tribune</i> says a vigorous effort was made to defeat the measure,
but without success. The justice of allowing women to take part in
church government was recognized, and the amendment carried.</p>

<p>We have written persistently to leading women all over the State
for facts in regard to their local societies, and such responses as
have been received are embodied in this chapter. We give
interesting reports of a few of the county societies in which much
has been accomplished.</p>

<p>Of the work in Quincy Mrs. Sarah Turner says:</p>

<blockquote><p>We never organized a woman suffrage society, although our
literary club has done much for the cause in a general way. We
had crowded houses on the occasions of a very able speech from
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and a most spirited one from Miss Ph&oelig;be
Couzins. For the past eight years a dozen tax-paying women of
this town have availed themselves of the privilege granted them
years ago, and voted at the school meetings; and two years ago a
woman was elected member of the school-board.</p>

<p>Lansing reports for January, 1871, Mrs. Livermore's lecture on
"The Reasons Why" [women should be enfranchised]; the
organization of a city society with sixty members at the close of
the annual meeting of the State Association held in that city in
March; a lecture from Mrs. Stanton before the Young Men's
Association; the adoption of a declaration of rights by the
Ingham County Society, March, 1872, signed by 169 of the best
people of the county. In 1874, of the many meetings held those of
Mrs. Stanton and Miss Couzins are specially mentioned.</p>

<p>The St. Johns society, formed in 1872 with six members, reported
sixty at the State annual meeting of 1874, and also $171.71,
raised by fees and sociables, mainly expended in the circulation
of tracts and documents throughout the county. </p></blockquote>

<p>From Manistee Mrs. Fannie Holden Fowler writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the campaign of 1874 Hon. S. W. Fowler, one of the committee
for Northern Michigan appointed by the State Society, canvassed
Manistee county and advocated the cause through his paper, the
<i>Times and Standard</i>. The election showed the good of educational
work, as a large vote was polled in the towns canvassed by Mr.
Fowler, two of them giving a majority for the amendment. In an
editorial, after the election, Mr. Fowler said: "The combined
forces of ignorance, vice and prejudice have blocked the wheels
of advancing civilization, and Michigan, once the proudest of the
sisterhood of States, has lost the opportunity of inaugurating a
reform; now let the women organize for a final onset." However,
no active suffrage work was done until December 3, 1879, when
Susan B. Anthony was induced to stop over on her way from
Frankfort to Ludington and give her lecture, "Woman Wants Bread;
Not the Ballot." She was our guest, and urged the formation of a
society, and through her influence a "Woman's Department" was
added to the <i>Times and Standard</i>, which is still a feature of
the paper. In the following spring (April, 1880), Elizabeth Cady
Stanton gave her lecture, "Our Girls," with two "conversations,"
before the temperance women and others, which revived the courage
of the few who had been considering the question of organization.
A call was issued, to which twenty-three responded, and the
society was formed June 8, 1880,<a name="FNanchor_321_321" id="FNanchor_321_321"></a><a href="#Footnote_321_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a> adopting the constitution
of the National and electing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_530" id="Page_530">[Pg 530]</a></span> delegates to attend a convention to
be held under the auspices of that association the following week
at Grand Rapids. The society at once made a thorough canvass of
the city, which resulted in the attendance of seventy tax-paying
women at the school election in September, when the first woman's
vote was cast in Manistee county. Each succeeding year has
witnessed more women at the school election, until, in 1883, they
outnumbered the men, and would have elected their ticket but for
a fraud perpetrated by the old school-board, which made the
election void.</p>

<p>In August 1881, Mrs. May Wright Sewall delivered two lectures in
Manistee. In February 1882, a social, celebrating Miss Anthony's
birthday, was given by the association at the residence of Mr.
and Mrs. Fowler, and was voted a success. Through the untiring
efforts of Mrs. Lucy T. Stansell, who was also a member of the
Ladies' Lever League, Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert gave a
Manistee audience a rich treat in her "Homes of Representative
Women," and her conversation on suffrage elicited much interest.</p>

<p>During the autumn of 1882, petitions asking for municipal
suffrage were circulated. The venerable Josiah R. Holden of Grand
Rapids, father of Mrs. Fowler, then in his 88th year, obtained
the largest number of signatures to his petition of any one in
the State. A bill granting municipal suffrage to women was drawn
by Mrs. Fowler, introduced in the legislature by Hon. George J.
Robinson, and afterwards tabled. At the session of 1885 a similar
bill came within a few votes of being carried.</p>

<p>In Grand Rapids there was no revival of systematic work until
1880, when the National Association held a very successful two
days' convention in the city. In response to a petition from the
society, the legislature in the winter of 1885 passed a law,
giving to the tax-paying women of the city the right to vote on
school questions at the charter elections. At the first meeting a
hundred women were present, and hundreds availed themselves of
their new power and voted at the first election. </p></blockquote>

<p>The State Society held its annual meeting at Grand Rapids, October
7, 8, 9, 1885, at which the address of welcome was given by Mrs.
Loraine Immen, president of the City Society,<a name="FNanchor_322_322" id="FNanchor_322_322"></a><a href="#Footnote_322_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a> and responded to
by Mrs. Stebbins of Detroit.<a name="FNanchor_323_323" id="FNanchor_323_323"></a><a href="#Footnote_323_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a></p>

<p>The only religious sect in the world, unless we except the Quakers,
that has recognized the equality of woman, is the Spiritualists.
They have always assumed that woman may be a medium of
communication from heaven to earth, that the spirits of the
universe may breathe through her lips messages of loving kindness
and mercy to the children of earth. The Spiritualists in our
country are not an organized body, but they are more or less
numerous in every State and Territory from ocean to ocean. Their
opinions on woman suffrage and equal rights in all respects must be
learned from the utterances of their leading speakers and writers
of books, from their weekly journals, from resolutions passed at
large meetings, and from their usage and methods. A reliable person
widely familiar with Spiritualism since its beginning in 1848, says
that he has known but very few Spiritualists who were not in favor<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_531" id="Page_531">[Pg 531]</a></span>
of woman suffrage; that all their representative men and women, and
all their journals advocate it, and have always done so; that
expressions in its favor in public meetings meet with hearty
approval, and that men and women have spoken on their platforms,
and held official places as co-workers in their societies through
all of these thirty-seven years. All this has taken place with very
little argument or discussion, but from an intuitive sense of the
justice and consequent benefits of such a course. A single
testimony, of many that might be given from their writings, must
suffice. In the <i>Religio-Philosophical Journal</i>, Chicago, Ill.,
November 22, 1884, its editor, J. C. Bundy, says: "Although not
especially published in the interest of woman, this journal is a
stalwart advocate of woman's rights, and has for years given weekly
space to 'Woman and the Household,' a department under the care of
Mrs. Hester M. Poole, who has done much to encourage women to
renewed and persistent effort for their own advancement."</p>

<p>It has been the custom of some of our journals to ask for letters
of greeting from distinguished people for New Year's day. We find
the following in the <i>Inter-Ocean</i>: "Sojourner Truth, the Miriam of
the later Exodus, sends us this remarkable letter. She is the most
wonderful woman the colored race has ever produced, and thus
conveys her New Year's greeting to our readers:</p>

<blockquote><p>"<span class="smcap">Dear Friends</span>: More than a hundred New Years have I seen before
this one, and I send a New Year's greeting to one and all. We
talk of a beginning, but there is no beginning but the beginning
of a wrong. All else is from God, and is from everlasting to
everlasting. All that has a beginning will have an ending. God is
without end, and all that is good is without end. We shall never
see God, only as we see him in one another. He is a great ocean
of love, and we live and move in Him as the fishes in the sea,
filled with His love and spirit, and His throne is in the hearts
of His people. Jesus, the Son of God, will be as we are, if we
are pure, and we will be like him. There will be no distinction.
He will be like the sun and shine upon us, and we will be like
the sun and shine upon him; all filled with glory. We are the
children of one Father, and he is God; and Jesus will be one
among us. God is no respecter of persons, and we will be as one.
If it were not so, there would be jealousy. These ideas have come
to me since I was a hundred years old, and if you, my friends,
live to be a hundred years old, too, you may have greater ideas
than these. This has become a new world. These thoughts I speak
of because they come to me, and for you to consider and look at.
We should grow in wisdom as we grow older, and new ideas will
come to us about God and ourselves, and we will get more and more
the wisdom of God. I am glad to be remembered by you, and to be
able to send my thoughts; hoping they may multiply and bear
fruit. If I should live to see another New Year's Day I hope to
be able to send more new thoughts.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Sojourner Truth.</p>
<p class="ltr-to">"<i>Grand Rapids, Mich.</i>, Dec. 26, 1880."</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This was accompanied by a note from her most faithful friend, Mrs.
Frances W. Titus, relating matters of interest as to her present
circumstances. She also said: "We have recently another proof that
she is over one hundred years old. Mention of the 'dark day' May
19, 1780, was made in her presence, when she said, 'I remember the
dark day'; and gave a description of that wonderful phenomenon. As
the narrative of Sojourner's life has long been before the public,
we prefer to anything this latest thought of hers, standing then on
the verge of the life of the spirit."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_532" id="Page_532">[Pg 532]</a></span></p>

<p>Sojourner was long a resident and laborer in reform in Michigan,
from which State she went out to the District of Columbia to
befriend her people, as well as to other distant fields. She went
to help feed and clothe the refugees in Kansas in 1879-80, and in
reaching one locality she rode nearly a hundred miles in a lumber
wagon. She closed her eventful life in Battle Creek, where she
passed her last days, having reached the great age of one hundred
and ten years.</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Laura C. Haviland is another noble woman worthy of mention.
She has given a busy life to mitigating the miseries of the
unfortunate. She helped many a fugitive to elude the kidnappers;
she nursed the suffering soldiers, fed the starving freedmen,
following them into Kansas,<a name="FNanchor_324_324" id="FNanchor_324_324"></a><a href="#Footnote_324_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a> and traveled thousands of miles
with orphan children to find them places in western homes. She
and her husband at an early day opened a manual-labor school,
beginning by taking nine children from the county-house, to
educate them with their own on a farm near Adrian. Out of her
repeated experiments, and petitions to the legislature for State
aid, grew at last the State school for homeless children at
Coldwater, where for years she gave her services to train girls
in various industries.</p>

<p>Mrs. Sybil Lawrence, a woman of strong character, and charming
social qualities, exerted a powerful influence for many years in
Ann Arbor. Being in sympathy with the suffrage movement, and in
favor of coëducation, she did all in her power to make the
experiment a success, by her aid and counsels to the girls who
first entered the University. Her mother, sister, and nieces made
a charming household of earnest women ready for every good work.
Their services in the war were indispensable, and their
sympathies during the trying period of reconstruction were all on
the side of liberty and justice. </p></blockquote>

<p>There are many other noble women in Michigan worthy of mention did
space permit, such as Miss Emily Ward, a woman of remarkable force
of character and great benevolence; Mrs. Lucy L. Stout, who has
written many beautiful sentiments in prose and verse: Eliza Legget
and Florence Mayhew, identified with all reform movements; Mrs.
Tenney, the State librarian; and Mrs. Euphemia Cochrane, a Scotch
woman by birth, who loved justice and liberty, a staunch friend
alike of the slave and the unfortunate of her own sex. Under her
roof the advocates of abolition and woman suffrage always found a
haven of rest. Henry C. Wright, Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd
Garrison, Sojourner Truth, Theodore Tilton, Frederick Douglass,
Abbey Kelley and Stephen Foster could all bear testimony to her
generous and graceful hospitality. She was president of the Detroit
Woman Suffrage Association at the time she passed from earth to a
higher life. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_305_305" id="Footnote_305_305"></a><a href="#FNanchor_305_305"><span class="label">[305]</span></a> Having made many lyceum trips through Michigan, I
have had several opportunities of meeting Mrs. Stone in her own
quiet home, and I can readily understand the wide influence she
exerted on the women of that State, and what a benediction her
presence must have been in all the reform associations in which she
took an active part. I always felt that Michigan would be a grand
State in which to make the experiment of woman suffrage, especially
as in Mrs. Stone we had an enthusiastic coädjutor. In paying this
well-deserved tribute to Mrs. Stone, I must not forget to mention
that Mrs. Janney of Flint, a woman of great executive ability,
started the first woman's reading-room and library many years
ago.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_306_306" id="Footnote_306_306"></a><a href="#FNanchor_306_306"><span class="label">[306]</span></a> A sketch of this brilliant Polish woman, who has
taken such an active part in the woman suffrage movement, both in
this country and England, will be found in Volume I., page <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_307_307" id="Footnote_307_307"></a><a href="#FNanchor_307_307"><span class="label">[307]</span></a> The speakers at the Battle Creek convention were
Miriam M. Cole, editor of <i>The Woman's Advocate</i>, Dayton, Ohio;
Mary A. Livermore, editor <i>Woman's Journal</i>, Boston; Hannah Tracy
Cutler, Illinois; Rev. J. M. McCarthy, Saginaw; Mrs. J. C. Dexter,
Ionia; Mrs. D. C. Blakeman, Lucinda H. Stone, Kalamazoo; Adelle
Hazlett, Hillsdale; Rev. J. S. Loveland, D. M. Fox, Battle Creek;
Mary T. Lathrop, Jackson. Letters of sympathy were received from B.
F. Cocker and Moses Coit Tyler, professors of the Michigan State
University. The officers of the State association were:
<i>President</i>, Professor Moses Coit Tyler, Ann Arbor;
<i>Vice-President</i>, Lucinda H. Stone; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mary T.
Lathrop; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Euphemia Cochran, Detroit;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Colin Campbell, Detroit; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Dr. S.
B. Thayer, Frances W. Titus, Battle Creek; Eliza Burt Gamble, East
Saginaw; Catharine A. F. Stebbins, Detroit; Hon. J. G. Wait,
Sturgis; Mrs. D. C. Blakeman, Kalamazoo; Mrs. L. H. T. Dexter,
Ionia.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_308_308" id="Footnote_308_308"></a><a href="#FNanchor_308_308"><span class="label">[308]</span></a> The speakers at the Northwestern convention were
Mrs. Hazlett, the president; Hon. C. B. Waite, Professor D. C.
Brooks, Chicago; Susan B. Anthony, Celia Burleigh, New York; Lillie
Peckham, Wisconsin; Mrs. Lathrop, Jackson; Giles B. Stebbins, Adam
Elder, J. B. Bloss, Detroit. Letters were reported from Henry Ward
Beecher, Wendell Phillips, Rev. E. O. Haven, Professor B. F.
Cocker, Moses Coit Tyler, Mrs. Livermore, Lucy Stone, H. B.
Blackwell, Mrs. Josephine Griffing, T. W. Higginson, Theodore
Tilton, Ph&oelig;be Couzins, Anna E. Dickinson, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, Miriam M. Cole and Rev. Robert Collyer. The officers
elected were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. A. M. Hazlett, Michigan; <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Mrs. Rebecca W. Mott, Chicago; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks, Chicago; <i>Treasurer</i>, Hon.
Fernandol Jones, Chicago; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, J. B. Bloss, Michigan;
Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Illinois; Mrs. E. R. Collins, Ohio; Mrs. Dr.
Ferguson, Indiana; Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins, Missouri; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, C. B. Waite, Chicago; Colin Campbell, Detroit; Mrs.
Francis Minor, Missouri; Madame Anneke, Wisconsin; Mrs. Charles
Leonard and Mrs. E. J. Loomis, Chicago.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_309_309" id="Footnote_309_309"></a><a href="#FNanchor_309_309"><span class="label">[309]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mrs. A. H. Walker; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Lucinda H. Stone; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. S. E.
Emory; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. E. Metcalf; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Dr. J.
A.B. Stone, Mrs. Frances Titus, Mrs. O. A. Jennison, Mrs. C. A. F.
Stebbins, Mrs. D. C. Blakeman, Mrs. L. B. Curtiss, Dr. J. H.
Bartholomew.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_310_310" id="Footnote_310_310"></a><a href="#FNanchor_310_310"><span class="label">[310]</span></a> The following named representatives voted <i>yea</i>:
Messrs, Armstrong, Bailey, Bartholomew, Blackman, Briggs, Brown,
Brunson, Buell, Burns, Cady, Carter, Chamberlain, Collins,
Dintruff, Drake, Drew, Edwards, Fancher, Ferguson, Garfield,
Gravelink, Gilmore, Goodrich, Gordon, Green, Haire, Harden, Hewitt,
Hosner, Howard, Hoyt, Kellogg, Knapp, Lamb, Luce, E. R. Miller, R.
C. Miller, Mitchell, Morse, O'Dell, Parker, Parsons, Pierce,
Priest, Remer, Rich, Robinson, Sanderson, Scott, Sessions, Shaw,
Smith, Taylor, Thomas, Thompson, VanAken, VanScoy, A. Walker, F.
Walker, Walton, Warren, Welch, Welker, Wheeler, Withington, Wixon,
Speaker&mdash;67. The following named Senators voted <i>yea</i>: Messrs.
Anderson, Beattie, Brewer, Butterfield, Childs, Clubb, Cook,
Crosby, Curry, DeLand, Ely, Goodell, Gray, Hewitt, Isham, Lewis,
Mickley, Mitchell, McGowan, Neasmith, Prutzman, Richardson, Sparks,
Sumner, Sutton, Wells&mdash;26.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_311_311" id="Footnote_311_311"></a><a href="#FNanchor_311_311"><span class="label">[311]</span></a> Officers of the Michigan State Woman Suffrage
Association: <i>President</i>, Hon. Jonas H. McGowan, Coldwater;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Rev. Richmond Fiske Jr., Grand Haven, Mrs. John
J. Bagley, Detroit; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. N. Geddes, Lenawee;
<i>Secretary and Treasurer</i>, George H. Stickney, Grand Haven;
<i>Executive Committee</i>, Chairman, Hon. William M. Ferry, Grand
Haven; First District&mdash;Giles B. Stebbins, Z. R. Brockway, Wayne;
Second District&mdash;Hon. Charles E. Mickley, Lenawee, Mrs. M. A.
Hazlett, Hillsdale; Third District&mdash;Hon. W. H. Withington, Jackson,
Morgan Bates, Calhoun; Fourth District&mdash;James H. Stone, Kalamazoo,
Miss Sarah Clute, St. Joseph; Fifth District&mdash;Hon. B. A. Harlan,
Mrs. M. C. Bliss, Kent; Sixth District&mdash;Hon. I. H, Bartholomew,
Ingham, Mrs. A. Jenney, Genesee; Seventh District&mdash;Hon. J. C. Lamb,
Lapeer, J. P. Hoyt, Tuscola; Eighth District&mdash;Hon. C. V. DeLand,
Saginaw, Hon. J. D. Lewis, Bay; Ninth District&mdash;Hon. E. L. Gray,
Newaygo, Mrs. J. G. Ramsdell, Grand Traverse; <i>Vice-Presidents by
Congressional Districts</i>, First District&mdash;Mrs. Eliza Leggett, Hon.
W. N. Hudson, Wayne; Second District&mdash;Hon. W. S. Wilcox, Lenawee,
Hon. Talcott E. Wing, Monroe; Third District&mdash;Mrs. Ann E. Graves,
Calhoun, Mrs. Mary Lathrop, Jackson; Fourth District&mdash;Hon. Levi
Sparks, Berrien, Rev. H. C. Peck, Kalamazoo; Fifth District&mdash;Hon.
S. L. Withey, Hon. James Miller, Kent; Sixth District&mdash;Hon.
Randolph Strickland, Clinton, C. F. Kimball, Oakland; Seventh
District&mdash;Hon. Ira Butterfield, Lapeer, John M. Potter, Macomb;
Eighth District&mdash;Hon. Ralph Ely, Gratiot, Mrs. S. M. Green, Bay;
Ninth District&mdash;Elvin L. Sprague, Grand Traverse, S. W. Fowler,
Manistee.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_312_312" id="Footnote_312_312"></a><a href="#FNanchor_312_312"><span class="label">[312]</span></a> Among many others were letters from Amos Dresser,
Parker Pillsbury, Henry B. Blackwell, Rev. S. Reed, of Ann Arbor,
William Lloyd Garrison, Lucy Stone, Isabella Beecher Hooker,
Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Dr. Henry B. Baker,
Miriam M. Cole, Margaret V. Longley, Abby and Julia Smith, of
Glastonbury, Conn., A. C. Voris, from the Ohio constitutional
convention, Hon. J. Logan Chipman.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_313_313" id="Footnote_313_313"></a><a href="#FNanchor_313_313"><span class="label">[313]</span></a> The following persons were announced and requested
to communicate at once with the Executive Committee, George H.
Stickney, Secretary, Grand Haven, Mich.: <i>Allegan</i>, Mrs. E. S.
Nichols; <i>Barry</i>, Mrs. Goodyear; <i>Bay</i>, Mrs. S. M. Green, Mrs.
Judge Holmes; <i>Berrien</i>, Hon. Levi Sparks, O. E. Mead; <i>Branch</i>,
Mrs. Celia Woolley, Mrs. H. J. Boutelle; <i>Calhoun</i>, W. F. Neil,
Mrs. Judge Graves, Morgan Bates, Dr. G. P. Jocelyn; <i>Cass</i>, Mr.
Rice, William L. Jaques; <i>Chippewa</i>, Mrs. Charles G. Shepherd;
<i>Clinton</i>, Mrs. Lee, Mrs. Gole; <i>Eaton</i>, J. Chance, Hon. A. K.
Warren, Mrs. J. Musgrave, Mr. and Mrs. E. A. Foote; <i>Genesee</i>, Mrs.
D. Stewart; <i>Grand Traverse</i>, Hon. W. H. C. Mitchell, Hon. J. G.
Ramsdell; <i>Gratiot</i>, Hon. Ralph Ely; <i>Hillsdale</i>, Mrs. M. A.
Pendill, Mrs. Dr. Swift, Mrs. E. Samm; <i>Ingham</i>, Dr. I. H.
Bartholomew, Mrs. O. A. Jenison, A. R. Burr; <i>Ionia</i>, Mrs. A.
Williams, Mrs. Chaddock, Mr. J. B. Smith; <i>Isabella</i>, Mrs. Douglas
Nelson; <i>Jackson</i>, Mrs. Mary Lathrop, Fidus Livermore; <i>Kalamazoo</i>,
J. H. Stone, Col. F. W. Curtenius, Merritt Moore. Dr. N. Thomas;
<i>Kent</i>, Mrs. E. L. Briggs, E. G. D. Holden, E. P. Churchill;
<i>Lapeer</i>, Hon. J. C. Lamb, Mrs. J. B. Wilson; <i>Lenawee</i>, Mrs. Dr.
Fox, Mrs. F. A. Rowley, Hon. Charles E. Mickley; <i>Livingston</i>, E.
P. Gregory; <i>Macomb</i>, Mrs. Ambrose Campbell, Daniel B. Briggs;
<i>Manistee</i>, S. W. Fowler, Hon. B. M. Cutcheon, T. J. Ramsdell;
<i>Marquette</i>, Sidney Adams, Hiram A. Burt; <i>Mason</i>, Mr. Foster;
<i>Midland</i>, Dr. E. Jennings, Mrs. Sumner; <i>Missaukee</i>, S. W. Davis;
<i>Monroe</i>, Hon. J. J. Sumner; <i>Montcalm</i>, Mr. J. M. Fuller;
<i>Muskegon</i>, Lieutenant-Governor H. H. Holt, Mrs. O. B. Ingersoll,
Mrs. Barney; <i>Newaygo</i>, Hon. E. L. Gray, Mrs. Lucy Utley;
<i>Oakland</i>, Mrs. D. B. Fox, J. Holman, jr., Mrs. Alexander;
<i>Oceana</i>, John Halsted; <i>Osceola</i>, B. F. Gooch; <i>Ottawa</i>, Dwight
Cutler, Mrs. W. C. Sheldon; <i>Roscommon</i>, Messrs. Davis &amp; Hall;
<i>Saginaw</i>, Mrs. Whiting, Mrs. Gamble, J. F. Driggs, W. P. Burdick;
<i>Shiawassee</i>, Mrs. Dr. Parkill, J. H. Hartwell, Hon. J. M. Goodell,
Dr. King; <i>St. Clair</i>, Hon. B. W. Jenks; <i>St. Joseph</i>, W. S. Moore,
Mrs. Mary Peck; <i>Tuscola</i>, Mrs. J. P. Hoyt; <i>Van Buren</i>, Mr. and
Mrs. C. D. Van Vechten, A. S. Dyckman, Hon. S. H. Blackman;
<i>Washtenaw</i>, Mrs. Israel Hall, Mrs. Seth Reed, D. Cramer, Mary E.
Foster; <i>Wayne</i>, Mrs. C. A. F. Stebbins, Colin Campbell, G. W.
Bates, Lucy L. Stout.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_314_314" id="Footnote_314_314"></a><a href="#FNanchor_314_314"><span class="label">[314]</span></a> Miss Eastman, Miss Hindman, Ph&oelig;be Couzins,
Margaret W. Campbell, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Lelia Partridge, Mrs.
Hazlett, Mrs. Samms, Miss Matilda Victor; George W. Julian of
Indiana, Giles B. Stebbins and Clinton R. Fisk, representing the
Michigan Association, and the following among volunteer workers: B.
A. Harlan of Grand Rapids, Mrs. Hathaway of Cass county, Mrs. Judge
Fuller, the Hon. J. H. McGowan and Mrs. Boutelle of Branch county;
Mrs. L. A. Pearsall of Macomb, Mrs. F. W. Gillette of Oakland, Miss
Strickland of Clinton, J. B. Stone of Kalamazoo, Mrs. Lucy L. Stout
of Wayne, and the Rev. T. H. Stewart of Indiana.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_315_315" id="Footnote_315_315"></a><a href="#FNanchor_315_315"><span class="label">[315]</span></a> It was in this campaign that an editor in a
Kalamazoo journal said: "That ancient daughter of Methuselah, Susan
B. Anthony, passed through our city yesterday, on her way to the
Plainwell meeting, with a bonnet on her head looking as if she had
recently descended from Noah's ark." Miss Anthony often referred to
this description of herself, and said, "Had I represented 20,000
votes in Michigan, that political editor would not have known nor
cared whether I was the oldest or the youngest daughter of
Methuselah, or whether my bonnet came from the ark or from
Worth's.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_316_316" id="Footnote_316_316"></a><a href="#FNanchor_316_316"><span class="label">[316]</span></a> The inspectors voting were: <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Adams, Baxter,
Brooks, Dullea, Henderson, Smith. <i>Nays</i>&mdash;Bragg, Balch, Barclay,
Barry, Bond, Christian, Hill, Hughes, Langley, Mahoney, O'Keefe,
Sutherland.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_317_317" id="Footnote_317_317"></a><a href="#FNanchor_317_317"><span class="label">[317]</span></a> We can easily see how little the opponents who talk
so much of chivalry, respect women or themselves, by the language
they use when they are opposed on this very question.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_318_318" id="Footnote_318_318"></a><a href="#FNanchor_318_318"><span class="label">[318]</span></a> Mrs. Boutelle and Mrs. Stebbins were in the polling
place two or three hours, while Mr. Farwell made efforts to gain
favorable opinions enough to convert Colonel Phelps; many excellent
men were in favor of her vote. The ladies lunched from a daintily
filled basket, prepared by the wife of inspector Farwell.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_319_319" id="Footnote_319_319"></a><a href="#FNanchor_319_319"><span class="label">[319]</span></a> Miss Abby Rogers, Miss Delia Rogers, Miss Emily
Ward, and Miss Clapp, were all deeply interested in establishing a
seminary where girls could have equal advantages with students in
the university. This seminary was in existence ten years, but
without State aid the struggle was too great, and Miss Abby Rogers,
the founder, abandoned the undertaking.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_320_320" id="Footnote_320_320"></a><a href="#FNanchor_320_320"><span class="label">[320]</span></a> The names of the eleven young women Mrs. Stearns is
unable to recall.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_321_321" id="Footnote_321_321"></a><a href="#FNanchor_321_321"><span class="label">[321]</span></a> The officers of the Manistee Society are (1885):
<i>President</i>, Mrs. Lucy T. Stansell; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>,
Fannie Holden Fowler; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Miss Nellie Walker;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Susan Seymour.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_322_322" id="Footnote_322_322"></a><a href="#FNanchor_322_322"><span class="label">[322]</span></a> The officers of the Grand Rapids Society are:
<i>President</i>, Mrs. Cordelia F. Briggs; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Loraine
Immen, Emma Wheeler; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Henry Spring; <i>Secretary</i>,
Mrs. J. W. Adams.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_323_323" id="Footnote_323_323"></a><a href="#FNanchor_323_323"><span class="label">[323]</span></a> Following is a complete list of all officers elected
in 1885: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Mary L. Doe of Carrollton;
<i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs. Loraine Immen of Grand Rapids; <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Mrs. H. S. Spring of Grand Rapids; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Mrs. Fannie H. Fowler of Manistee; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. C.
A. F. Stebbins of Detroit; <i>Advisory Committee</i>, Mrs. E. L. Briggs
of Grand Rapids, and Mrs. S. E. V. Emery of Lansing; <i>Executive
Committee</i>&mdash;First District, Mrs. Harriet J. Boutell of Detroit;
Second District, Mrs. Annette B. Gardner Smith of Ann Arbor; Fifth
District, Mrs. Emily H. Ketchum of Grand Rapids; Sixth District,
Francis M. Stuart of Flint; Eighth District, Mrs. Frances C.
Stafford of Milwaukee; Ninth District, Col. S. W. Fowler of
Manistee; Eleventh and Twelfth Districts, Mrs. R. A. Campbell,
Traverse City.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_324_324" id="Footnote_324_324"></a><a href="#FNanchor_324_324"><span class="label">[324]</span></a> Spending the summer of 1865 at Leavenworth, I
frequently visited Mrs. Haviland, then busily occupied in
ministering to the necessities of the 10,000 refugees just then
from the Southern States. On May 29, I aided her in collecting
provisions for the steamer, which was to transport over a hundred
men, women and children, for whom she was to provide places in
Michigan. I shall never forget that day nor the admiration and
reverence I felt for the magnanimity and self-sacrifice of that
wonderful woman.&mdash;[S. B. A.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_533" id="Page_533">[Pg 533]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLII" id="CHAPTER_XLII"></a>CHAPTER XLII.</h2>

<h3>INDIANA.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>The First Woman Suffrage Convention After the War, 1869&mdash;Amanda
M. Way&mdash;Annual Meetings, 1870-85, in the Larger
Cities&mdash;Indianapolis Equal Suffrage Society, 1878&mdash;A Course of
Lectures&mdash;In May, 1880, National Convention in
Indianapolis&mdash;Zerelda G. Wallace&mdash;Social Entertainment&mdash;Governor
Albert G. Porter&mdash;Susan B. Anthony's Birthday&mdash;Schuyler
Colfax&mdash;Legislative Hearings&mdash;Temperance Women of Indiana&mdash;Helen
M. Gougar&mdash;General Assembly&mdash;Delegates to Political
Conventions&mdash;Women Address Political Meetings&mdash;Important Changes
in the Laws for Women, from 1860 to 1884&mdash;Colleges Open to
Women&mdash;Demia
Butler&mdash;Professors&mdash;Lawyers&mdash;Doctors&mdash;Ministers&mdash;Miss Catherine
Merrill&mdash;Miss Elizabeth Eaglesfield&mdash;Rev. Prudence Le Clerc&mdash;Dr.
Mary F. Thomas&mdash;Prominent Men and Women&mdash;George W. Julian&mdash;The
Journals&mdash;Gertrude Garrison. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">This</span> was one of the first States to form a Woman Suffrage
Society<a name="FNanchor_325_325" id="FNanchor_325_325"></a><a href="#Footnote_325_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a> for thoroughly organized action, with a president,
secretary, treasurer, and constitution and by-laws. From October,
1851, this association held annual meetings, sent petitions and
appeals to the legislature, and had frequent hearings at the
capitol, diligently pressing the question of political equality for
woman for ten consecutive years. Then, although the society did not
disband, we find no record of meetings or aggressive action until
1869, for here, as elsewhere, all other interests were forgotten in
the intense excitement of a civil war. But no sooner were the
battles fought, victory achieved, and the army disbanded, than
woman's protests against her wrongs were heard throughout the
Northern States; and in Indiana the same Amanda M. Way who took the
initiative step in 1851 for the first woman's convention, summoned
her coädjutors once more to action in 1869<a name="FNanchor_326_326" id="FNanchor_326_326"></a><a href="#Footnote_326_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a>, and with the same
platform and officers renewed the work with added determination for
a final victory.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_534" id="Page_534">[Pg 534]</a></span></p>

<p>For this interesting chapter we are indebted to Mrs. May Wright
Sewall, who has patiently gathered and arranged this material, and
laid it, as a free gift, at our feet. Those who have ever attempted
to unearth the most trivial incidents of history, will appreciate
the difficulties she must have encountered in this work, as well as
in condensing all she desired to say within the very limited space
allowed to this chapter. Mrs. Sewall writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>The first convention after the war, June 8, 9, 1869, was held in
Masonic Hall, and continued two days. The Indianapolis <i>Journal</i>
devoted several columns daily to the proceedings, closing with
the following complimentary editorial:</p>

<blockquote><p>As a deliberative assembly it compared favorably with the best
that have ever been conducted by our own sex. To say that there
was as much order, propriety and dignity as usually characterizes
male conventions of a political character is but to put the
matter in a very mild shape. Whatever was said, was said with
earnestness and for a purpose, and while several times the debate
was considerably spiced, the ladies never fell below their
brothers in sound sense. We have yet to see any sensible man who
attended the convention whose esteem for woman has been lowered,
while very many have been converted by the captivating speeches
of Mrs. Cole, Mrs. Swank and Mrs. Livermore. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the <i>Sentinel</i> of June 11, 1869, an editorial appeared whose
evident object was to reässure the public mind and to restore to
peace and confidence any souls that might have been agitated during
the convention by so unusual and novel an exercise as thought. The
nature of the sedative potion thus editorially administered to an
alarmed public may be inferred from this sample:</p>

<blockquote><p>No amount of human ingenuity can change the arrangement of
nature. The history of the race furnishes the evidence that the
species of man and woman are opposite. The distinctions that now
exist have existed from the time that the "Lord God caused a deep
sleep to fall upon Adam," and said: "Thy desire shall be to thy
husband; he shall rule over thee." This brief story comprises the
history of man and woman, and defines the relations which shall
ever exist between them. When woman ceases to be womanly, woman's
rights associations become her fitting province. </p></blockquote>

<p>The editor of the <i>Journal</i> at that time was Colonel W. R.
Holloway, the present very liberal manager of the <i>Times</i>. The
editor of the <i>Sentinel</i> was Joseph J. Bingham. The State was then
Republican, and as the organ of that party the <i>Journal</i> probably
had the larger number of readers.</p>

<p>The State Woman Suffrage Association convened in Indianapolis, June
8, 1870, and held a two days' meeting. The <i>Journal</i> contains, as
usual, a full report. The <i>Sentinel's</i> tone is quite different from
that which distinguished its utterances the preceding year. Its
reports are full and perfectly respectful. This convention is
memorable as that at which the Indiana Society became auxiliary to
the American Association. The records show that this union was
accomplished by a majority of <i>one</i>, the ballot on the proposition
standing 15 for and 14 against. As soon as the union was thus
effected the following was adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That this association is in favor of the union of the
National and American Associations as soon as practicable. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_535" id="Page_535">[Pg 535]</a></span></p>

<p>On the same day Judge Bradwell of Chicago submitted a resolution
favoring the union of the two national societies, which was laid on
the table. Of the annual meetings from 1871 to 1878 the
Indianapolis papers contain no reports, save the briefest mention
of those of 1873-4. From 1878 to 1885 short but fair reports may be
found. Since 1870, the conventions of this society<a name="FNanchor_327_327" id="FNanchor_327_327"></a><a href="#Footnote_327_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a> have been
held in different towns throughout the State.<a name="FNanchor_328_328" id="FNanchor_328_328"></a><a href="#Footnote_328_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a> The minutes show
that the propriety of withdrawing from the American Association and
remaining independent was brought before the convention of 1871,
under the head of <i>special business</i>; that it was decided to
postpone action until the next annual meeting, and to make the
matter of withdrawal a special order of business, but it does not
appear that from that time the subject has ever been broached. At
the annual meeting of 1875, held at a time when preparations for
celebrating our national centennial were in progress, the following
resolution was passed:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That we congratulate the voters of the United States
on their enjoyment of the right of suffrage, and commend them for
the great centenary celebration of the establishment of that
right, which they are about to have. But we do earnestly protest
against the action of the Indiana legislature by which it made
appropriations for that purpose of moneys collected by taxing
women's property. </p></blockquote>

<p>In November, 1878, the ninth annual meeting of the American
Association was held in Indianapolis, by invitation from the State
Society.<a name="FNanchor_329_329" id="FNanchor_329_329"></a><a href="#Footnote_329_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a></p>

<p>In the month of March, 1878, some very mysterious whisperings
advertised the fact that there was to be a meeting of the ladies of
Indianapolis known to have "advanced ideas" concerning their sex.
In response to a secretly circulated summons, there met at No. 18
Circle Hall nine women and one man, who, though not mutually
acquainted, were the most courageous of those to whom the call had
come. Probably each of the ten often thinks with amusement of the
suspicious glances with which they regarded one another. As a
participant, I may say that the company had the air of a band of
conspirators. Had we convened consciously to plot the ruin of our
domestic life, which opponents predict as the result of woman's
enfranchisement, we could not have looked more guilty or have moved
about with more unnatural stealth. That demeanor I explain as an
unconscious tribute to what "Madam Grundy" would have thought had
she known of our conclave.</p>

<p>At that meeting one point only was definitely settled; which was,
whether the new society should take a name which would conceal from
the public its primary object, or one which would clearly advertise
it. The honesty of the incipient organization was vindicated by its
deciding<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_536" id="Page_536">[Pg 536]</a></span> upon the latter. I do not record in detail the initiative
steps of this flourishing society in order to awaken in its members
any humiliating memories, but because the fact that ten
conscientious, upright persons could thus secretly convene in an
obscure room, and that such a question could agitate them for more
than two hours, is the best indication that could be given of the
conservative atmosphere which enveloped Indianapolis, even as late
as 1878. The next meeting was appointed for April 2, at the
residence of Mrs. Zerelda G. Wallace. Notices were inserted in the
papers, and in the meantime some pains was taken to secure not only
the presence of persons who had not previously been identified with
any reform movement, but also that of some well-known friends. It
was attended by twenty-six men and women, representing various
religious and political parties, most of whom enjoyed the
advantages of education and social position, and resulted in a
permanent organization under a constitution whose first article is
as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>This organization shall be known as the Indianapolis Equal
Suffrage Society, and shall consist of such men and women as are
willing to labor for the attainment of equal rights at the
ballot-box for all citizens on the same conditions. </p></blockquote>

<p>On the principle that that which has some restrictions is most
desired, membership was at first hedged about with certain
formalities. While most reform organizations welcome as members all
who will pay their annual fee and subscribe to the constitution,
this society requires that the names of candidates be presented at
one meeting and formally balloted on at the next, thus providing a
month for consideration. Since 1878 this society<a name="FNanchor_330_330" id="FNanchor_330_330"></a><a href="#Footnote_330_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> has held
forty-three public meetings, and distributed throughout the city
several thousand tracts. At intervals the society has engaged
speakers from abroad. Miss Anthony gave her "Bread and Ballot" to a
large audience in Masonic Hall, and many date their conversion from
that evening. Mrs. Stanton has appeared twice under the auspices of
the society. On the first occasion it secured for her the
court-room in which the upper house of the general assembly was
then sitting. Tickets of admission were sent to all the members of
both houses. Her lecture on "The Education of Girls," made a
profound impression. On her second appearance she spoke in the
First Christian Church, on "Boys." For Miss Frances E. Willard,
Robert's Park Church was obtained, and thus suffrage principles
were presented to a new class of minds. Mrs. J. Ellen Foster spoke
on "Women before the Law," in the Criminal-court room. The society
made every effort to secure the general attendance of members of
the bar. Before one of its regular meetings in the Christian
chapel, Mrs. Louise V. Boyd read a very bright paper on "A Cheerful
Outlook for Women." At its present parlors, Mrs. Harbert delivered
an address for the benefit of the suffrage campaign in Oregon.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_537" id="Page_537">[Pg 537]</a></span></p>

<p>In May, 1880, this society invited the National Association to hold
its annual convention in Indianapolis. Entertainment was provided
for eighty-seven delegates, besides the friends who came from
different parts of the State. In Park Theatre, the largest
auditorium of the city, eloquent voices for two days pleaded the
cause of freedom. The reports in the city press were full and fair,
and the editorials commendatory. The fact that the <i>Sentinel</i>
contained a long editorial advocating the doctrines of equal
suffrage, shows the progress since 1869. The evening after the
convention a reception was given to the members and friends of the
National Association in the spacious parlors of Mrs. John C. New.</p>

<p>From its origin the Indianapolis society has held aloof from all
formal alliances. Thus it has been free to work with individuals
and organizations that have woman suffrage for their aim. It
habitually sends delegates to the State annual conventions, and in
those of the American and National it is usually represented.</p>

<p>In December, 1880, the society issued a letter, secured its
publication in the leading papers of the State, and addressed a
copy to each member of the General Assembly, in order to advise
that body that there were women ready to watch their official
careers and to demand from them the consideration of just claims:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Indianapolis</span>, Dec. 22, 1880.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>: The Equal Suffrage Society of Indianapolis, in behalf
of citizens of Indiana who believe that liberty to exercise the
right of suffrage should neither be granted nor denied on the
ground of sex, would respectfully notify you that during the next
session of the State legislature it will invite the attention of
that body to the consideration of what is popularly called "The
Suffrage Question." The society will petition the legislature to
devote a day to hearing, from representative advocates of woman
suffrage, appeals and arguments for such legislation as may be
necessary to abolish the present unjust restriction of the
elective franchise to one sex, and to secure to women the free
exercise of the ballot, under the same conditions and such only,
as are imposed upon men. To this matter we ask your unprejudiced
attention, that when our cause shall be brought before the
legislature its advocates may have your coöperation.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">Zerelda G. Wallace</span>, <i>President</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-to"><span class="smcap">May Wright Sewall</span>, <i>Secretary</i>,</p>
<p>By order of the Equal Suffrage Society of Indianapolis.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The society has lately taken a new departure, giving lunches,
parties and literary entertainments, to which invitations<a name="FNanchor_331_331" id="FNanchor_331_331"></a><a href="#Footnote_331_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a> are
issued, by the officers, thus becoming a factor in the social life
of the city. The invitation, programme, and press comments of its
last entertainment indicate the character of these reünions, and
the esteem in which they are held. These occasions have been the
means of securing for the society greater popular favor than it has
hitherto enjoyed. At the conclusion of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_538" id="Page_538">[Pg 538]</a></span> formal toasts, the
president called upon Gov. Albert G. Porter, who had come in a few
minutes before. He thanked the meeting for its reference to what he
had done for the cause of equal suffrage, and announced that while
he remained governor of Indiana he would do all he could for the
rights of women.<a name="FNanchor_332_332" id="FNanchor_332_332"></a><a href="#Footnote_332_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a> He referred to the progress made, and to the
refining influence that women would have on political matters. Of
all the social entertainments given, none has secured more converts
than the celebration of Susan B. Anthony's sixty-second birthday.
The arrangements for this event were placed in the hands of Mrs.
Mary E.N. Carey and Mrs. May Wright Sewall. The following account,
prepared by the author of this chapter for the Indianapolis <i>Times</i>
of February 18, 1882, will sufficiently indicate the spirit of the
occasion:</p>

<blockquote><p>The anniversary was a unique event. A number of invitations were
issued to citizens interested in suffrage who were not formally
connected with the association. As a result, on the evening of
February 15, there were gathered in the spacious parlors of Dr.
Carey's hospitable home, one hundred and fifty persons
representing the best circles of Indianapolis society. A portrait
of Miss Anthony rested upon an easel, conspicuously placed, that
all might see the serene face of the woman who for thirty years
has preached the gospel of political freedom, and expounded the
constitution of the United States in favor of justice to all. The
programme was somewhat informal, all but two of the speeches<a name="FNanchor_333_333" id="FNanchor_333_333"></a><a href="#Footnote_333_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a>
being spontaneous expressions of admiration for Miss Anthony and
her fidelity to principle. There were two regrets connected with
the programme. These were caused by the absence of Gov. Porter
and Hon. Schuyler Colfax; but the gracious presence of Mrs.
Colfax was a reminder of her husband's fidelity to our cause, and
Mrs. Porter's sympathetic face was a scarcely less potent support
than would have been a speech from the governor. Just before the
close of the meeting the following telegram was sent to Miss
Anthony:</p>

<p><i>Susan B. Anthony, Tenafly, New Jersey</i>.</p>

<p>The Indianapolis Equal Suffrage Society, in meeting assembled
with many friends sends you greeting on this anniversary
occasion, in recognition of your devotion to the cause of women.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">May Wright Sewall</span>, <i>Secretary</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>To report the details of this social gathering would be wearisome,
but some reflections to which the occasion gave rise may be
permitted. One lady upon seeing the invitation to the meeting
exclaimed: "This little bit of paper is an indication of a higher
civilization than I supposed we had yet entered upon. Until
recently it has been like the betrayal of a secret for a woman,
particularly for an unmarried woman, to have a birthday." This
exclamation but expresses a historical fact and a prophetic truth.
So long as woman's only value depended upon physical charms, the
years which destroyed them were deemed enemies. The fact that an
unmarried woman's sixty-second birthday can be celebrated, shows
the dawning of the idea that the loss of youth and its fresh beauty
may be more than compensated by the higher charms of intellectual
attainments. The time will never come when women, or men either,
will delight in the possession of crows-feet, gray hairs and
wrinkles; but the time will come, aye, and now is, when they will
view these blemishes as but a petty price to pay for the joy of new
knowledge, for the deeper joy of closer contact with humanity, and
for the deepest joy of worthy work well done. </p>

<p>The first legislative hearing since 1860, was that granted January,
1871, to Miss Amanda Way and Mrs. Emma B. Swank. The two houses
received them in joint session, the lieutenant-governor and speaker
of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_539" id="Page_539">[Pg 539]</a></span> house occupying the speaker's desk. Mr. William Cumback
introduced Miss Way, who read the following memorial:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Mr. President and Gentlemen</i>&mdash;We come before you as a committee
appointed by the Woman Suffrage Association to memorialize your
honorable body in behalf of the women of Indiana. We ask you to
take the necessary steps to so amend the State constitution as to
secure to women the right of suffrage. We believe the extension
of the full rights of citizenship to all the people of the State,
is in accordance with the fundamental principles of a just
government. We believe that as woman has an equal interest with
man in all public questions, she should therefore have an equal
voice in their decision. We believe that as woman's life,
prosperity and happiness are equally dependent upon the order and
morality of society, she should have an equal voice in the laws
regulating her surroundings. We believe that as woman is human,
she has human needs and rights, and as she is held responsible to
law, she should have an equal voice in electing her law-makers.</p>

<p>We believe that the interests of man and woman are equally
improved in securing to both equal education, a place in the
trades and professions, equal honor and dignity everywhere; and
as the first step to this end is equality before the law, we,
your petitioners, ask that you extend to the women of Indiana the
right of suffrage, and thus enable one-half the citizens of the
State to protect themselves in their most sacred rights. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Way spoke briefly to the points in the memorial, urging the
legislators to give to women the same chances for improvement, the
same means for defense, and the same weapons for protection that
they have secured to themselves. Mrs. Swank also made a logical and
eloquent speech. No action was taken by the legislature.</p>

<p>On January 22, 1875, the two houses of the General Assembly
convened in joint session, to receive petitions from the
"Temperance Women of Indiana," who were on this occasion
represented by Mrs. Zerelda G. Wallace, Mrs. Avaline and Mrs.
Robinson, who had been appointed by the State Temperance
Association. Mrs. Wallace read a memorial and stated that it was
signed by 10,000 women, and then argued its various points and
pleaded for the action of the "Honorable Body." Mrs. Avaline and
Mrs. Robinson followed in briefer, but not less earnest appeals.
The only answer elicited by these ladies was the assurance made by
Dr. Thompson, a member of the Senate, that he and his colleagues
were there, "not to represent their <i>consciences</i>, but to represent
their <i>constituents</i>," whose will was directly opposed to the
petition offered.</p>

<p>On January 3, 1877, a resolution to the effect that the fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United States
give the ballot to women, came to its third reading in the lower
House. On that occasion, Mrs. Wallace and Dr. Mary F. Thomas
represented the women of Indiana, and Mrs. Mary A. Livermore was
present to lend the assistance of her oratory. The speeches created
a profound impression, but neither native nor foreign eloquence was
able to secure the requisite vote. When the ayes and nays were
called, the resolution was lost&mdash;51 to 22.</p>

<p>On February 24, 1879, once again in joint session, the General
Assembly received a committee appointed by the State Association
and the Equal Suffrage Society of Indianapolis, to support woman's
claim to the ballot. Mrs. Wallace, Dr. Mary F. Thomas, Mary E.
Haggart and Amy E. Dunn, each spoke at length on the points clearly
set forth in the memorial. Whatever arguments could reach the
intellect, whatever could touch the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_540" id="Page_540">[Pg 540]</a></span> sensibilities, were urged by
these ladies on that occasion, and the gentlemen did not fail to
compliment their abilities, although the exercise of them had no
palpable effect upon legislation.</p>

<p>Before the General Assembly of 1880-81, had convened, it was known
by its members-elect that the women of the State would be a
constant factor in their deliberations. They had been notified of
this intention by the circular letter from the City Society, and by
the published fact that the State Association had already appointed
representatives, whose duty it should be to secure a hearing for
such an amendment to the constitution of the State as should enable
women to vote. As soon as the legislature assembled, committees on
women's claims were appointed in both branches; Simeon P. Yancey
being the chairman of the Senate, and J. M. Furnas of the House,
committee. Two points had been determined upon. These were to try
to secure the passage of a bill which should immediately authorize
women to vote for presidential electors, and such an amendment to
the constitution of the State as should enable women to exercise
the right of suffrage on all questions.</p>

<p>In connection with the first of these points the name of Helen M.
Gougar deserves especial mention. At the Washington convention of
the American Association, Mr. Blackwell suggested that the States
try to secure the electoral ballot for women, and as soon as Mrs.
Gougar returned she urged the members of the legislature to take
the matter up. At her suggestion, Dr. Mary F. Thomas addressed a
letter to W. D. Wallace, esq., a prominent lawyer of Lafayette,
asking him if, in his opinion, the extension of the electoral
ballot to women would be incompatible with the present constitution
of the State; in reply to this Mr. Wallace set forth an exhaustive
argument,<a name="FNanchor_334_334" id="FNanchor_334_334"></a><a href="#Footnote_334_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a> proving the entire constitutionality of such an act.
Five thousand were printed and gratuitously distributed throughout
the State.</p>

<p>The Committee on Women's Claims in both Houses met at sundry times
with members of the Suffrage Association to discuss the merits of
these bills and to become familiar with the arguments. During the
regular session Mrs. Wallace and Mrs. Gougar spent two consecutive
weeks in attendance at the legislature, watching the attitude of
the different members and lobbying, in the good sense of that word.
The immediate object was to secure the passage of the electoral
bill, for that once gained, and women by act of the legislature
made voters upon the most important question, it was reasonably
thought that the passage of the amendment would be thereby
facilitated. A hearing was granted on February 16, 1881, and the
House took a recess to listen to the speeches of the women
appointed by the State Association, Mrs. Haggart and Mrs. Gougar.
The next day, February 17, the Senate afforded a similar
opportunity, and the same ladies addressed that body.</p>

<p>In addition to the faithful exertions of Mrs. Wallace and Mrs.
Gougar, and the public hearing granted by both houses, much quiet
but most effective work was done with individual members. To no one
is more due than to Paulina T. Merritt, whose reputation for
intelligent charity is<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_541" id="Page_541">[Pg 541]</a></span> widely known. Mrs. Merritt was a frequent
attendant upon the sessions of the legislature and her untiring
efforts in private conversations with members were invaluable. In
spite of all these influences, when the electoral bill was brought
to a vote upon its third reading, it was lost on the ground that it
was unconstitutional.</p>

<p>At the special session all efforts centered upon the bill for
amending section 2, of article II., of the State constitution, so
as to give women the right to vote in all elections. Mrs. Wallace
and Mrs. Gougar gave another week to the work, and on April 7 the
bill was brought to a vote in the House, and passed&mdash;ayes 62, nays
24; in the Senate, on April 8, it also passed&mdash;ayes 25, nays 18;
and so the first entrenchment was won.</p>

<p>No one believed that the bill to amend the constitution would have
passed had it not been preceded by the battle over the electoral
bill and the consequent education of the General Assembly in regard
to this great question of political rights. Immediately a
conference was held as to the proper manner of expressing our
gratitude to the committees on women's political claims. It was at
first thought the recognition should come from the Equal Suffrage
Society, but it was finally considered wiser to have a reception
given the honorable body by a voluntary committee of women who
should act quite independently of any society.<a name="FNanchor_335_335" id="FNanchor_335_335"></a><a href="#Footnote_335_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a></p>

<p>The passage of the amendment by the legislature of 1881 gave the
advocates of our cause a common objective point, and the efforts of
all during the two years immediately succeeding were directed
toward securing the election of such a legislature as might be
relied upon to repass the bill in 1883. The State society at its
annual meeting enlarged its central committee and instructed it to
arrange meetings in various parts of the State, to send out
speakers, and to organize local societies.<a name="FNanchor_336_336" id="FNanchor_336_336"></a><a href="#Footnote_336_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a> This committee
prepared a letter, for general distribution, indicating to the
women of the State their duty in the premises, and suggesting
various lines of work. Blanks for a special petition to the General
Assembly were sent to every township, which were industriously
circulated and numerously signed.</p>

<p>In the spring of 1882 the officers of the State society issued a
call for a mass-meeting, to which "all women within the boundaries
of the State who believed in equal suffrage, or were interested in
the fate of the pending amendment," were invited. The meeting was
held on May 19, at the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_542" id="Page_542">[Pg 542]</a></span> Grand Opera House, and the attendance
exceeded the most extravagant hopes of those who had called it. If
any came to scoff, they remained to participate with pride in this
remarkable convention, which is yet frequently referred to as the
largest and most impressive meeting ever held in the Hoosier
capital. The call had invited those who could not attend the
meeting to manifest their sympathy by sending postal-cards to the
corresponding secretary. These were received in such numbers for
several days that Mrs. Adkinson and the half-dozen clerks appointed
to assist her in counting them, unable to bring in a full report,
announced at the close of the evening session, that having reached
5,000, they desisted from further enumeration.</p>

<p>No effort was spared to make the demonstration truly representative
of the suffrage interest throughout the State. All the sessions
were presided over by Mrs. Sewall, who called the roll by
congressional districts, some one of whose representatives
responded. The ease and dignity with which women, many of whom had
never spoken before any audience save their own neighbors gathered
in Sunday-school or prayer-meeting, reported the status of their
respective communities on the suffrage question, was matter of
astonishment as well as of admiration.<a name="FNanchor_337_337" id="FNanchor_337_337"></a><a href="#Footnote_337_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a> So exceptional in all
regards was the conduct of the meeting that the papers united in
expressing surprise at the strength of the suffrage sentiment in
the State as indicated by the mass-convention.</p>

<p>This meeting of May 19, 1882, struck the key on which the friends
in the State spoke during the summer and fall of that year. Large
numbers of societies were organized and numerous meetings held; the
immediate object being to secure the election of a legislature that
should vote to submit the amendment passed by the General Assembly
of 1881 to the decision of what is mis-named "a popular vote." The
degree to which this action influenced the politicians of the State
cannot be accurately known, but we are compelled to believe that it
was one of the causes which induced the Republicans in convention
assembled to declare for the "submission of the pending
amendments." The Republican State convention was held August 8,
1882, and the first plank in the platform reads thus:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved, First</i>&mdash;That reposing trust in the people as the
fountain of power, we demand that the pending amendments to the
constitution shall be agreed to and submitted by the next
legislature to the voters of the State for their decision
thereon. These amendments were not partisan in their origin, and
are not so in character, and should not be made so in voting upon
them. Recognizing the fact that the people are divided in
sentiment in regard to the propriety of their adoption or
rejection, and cherishing the right of private judgment, we favor
the submission of these amendments at a special election, so that
there may be an intelligent decision thereon, uninfluenced by
partisan issues. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the mass-meeting of May 19, Mrs. P. T. Merritt of Indianapolis,
Mrs. M. E. M. Price of Kokomo, and Mrs. J. C. Ridpath of
Greencastle were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_543" id="Page_543">[Pg 543]</a></span> appointed as delegates to the different political
State conventions. As a Republican, Mrs. Merritt was received with
great courtesy and accorded time to speak. Her address was
characterized by sound logic and dignity of expression, and was
reported in full with the rest of the proceedings of the Republican
convention. As a prohibition amendment had also been passed by the
legislature of 1881, the interests of suffrage and prohibition in
the campaign of 1882 were identical. The Woman's Christian
Temperance Union of Indiana sent Mrs. Helen M. Gougar to the
Republican State convention, by which she was respectfully received
and which she ably addressed.</p>

<p>The advocates of suffrage did not content themselves during the
summer of 1882 by merely holding suffrage meetings proper, and
addressing political bodies, but they sought every opportunity to
reach the ears of the people for whatever purpose convened. The
Equal Suffrage Society received from the managers of the Acton
camp-meeting a place on their programme; accordingly Mrs. Haggart
and Mrs. Gougar, as delegates, addressed immense audiences. Both of
these ladies labored indefatigably, discussing the question of
submission of the amendments before Sunday-school conventions,
teachers' associations, agricultural fairs, picnics and assemblies
of every name. Others rendered less conspicuous, but not less
earnest or constant service; and when the political campaign proper
opened, it was evident that every candidate would firmly and
unreservedly answer the challenge: "Submission, or non-submission?"</p>

<p>For the first time in the history of Indiana, women were employed
by party managers to address political meetings and advocate the
election of candidates. Mrs. Gougar addressed Republican rallies at
various points; she and Mrs. Haggart together made a canvass of
Tippecanoe county on behalf of the Republican candidate for
representative in the General Assembly, Captain W. De Witt Wallace,
who was committed not only to the submission of the amendments, but
also to the advocacy of both woman suffrage and prohibition. The
animosity of the liquor league was aroused, and this powerful
association threw itself against submission. The result was the
election of a legislature containing so large a Democratic majority
that there was no ground for hoping that the amendments would be
re-passed and sent to the voters of the State for final adoption or
rejection.</p>

<p>Though the submission of the amendments was one of the chief issues
in the campaign, many candidates who pledged themselves on the
ground that they involved questions which it was the privilege of
the voters to decide, reserved their own opinions upon their
merits. There were, however, candidates who openly espoused woman
suffrage <i>per se</i>.<a name="FNanchor_338_338" id="FNanchor_338_338"></a><a href="#Footnote_338_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a> Knowing that a majority of the members of
the General Assembly were pledged to vote down the pending
amendments, the friends tacitly agreed to maintain a dignified
silence toward that body concerning them. The Suffrage Society at
the capital, however, appointed a committee<a name="FNanchor_339_339" id="FNanchor_339_339"></a><a href="#Footnote_339_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a> to watch the
interests<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_544" id="Page_544">[Pg 544]</a></span> of woman in the legislature; and through its influence,
special committees on women's claims were obtained in both Houses.
Disappointed by the result in the legislature of 1883, but not
discouraged, the society continued to labor with undiminished zeal,
and sought every legitimate opportunity to prove woman a factor in
State politics.</p>

<p>Several weeks prior to the Republican nominating convention at
Chicago, June 3, 1884, this society appointed committees to
correspond with each of the gentlemen prominently named as
candidates for nomination to the office of president, and also
appointed committees<a name="FNanchor_340_340" id="FNanchor_340_340"></a><a href="#Footnote_340_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a> to press upon the attention of the
different parties the political claims of women. The society
instructed each committee to carry on its work according to the
united judgment of its members and continue it until the close of
the legislative session of 1885. The committee appointed to
communicate with the Republicans addressed a letter to each of the
thirty delegates sent by Indiana to the nominating convention at
Chicago. They also addressed letters to the Republican State
central committee, and through the courtesy of Mr. John Overmeyer,
chairman, they were given an opportunity to appear before the
committee on resolutions. Mrs. Sewall presented a resolution, and
in a brief speech urged its adoption and incorporation into the
platform of the Republican party. Mrs. Merritt and Mrs. Sewall were
offered an opportunity to speak before the convention, which they
declined in the belief that it was a greater gain to the cause to
appear before the resolution and platform committee than before the
convention itself.</p>

<p>To what an appalling degree women were discriminated against by the
law prior to 1860, may be inferred from subsequent legislative
enactments. At almost every sitting of the biënnial legislature,
since 1860, some important change will be observed. In 1861 was
passed the following:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">An act</span> <i>to enlarge the Legal Capacity of Married Women whose
Husbands are Insane, and to enable them to Contract as if they
were Unmarried.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of
Indiana: That all married women, or those who may hereafter be
married, whose husbands are or may be insane, are, during the
continuance of such insanity, hereby enabled and authorized to
make and to execute all such contracts, and to be contracted with
in relation to their separate property, as they could if they
were unmarried, and they may sue and be sued as if they were
<i>sole</i>. </p></blockquote>

<p>The legislature of 1863 was undisturbed by any question concerning
women. In 1865 the legislature discriminated against women by the
passage of a very long act, prescribing the manner in which
enumerations of <i>white male citizens</i> shall be made; thus implying
that a <i>white male citizen</i> is an honorable and important person,
whose existence is to be noted with due care; with a care that
distinguishes him equally above the <i>white female</i> and the <i>black
male</i> citizen, and in effect places these two unenumerated
divisions of human beings into one class.</p>

<p>Another act of 1865 reäffirmed an act of 1852 which prescribed the
classes of persons capable of making a will, from which married
women were excluded.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_545" id="Page_545">[Pg 545]</a></span></p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 373px;">
<a name="v3_545" id="v3_545">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_545.jpg" width="373" height="500" alt="May Wright Sewall" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>The legislature of 1867 passed an act in regard to conveyance of
lands by wives of persons of unsound mind, which read as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Indiana: That
in cases where the guardian of any person of unsound mind, under
the direction of any court of competent jurisdiction has made, or
may hereafter make, sale of any lands of such person of unsound
mind, the wife of such person of unsound mind may by her separate
deed release and convey all her interest in and title to such
land, and her deed so made shall thereafter debar her from all
claim to such land, and shall have the same effect on her rights
as if her husband had been of sound mind and she had joined with
such husband in the execution of such conveyance. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1869, an act passed by the legislature of 1852, providing for
the settlement of a decedent's estate, was so amended as to provide
that the widow might select articles to the value of $500, or
receive the first $500 derived from the sale, or in case it was
worth no more than $500, might hold it. In 1871 the amendment of
1869 was further amended so that in case the personal property was
less than $500 the deficit could be a lien on the real estate, to
be settled with other judgments and mortgages.</p>

<p>In 1873 the possible ability of women to serve the State officially
was recognized by the passage of the following bill:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Indiana: That
women are hereby declared to be eligible to any office, the
election to which is or shall be vested in the General Assembly
of this State; or the appointment to which is or shall be vested
in the governor thereof.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> The foregoing shall not include women who shall labor
under any disability which may prevent them from binding
themselves by an official bond. </p></blockquote>

<p>The legislature of 1873 also passed an act regulating the liquor
traffic, in which it is formally provided that a wife shall have
the same right to sue, to control the suit, and to control the sum
recovered by the suit, as a <i>feme sole</i>.</p>

<p>In 1875 an act passed the General Assembly making it impossible to
sell real property in which a woman has, by virtue of her marriage;
an inchoate right, for less than four-ninths of its appraised
value: and also providing that upon the sale of any piece or
aggregate of pieces of real property not exceeding $2,000, the wife
has her absolute right; and moreover providing that in case of a
judicial sale, the wife's inchoate interests become absolute, and
she may demand a partition.</p>

<p>In 1877 the General Assembly passed an act enabling married women
whose husbands are insane to sell and to convey real-estate
belonging to such married women, in the same way as if <i>femes
soles</i>.</p>

<p>When the act for establishing a female prison passed the
legislature of 1860, it provided that the board managing its
affairs should consist of three men, who should be assisted by an
advisory board composed of one man and two women. By the
legislature of 1877 this section was so amended as to make the
managing board consist of women exclusively, and the advisory board
was abolished.<a name="FNanchor_341_341" id="FNanchor_341_341"></a><a href="#Footnote_341_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a></p>

<p>Of all the changes effected in the statutory law of Indiana since
1860, the following is the most important and may be regarded, so
far as women<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_546" id="Page_546">[Pg 546]</a></span> are concerned, the measure of the highest legislative
justice thus far attained in any State. This bill was prepared by
Addison C. Harris, then representing Indianapolis in the State
Senate, and was approved March 25, 1879:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">An Act</span> <i>concerning Married Women&mdash;Approved March 25, 1879:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 1.</span>&mdash;Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of
Indiana: A married woman may bargain, sell, assign and transfer
her separate personal property the same as if she were <i>sole</i>.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span>&mdash;A married woman may carry on any trade or business, and
perform any labor or service on her sole and separate account.
The earnings and profits of any married woman accruing from her
trade, business, services or labor, other than labor for her
husband or family, shall be her sole and separate property.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 3.</span>&mdash;A married woman may enter into any contract in reference
to her personal estate, trade, business, labor or service, and
the management and improvement of her separate real property, the
same as if she were <i>sole</i>; and her separate estate, real and
personal, shall be liable therefor on execution or other judicial
process.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 4.</span>&mdash;No conveyance or contract made by a married woman for
the sale of her lands or any interest therein, other than leases
for a term not exceeding three years, and mortgages on lands to
secure the purchase money of such lands, shall be valid, unless
her husband shall join therein. Provided, however, that if she
shall have attempted to convey her real estate or shall have
agreed to convey the same, and shall have received the whole or
any part of the consideration therefor, the person paying such
consideration, or the person for whose benefit the same was paid,
shall have the right to sue and recover judgment therefor, and
the same may be enforced against the property of such married
woman.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 5.</span>&mdash;A married woman shall be bound by the covenants of the
title in a deed of conveyance of her real property.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 6.</span>&mdash;A married woman may bring and maintain an action in her
own name against any person or body corporate for damages for any
injury to her person or character, the same as if she were
<i>sole</i>; and the money recovered shall be her separate property,
and her husband in such case shall not be liable for costs.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 7.</span>&mdash;Whenever the husband causes repairs or improvements to
be made on the real property of the wife, with her knowledge and
consent thereto in writing, delivered to the contractor or person
performing the labor or furnishing the material, she shall alone
be liable for material furnished or labor done.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 8.</span>&mdash;A husband shall not be liable for any debts contracted
by the wife in carrying on any trade, labor or business on her
sole and separate account, nor for improvements made by her
authority on her separate real property.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 9.</span>&mdash;Whenever a judgment is recovered against a married
woman, her separate property may be sold on execution to satisfy
the same, as in other cases. Provided, however, that her wearing
apparel and articles of personal adornment purchased by her, not
exceeding two hundred dollars in value, and all such jewelry,
ornaments, books, works of art and <i>virtu</i>, and other such
effects for personal or household use as may have been given to
her as presents, gifts and keep-sakes, shall not be subject to
execution. And provided further, that she shall hold as exempt,
except for the purchase money therefor, other property to the
amount of three hundred dollars to be set apart and appraised in
the manner provided by law for exemption of property.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 10.</span>&mdash;A married woman shall not mortgage or in any manner
encumber her separate property acquired by descent, devise or
gift, as a security for the debt or liability of her husband or
any other person. </p></blockquote>

<p>The legislature of 1881 enacted the following, which is really a
sequence of the property-rights statute of 1879:</p>

<blockquote><p>A married woman may sue alone when: <i>First</i>&mdash;The action concerns
her own property. <i>Second</i>&mdash;When the action is between herself
and her husband. But in no case<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_547" id="Page_547">[Pg 547]</a></span> shall she be required to sue or
defend by guardian or next friend, unless she be under twenty-one
years.</p>

<p>It further enacted, making it section 28, to act 38, that: When a
husband or father has deserted his family, or is imprisoned, the
wife or mother may prosecute or defend in his name any action
which he might have prosecuted or defended, and shall have the
same powers and rights therein as he might have had. </p></blockquote>

<p>The legislature of 1881 also passed the following:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">An Act</span> <i>to Authorize the Election of Women to School Offices</i>:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 1.</span>&mdash;Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Indiana, that
any woman, married or single, of the age of twenty-one years and
upwards, and possessing the qualifications prescribed for men,
shall be eligible to any office under the general or special
school laws of the State.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span>&mdash;That any woman elected or appointed to any office under
the provisions of this act, before she enters upon the discharge
of the duties of her office, shall qualify and give bond as
required by law; and such bond shall be binding upon her and her
securities. </p></blockquote>

<p>The following, enacted by this same legislature of 1881, would
indicate that fidelity to his domestic obligations is not even yet
esteemed in man as a virtue of high order; the value attached to
the fidelity can be measured by the penalty incurred by infidelity,
which is thus stated:</p>

<blockquote><p>Whoever without cause deserts his wife or children, and leaves
wife and child or children as a charge upon any county of this
State, shall be fined not more than $100 nor less than $10. </p></blockquote>

<p>As has been indicated in another connection, it was the legislature
of 1881 which distinguished itself by passing a bill for amending
section 2 of article <span class="smcap">II</span>. of the State constitution so as to give
women the right to vote in all elections. The legislature of 1883
did nothing to further ameliorate the legal condition of women; and
the highest legal rights enjoyed by women of Indiana are indicated
in the foregoing recital of legislative action upon the subject
from 1860 to 1884 inclusive.</p>

<p>For some years after public schools were established in Indiana,
women had no recognition. I am told by a reliable gentleman, Dr. R.
T. Brown, who served from 1833 to 1840 as examiner in one of the
most advanced counties of the commonwealth, that during that period
no woman ever applied to him for a license to teach, and that up to
1850 very few were employed in the public schools. At that time it
was permitted women to teach "subscription" schools during the
vacations, for which purpose the use of the district school-house
was frequently granted. It was by demonstrating their capacity in
this unobtrusive use of holidays, that women obtained employment in
the regular schools. The tables show that in 1861 there were 6,421
men and 1,905 women employed in the primary schools, and 128 men
and 72 women in the high schools. From that time up to 1866, owing
to the war, the number of men decreased while that of women rapidly
increased. The tables for that year show 5,330 men and 4,163 women
in the schools. The number of men employed in 1880 was 7,802, of
women, 5,776. While the very best places are held by men, the
majority of the second-rate places are filled by women, and men
fill a majority of the lowest places. The average daily wages
received by men engaged in the public schools in 1880 was $1.86,
while the average daily wages of women was $1.76.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_548" id="Page_548">[Pg 548]</a></span></p>

<p>Of the twenty-six academies, colleges and universities, all are,
with two notable exceptions&mdash;Hanover and Wabash&mdash;open to women. Of
these, Butler, at Irvington, formerly known as the Northwestern
Christian University, was the first to admit women to a "female
course," which its managers arranged to meet the needs of the
female mind. In its laudable endeavor to adapt its requirements to
this intermediate class of beings, the university substituted music
for mathematics, and French for Greek. Few, however, availed
themselves of this course, and it was utterly rejected by Demia
Butler, a daughter of the founder of the institution, who entered
it in 1860, and graduated from what was then known as the male
course, in 1864, thus winning the right to be remembered as the
first woman in Indiana to demonstrate the capacity of her sex to
cope with the classics and higher mathematics. From that time the
"female course" became gradually less popular, until it was
discarded. One after another, private and denominational schools
have fallen into line, until nearly all of them are open to women
without humiliating conditions.</p>

<p>Up to 1867 the Indiana University exhibited the anomaly of a great
institution of learning supported by the State, and regarding
itself as the crown of the public-school system, free to but
one-half of the children of the commonwealth. Since that date it
has been open equally to both sexes in all three of its
departments&mdash;the State Normal School, located at Terre Haute, the
Agricultural College, located at Lafayette and commonly known as
Purdue University, and the State University proper, including
literary and scientific departments located at Bloomington. Of this
last branch, 30 per cent. are women. That there is no longer any
discrimination in these higher institutions of learning is not
true. Girls must always feel that they are regarded as belonging to
a subordinate class, wherever women are not found in the faculty
and board of managers. The depressing influence of their absence in
superior positions cannot be measured.</p>

<p>Very few women are found in college faculties in Indiana, and none
on boards of trustees. Those most conspicuous in ability are Mrs.
Sarah A. Oren,<a name="FNanchor_342_342" id="FNanchor_342_342"></a><a href="#Footnote_342_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a> who, having served two successive terms as
State librarian, was called from that position to fill a chair at
Purdue University, where she remained several years; Miss Catharine
Merrill, professor of English literature in Butler University, who
throughout her term of service from 1869 to 1883 enjoyed the
deserved reputation of being one of the strongest members of the
faculty;<a name="FNanchor_343_343" id="FNanchor_343_343"></a><a href="#Footnote_343_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a> and Miss Rebecca I. Thompson, who is professor of
mathematics at Franklin College, the leading Baptist school in the
State. The women occupying these conspicuous positions are all
identified with the suffrage movement; Professor Thompson, of
Franklin, is the president of the Johnson County Suffrage
Association. Miss N. Cropsey has served the cause of public
education in Indianapolis in some capacity for twenty years, and
has for several years been superintendent of the primary schools, a
place which she fills with acknowledged ability. Miss<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_549" id="Page_549">[Pg 549]</a></span> Cropsey is
another living denial of the common assertion, that only
half-cultured and ill-paid women want the ballot.</p>

<p>Of the four medical colleges in Indianapolis, two admit women and
two exclude them. No theological school in the State receives
women, nor does the only law school, which is located at
Indianapolis; but its former president, Hon. James B. Black, told
me that it was ready to receive them upon application.</p>

<p>Formerly, many questions now decided by the board of trustees of
each school district, were directly settled by the people
themselves at the annual school meeting. For instance, the teacher
for the coming term was elected from among the candidates for that
place; the salary to be paid, the length of term, the location of
the school-house, were all questions to be decided by ballot. I
have reliable authority for the assertion that in some parts of the
State, as early as 1860, widows, and wives whose husbands were
necessarily absent from the school meetings, voted upon these
questions. During the years of the war this practice became very
common, but fell into disuse upon the return of peace.</p>

<p>There are many physicians in Indiana enjoying the merited esteem of
their respective communities and having a lucrative practice. The
most notable example of success in this profession is Dr. Mary F.
Thomas of Richmond.<a name="FNanchor_344_344" id="FNanchor_344_344"></a><a href="#Footnote_344_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a> Another living testimony to woman's right
in the medical profession is Dr. Rachel Swain of Indianapolis,
whose patrons are among the first families of the city. By zealous
devotion to her profession she has secured the respect and social
recognition of the community in which she moves. As an avowed
friend of suffrage, whose word in season is never lacking, Dr.
Swain carries a knowledge of our principles into circles where it
would otherwise slowly penetrate. Dr. Mary Wilhite of
Crawfordsville ranks with the best physicians of that city. In her
practice she has gained a competence for herself and disseminated
among her patients a knowledge of hygienic laws that has improved
the health and the morals of the community to which she has
ministered. She, too, advocates political equality for woman. Dr.
Sarah Stockton of Lafayette settled in Indianapolis in the autumn
of 1883, and was soon, on the petition of leading citizens,
including both men and women, appointed as physician to the Woman's
Department of the Hospital for the Insane. Her professional labors
at the hospital and in general practice indicate both learning and
skill. In November, Dr. Marie Haslep was elected attendant
physician at the Woman's Reformatory, a State institution having
some four hundred inmates, where her services have been
characterized by faithfulness and caution.</p>

<p>Elizabeth Eaglesfield, a graduate of the law department of Michigan
University, was admitted to the bar of Marion county in the spring
of 1885, and is the first woman to open an independent law-office
in this State.</p>

<p>Very few women have served in the ministry. The only one who ever
secured any prominence in this profession was Miss Prudence
LeClerc, who was pastor of the Universalist church in Madison in
1870-71, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_550" id="Page_550">[Pg 550]</a></span> served parishes at different points in south-eastern
Indiana until her death in 1878. Miss LeClerc frequently spoke at
suffrage conventions, and called meetings wherever she preached,
instructing the people in the philosophy of this reform.</p>

<p>To obtain accurate statistics as to the professions and industries
is extremely difficult, as the year 1881 was the first in which the
State considered women at all. That year the head of the bureau of
statistics sent to each town and county commissioner certain sets
of questions relative to women's occupations. The grace with which
they were received, the seriousness with which they were
considered, the consequent accuracy with which they were answered,
may be inferred from the fact that one trustee replied, "The women
in our county are mostly engaged in baby-tending," and that his
response was generally copied by the press as a manifestation of
brilliant wit. Although some commissioners felt their time too
valuable to spend in gathering information relative to the work of
women, from the reports of those who seriously undertook to canvass
this matter, a table has been arranged and published, which, though
incomplete, must be regarded, both in variety of occupations and in
the numbers of women registered, as a most favorable showing for
this Western State. The total number of women engaged outside of
home, in non-domestic and money-making industries, is 15,122; the
number of industries represented by them is 51. Add to these the
number of teachers, and we have over 20,000 women in the trades and
professions denied the ballot, that sole weapon pledged by a
republic to every citizen for the protection of person and
property.</p>

<p>Of the men and women prominent in this movement since 1860, whose
names are not mentioned in the first volume, the one meriting the
first place is beyond doubt Dr. R. T. Brown of Indianapolis. He has
the longest record as an advocate of suffrage to be found in the
State. As a speaker in the first Harrison campaign (1836) he
advocated suffrage without regard to sex. Engaged as a teacher or
inspector in the public schools in the early years, Dr. Brown
argued the adaptation of women to the teacher's profession, and
insisted that salaries should be independent of sex; and in many
individual cases where he had authority, women secured this
recognition before it was generally admitted even in theory to be
just.</p>

<p>When, in 1855, the Northwestern Christian (now Butler) University
was founded, Dr. Brown, as one of the trustees, advocated
coëducation; in 1858 he took the chair of natural science, and in
that branch taught classes of both sexes until 1871. In 1868 he was
active in organizing the Indiana Medical College on the basis of
equal rights to women, and filled the chair of chemistry until
1872; in 1873 he was appointed to the chair of physiology, which he
held until 1877, and then resigned because the board of trustees
determined to exclude women. This proves that Dr. Brown's devotion
to the doctrine of equal rights is of that rare degree which will
bear the crucial test of official and pecuniary sacrifice. He has
been an active member of the State and city suffrage associations
from the beginning.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_551" id="Page_551">[Pg 551]</a></span></p>

<p>The name of Mary E. Haggart first appears as a member of the State
Association at the convention held in Indianapolis in 1869. In
1870, Mr. Hadley made a speech in the State Senate against woman
suffrage, to which Mrs. Haggart wrote an able reply which was
published and widely commented on by the press of the State. Her
next notable effort was in a discussion through several numbers of
the <i>Ladies' Own Magazine</i>, published by Mrs. Cora Bland, where she
completely refuted the objections urged by her opponent, a literary
gentleman of some note. Mrs. Haggart has addressed the legislatures
of her own State, of Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Kentucky, as
well as the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives at
the hearing granted the National Association. She seldom speaks
without the most careful preparation, and never without manifesting
abilities of the highest order. Perhaps no woman in the State, as a
speaker, has won higher encomiums from the press or has better
deserved them.</p>

<p>The first active step taken in suffrage by Mrs. Florence M.
Adkinson (then Miss Burlingame) was to call a convention in
Lawrenceburg. In 1871, 1872, she gave several lectures on suffrage
and temperance in Ohio, and held a series of meetings in
southeastern Indiana. Though an acceptable speaker, it is as a
writer that Mrs. Adkinson is best known; she is an officer in both
the State and the city organizations, and in every capacity serves
the cause with rare fidelity.</p>

<p>The name of Lizzie Boynton of Crawfordsville frequently occurs in
suffrage reports between 1865 and 1870. She was a member of the
State Association and a frequent speaker at its conventions.
Besides working in that body, she assisted in the organization of
the local society at Crawfordsville, wrote poems, stories, essays,
and won high rank in the State in literature and reform. From
mature womanhood her record as Mrs. Harbert belongs to Illinois
rather than Indiana.</p>

<p>The first time I met Mrs. Zerelda G. Wallace she was circulating a
temperance petition to present to the legislature. One day while
busy on the third floor of the high-school building a
fellow-teacher sent up word that a lady wished to see me.
Descending, I was introduced to Mrs. Wallace, who, in a bland way,
requested me to sign the paper which she extended. Never doubting
that I might do so, I had taken my pen when my eye caught the
words: "While we do not clamor for any additional civil or
political rights." "But I do clamor," I exclaimed, and threw down
the paper and pen and went back to my work, vexed in soul that I
should have been dragged down three flights of stairs to see one
more proof of the degree to which honorable women love to humiliate
themselves before men for sweet favor's sake. Mrs. Wallace went
forward with her work of solicitation, thinking me, no doubt, to be
a very impetuous, if not impertinent, young woman.</p>

<p>When, however, upon the presentation of her petition, whose framers
had taken such care to disclaim any desire "for additional civil
and political rights," Mrs. Wallace was startled by Dr. Thompson's
avowal (having known the doctor, as she naïvely says, "as a
Christian gentleman"), that he was not there "to represent his
conscience, but to obey his constituents,"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_552" id="Page_552">[Pg 552]</a></span> in her aroused soul
there was that instant born the determination to become a
"constituent." As soon as the hearing was at an end, Mrs. Wallace
confessed this determination to Dr. Thompson, thanking him for
unintentionally awakening her to a sense of woman's proper position
in the republic. This change in Mrs. Wallace's attitude was not
generally known until the following May, when the annual State
Temperance convention was held in Indianapolis; then, in her
address before that body, she avowed her conviction that it was
woman's duty to seek the ballot as a means of exerting her will
upon legislation. From that time Mrs. Wallace has neglected no
opportunity to propagate suffrage doctrines, and has been most
potent in influencing her temperance coädjutors to embrace these
principles. Earnestness and logic are Mrs. Wallace's abiding
forces. Her literary work is chiefly confined to correspondence, in
which she is so faithful that it is doubtful if any man in public
life in Indiana can plead ignorance of the arguments in favor of
suffrage. Mrs. Wallace has been an officer in the National, the
American and the State suffrage societies, and has served the Equal
Suffrage Society of Indianapolis as president most of the time
since its formation. Having lived in this city more than half a
century, related to many men who have held high official positions,
she has had an opportunity to exert a wide influence, and it may be
safe to say that, by virtue of her own consecrated life, she exerts
more moral power in this community than any other woman in Indiana.</p>

<p>Mrs. Helen M. Gougar has addressed the legislatures of New York,
Kansas and Wisconsin, besides that of her own State. As an
extempore speaker she has no peer among her co-workers; her first
suffrage speech was made at Delphi, May, 1877. In July, 1881, Mrs.
Gougar became the editor of <i>Our Herald</i>, a weekly which she
conducted with great ability and success in the interest of the two
constitutional amendments then pending. In 1884, in an extensive
lecturing tour, she addressed large audiences in Washington,
Philadelphia, New York and Albany. In the year 1883, Mrs. Josephine
R. Nichols of Illinois, and Mrs. L. May Wheeler of Massachusetts,
came to reside in Indianapolis. Both these ladies have lectured
frequently and with marked effect in various parts of the State.</p>

<p>I cannot close without a mention of those public men who have
honored this State by their adherence to the principle of woman
suffrage and thereby earned a title to the fame which will belong
to the advocates of this cause in the hour of its triumph. Among
these Hon. George W. Julian is most conspicuous. Referring to his
services in congress, Mr. Julian once wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p>My opinions about woman suffrage, however, date much further
back. The subject was first brought to my attention in a brief
chapter on the "Political Non-existence of Women," in Miss
Martineau's book on "Society in America," which I read in 1847.
She there pithily stated the substance of all that has since been
said respecting the logic of woman's right to the ballot; and
finding myself unable to answer, I accepted it. On recently
referring to this chapter I find myself more impressed by its
force than when I first read it. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> My interest in
anti-slavery was awakened about the same time, and I regarded it
as the <i>previous</i> question, and as less abstract and far more
important and absorbing than that of suffrage for women. For<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_553" id="Page_553">[Pg 553]</a></span> the
sake of the negro I accepted Mr. Lincoln's philosophy of "one war
at a time," though always ready to own and defend my position as
to woman's right to the ballot. </p></blockquote>

<p>The sincerity of Mr. Julian's belief in woman suffrage is proved by
his repeated efforts to further the cause in the United States
congress. On December 8, 1868, he submitted an amendment to the
constitution, guaranteeing suffrage to all United States citizens,
which, as the negro had not then been enfranchised, he numbered
article fifteen. On March 15, 1869, he submitted the same
amendment, with the exception that the words "race" and "color"
were omitted; on the same day Mr. Julian offered a bill providing
for the immediate enfranchisement of women in all the territories
of the United States, thus doubling on one day his claim to the
gratitude of American women. On April 4, 1870, he offered another
amendment, numbered article sixteen, which followed the exact form
and phraseology of the fifteenth. On January 20, 1871, he offered
an amendment to the bill, providing a government for the District
of Columbia, striking out the word "male" in the section defining
the right of suffrage. It is interesting to note that even so long
ago that amendment received 55 yeas against 117 nays.<a name="FNanchor_345_345" id="FNanchor_345_345"></a><a href="#Footnote_345_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a> The
bills which Mr. Julian thus submitted to congress when he was a
member of that body prove his constancy to a cause early espoused,
his conversion to which was due to that remarkable English woman
whose claims to the gratitude of her American sisters are thus
enhanced. Mr. Julian has not worked much with the suffrage
societies of his own State, but he has never failed in his repeated
canvasses to utter the seasonable word. His conviction that it is
the duty of the national government to take the initiative in
defining the political rights of its citizens has naturally led him
to present this question to the nation as represented in its
congress, rather than to agitate it in the State.</p>

<p>Oliver P. Morton and Joseph E. McDonald are two other names
conspicuous in Indiana history which occur frequently in connection
with "aye" in the records which have preserved the action of every
member of congress on the various amendments brought before it
involving woman's political equality.</p>

<p>Albert G. Porter, ex-governor of Indiana, has on more than one
public occasion avowed his belief in woman's equality as a citizen,
and has assented to the proposition that under a republic the only
sign of such equality is the ballot. Ardent advocates have often
thought him inexcusably reticent in expressing his convictions upon
this subject, but such have learned that it is given to but few
mortals to "remember those in bonds as bound with them," and no
other governor of Indiana has ever taken occasion to remind the
General Assembly of its duties to women, as Governor Porter
habitually did. In his address of 1881 he called the attention of
the legislature to the improved condition of women under the laws,
pointed out disabilities still continuing, and bespoke the
respectful attention of the General Assembly to the women who
proposed to come before it with their claims. In his biënnial
message, 1883, the governor recommended the enactment of a statute
which should require that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_554" id="Page_554">[Pg 554]</a></span> at least one of the physicians appointed
to attend in the department for women in the hospital for the
insane should be a woman. The whole tone of Governor Porter's
administration was liberal toward women; he invariably implied his
belief in their equality, and on one or two occasions has evinced
his respect for their ability by conferring on them responsible
offices. Many of the leading men in the Republican party, and a few
in the Democratic, are favorable, and while they do not labor for
the enfranchisement of their sisters with the same enthusiasm which
personal bondage excites, their constant influence is on the side
of woman's emancipation.</p>

<p>As to the charities conducted by Indiana women, for a condensed
narrative of the efficient service of Mrs. L. B. Wishard and Miss
Susan Fussell, I must refer readers to the account kindly prepared
for me by Mrs. Paulina T. Merritt.<a name="FNanchor_346_346" id="FNanchor_346_346"></a><a href="#Footnote_346_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a></p>

<p>Whether or not justified by the facts, the feeling is current that
those whom the masses favor hold themselves aloof from those whom
personal experience, or a sense of justice, compels to walk the
stony path of reform. The <i>litteratéurs</i> often form a sort of
pseudo-intellectual aristocracy, and do not willingly affiliate
with reformers, whom they are ready to assume to be less cultivated
than themselves. Of this weakness our literary women have not been
guilty. Most of them are members of the suffrage society.<a name="FNanchor_347_347" id="FNanchor_347_347"></a><a href="#Footnote_347_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a></p>

<p>A system is now developing which will not only stimulate women to
engage in competitive industries and secure justice in rewarding
such labor, but will greatly facilitate the work of ascertaining
what part women do take in the general industries of the State.
Indiana, being mainly agricultural, is divided into sixteen
districts, each of which has organized an agricultural society.
Besides these there are also county societies. These organizations
are composed of men and women, the latter having nominally the same
powers and privileges as the former. Annually the State
Agricultural Association holds a meeting at Indianapolis. This is a
delegate body, consisting of representatives from the district and
county societies. There is no constitutional check against sending
women as delegates, though it has not hitherto been done. One chief
duty of the primary convention is to elect a State board of
agriculture. This board consists of sixteen members, one for each
agricultural district. The managers of the Woman's State Fair
Association have called an industrial convention, whose sessions
will be held at the same time that the Agricultural Association
holds its annual meeting.<a name="FNanchor_348_348" id="FNanchor_348_348"></a><a href="#Footnote_348_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a></p>

<p>If the press reflects the public, it also moulds it; and its
conservative<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_555" id="Page_555">[Pg 555]</a></span> attitude is doubtless to a very considerable degree
responsible for the tone of opinion which prevailed here up to
recent years. Papers throughout the State naturally take their cue
from the party organs published at the capital, while the few
papers identified with no party are wont to adapt themselves even
more carefully to popular opinion upon general subjects.</p>

<p>The citations made in the earlier part of this chapter from the
<i>Sentinel</i> and the <i>Journal</i> clearly show the spirit of their
management in 1869. But it must not be inferred that the <i>Journal</i>
has through all these years maintained the position occupied by it
at that time. Had it done so, one may reasonably believe that the
women of Indiana would before to-day have been enfranchised. On the
contrary, that sheet has been very vacillating, speaking for or
against the cause according to the principles of its managers, the
paper having frequently changed hands; and until recently the
principles of the same managers upon this question have been
shifting; but for the last five or six years the <i>Journal</i> has been
a consistent, though somewhat mild, supporter of woman suffrage.</p>

<p>On the contrary, the <i>Sentinel</i> had been constant in its
opposition, until, about eight years since, Mr. Shoemaker becoming
the manager, it announced a Sunday issue devoted to the interests
of women. The pledge then made has been nobly kept, and although
for a few months the <i>Sentinel</i> seemed to edit its week-day issues
with a view to counteracting the possible good effect of its Sunday
utterances, the better spirit gradually triumphed, until at last,
so far as the woman question is concerned, the paper is from Sunday
to Saturday in harmony with itself. For some time it gave one
column in each Sunday issue to the control of the State Central
Suffrage Committee, and printed two hundred copies of the column
for special distribution among the country papers.</p>

<p>The <i>Saturday Herald</i>, established in 1873, under the editorial
management of George C. Harding, deserves mention. From the outset,
this paper was the advocate of woman's right to be paid for work
done according to its market value, and to protect herself and her
property by the ballot. Perhaps the best service rendered to women
by Mr. Harding, was that of securing in 1874 Gertrude Garrison as
assistant editor of the <i>Herald</i>. Mrs. Garrison is, beyond
question, one of the ablest journalists Indiana can boast, and the
influence of her pen in modifying the popular estimate of woman's
capabilities has been incalculable. From 1874 she did half the
work, editorial articles, locals, sketches, and all the varieties
of writing required upon a weekly paper, but at her own request her
name was not announced as associate editor until 1876. In this
capacity she remained upon the <i>Herald</i> until January 1, 1880, when
the paper passed from Mr. Harding's into other hands. During her
connection with the <i>Herald</i>, if there was anything particularly
strong in the paper, her associate received the credit. The public
will not permit itself to believe a woman capable of humor, though
I think Mrs. Garrison did as much to sustain the paper's reputation
for wit as even Mr. Harding. A. H. Dooley succeeded Mr. Harding as
editor of the <i>Saturday Herald</i>, and it remained under his
management a sturdy advocate of woman's enfranchisement.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_556" id="Page_556">[Pg 556]</a></span> The
<i>Saturday Review</i> was established by Mr. Harding in October, 1880,
with Mrs. Garrison associate editor. Upon the death of Mr. Harding,
May 8, 1881, Mr. Charles Dennis became chief editor, Mrs.
Garrison<a name="FNanchor_349_349" id="FNanchor_349_349"></a><a href="#Footnote_349_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a> remaining on the staff as his assistant.</p>

<p>The <i>Times</i> was founded in June, 1881. From the first it devoted a
column to notes on women's work. From September of that year there
appeared in each Saturday issue a department devoted to the
interests of women, particularly to woman suffrage, under the
editorial management of May Wright Sewall. This department
reäppeared in the weekly and was thus widely circulated among
country readers. The <i>Times</i> is under the management of Colonel W.
R. Holloway. Although from the first fair in its discussions of all
reform questions, it did not avow itself to be an advocate of woman
suffrage until the week after the public entertainment of the Equal
Suffrage Society, 1881, when there appeared an editorial nearly one
column in length, setting forth its views upon the whole subject.
This editorial contained the following paragraph:</p>

<blockquote><p>As the question is likely to become a prominent theme of
discussion during the next few years, the <i>Times</i> will now say
that it is decidedly and unequivocally in favor of woman
suffrage. We believe that women have the same right to vote that
men have, that it is impolitic and unjust to deprive them of the
right, and that its free and full bestowal would conserve the
welfare of society and the good of government. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the daily <i>Evening News</i>, Mr. J. H. Holliday, with his editorial
aids, has set himself to stem the tide of progress which he
evidently thinks will, unless a manful endeavor on his part shall
prevent it, bear all things down to ruin. The character of his
efforts may be inferred from the following extracts which appeared
in January and December of 1881:</p>

<blockquote><p>We wish our legislators would go home and ponder this thing. Read
the Bible and understand the scheme of creation. Read the New
Testament, and appreciate the creation of the Christian home, and
the headship of things. Reflect upon what rests the future of
this government we have reared, and ask what would become of it
if the Christian homes in which it is founded were broken up;
then reflect upon what would become of the Christian homes if men
and women were to attend to the same duties in life. To get a
realistic notion, let every man who has a wife ask himself how he
would relish being told by her, "I have an engagement with John
Smith to-night to see about fixing up a slate to get Mrs. Jones
nominated for sheriff," and being left to go his own way while
she goes with Smith. If that wouldn't make hell in the household
in one act we don't know what would, yet this is merely one
little trivial episode of what this anti-christian woman suffrage
scheme means.</p>

<p>To what straits must the advocates of suffrage for women be
driven when they needs must seek to show that the ballot is not
degrading. What becomes of all our fine talk of the ballot as an
educator if they who seek to secure it for women must advocate as
a reason why it should not be withheld that it is not degrading!
But what better can one expect from those who, when it is
suggested that there are duties attaching to the ballot as well
as rights, solemnly say that the few moments necessary to deposit
a ballot will not interfere with women's duties of sweeping and
dusting and baby-tending. When one hears talk of this sort, there
is indeed a grave doubt as to whether the ballot really is an
educator after all. </p></blockquote>

<p>The first of the above citations is from what might be called an
article of instruction addressed to the legislature then in
session, and considering<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_557" id="Page_557">[Pg 557]</a></span> the question of woman suffrage. The
occasion which inspired the second paragraph may be readily
inferred. It seems "profitable for the instruction" of the future
to preserve a few extracts like the above, that it may be seen how
weak and wild, strength itself becomes, when the ally of prejudice
and precedent.</p>

<p>The <i>Indiana Farmer</i>, exceptionally well edited, having a wide
circulation in the agricultural sections of the State, and enjoying
there a powerful influence, is an outspoken advocate of equal
suffrage. From statistics regarding papers published outside of
Indianapolis, it may be safe to say that two hundred of them favor,
with varying degrees of constancy, giving the ballot to women. On
the staff of nearly all the papers whose status is above given, are
women, who in their respective departments faithfully serve the
common cause. During the last few years, efforts have been directed
to the capture of the local press, and many of the county papers
now have a department edited by women. In most instances this work
is done gratuitously, and their success in this new line, entering
upon it as they have without previous training, illustrates the
versatility of woman's powers. Mrs. M. E. Price of Kokomo, Mrs.
Sarah P. Franklin of Anderson, Mrs. Laura Sandafur of Franklin, and
Mrs. Ida M. Harper of Terre Haute, deserve especial mention for
their admirable work in the papers of their respective towns. Mrs.
Laura C. Arnold is the chief editor of the Columbus <i>Democrat</i>, and
is the only woman in the State having editorial charge of a
political party paper, <i>Our Herald</i>, under the able editorial
management of Mrs. Helen M. Gougar, was a weekly published at
Lafayette. It was devoted to securing the re-passage and adoption
of the woman suffrage and prohibition amendments. It was a strong,
aggressive sheet, and deserved its almost unparalleled
success.<a name="FNanchor_350_350" id="FNanchor_350_350"></a><a href="#Footnote_350_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>In closing this able report for Indiana a few facts in regard to
the author may interest the general reader as well as the student
of history.</p>

<p>Mrs. May Wright Sewall has been well known for many years in
Indianapolis in the higher departments of education, and has
recently crowned her efforts as a teacher by establishing a model
classical school for girls, in which she is not only training their
minds to vigorous thought, but taking the initiative steps to
secure for them an equally vigorous physical development. Her
pupils are required to wear a comfortable gymnastic costume, all
their garments loosely resting on their shoulders; corsets, tight
waists and high-heeled boots forbidden, for deep thinking requires
deep breathing. The whole upper floor of her new building is a
spacious gymnasium, where her pupils exercise every<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_558" id="Page_558">[Pg 558]</a></span> day under the
instruction of a skillful German; and on every Saturday morning
they take lessons from the best dancing master in the city. The
result is, she has no dull scholars complaining of headaches. All
are alike happy in their studies and amusements.</p>

<p>Mrs. Sewall is a preëminently common-sense woman, believing that
sound theories can be put into practice. Although her tastes are
decidedly literary and æsthetic, she is a radical reformer. Hence
her services in the literary club and suffrage society are alike
invaluable. And as chairman of the executive committee of the
National Association, she is without her peer in planning and
executing the work.</p>

<p>As her husband, Mr. Theodore L. Sewall, is also at the head of a
classical school, and equally successful in training boys, it may
be said that both institutions have the advantage of the united
thought of man and woman. As educators, Mr. and Mrs. Sewall have
reaped much practical wisdom from their mutual consultations and
suggestions, the results of which have been of incalculable benefit
to their pupils.</p>

<p>Peering into the homes of the young women in the suffrage movement,
one cannot but remark the deference and respect with which these
intelligent, self-reliant wives are uniformly treated by their
husbands, and the unbounded confidence and affection they give in
return. For happiness in domestic life, men and women must meet as
equals. A position of inferiority and dependence for even the best
organized women, will either wither all their powers and reduce
them to apathetic machines, going the round of life's duties with a
kind of hopeless dissatisfaction, or it will rouse a bitter
antagonism, an active resistance, an offensive self-assertion,
poisoning the very sources of domestic happiness. The true ideal of
family life can never be realized until woman is restored to her
rightful throne. Tennyson, in his "Princess," gives us the
prophetic vision when he says:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i4">"Everywhere<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Two heads in council, two beside the hearth,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Two in the tangled business of the world,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Two in the liberal offices of life,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Two plummets dropped for one, to sound the abyss<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Of science, and the secrets of the mind."<br /></span>
</div></div>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_325_325" id="Footnote_325_325"></a><a href="#FNanchor_325_325"><span class="label">[325]</span></a> See <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_306">Vol. I., page 306</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_326_326" id="Footnote_326_326"></a><a href="#FNanchor_326_326"><span class="label">[326]</span></a> The call for this convention was signed by Amanda M.
Way, Mrs. M. C. Bland, Mrs. M. M. B. Goodwin, Mrs. Henry Blanchard,
Mrs. Emma B. Swank, Indianapolis; Mrs. Isaac Kinley, Richmond; Dr.
Mary F. Thomas, Camden; Dr. Mary H. Wilhite, Miss Lizzie Boynton,
Miss Mollie Krout, Dr. E. E. Barrett, Crawfordsville; Mrs. Abula
Pucket Nind, Fort Wayne; Mrs. L. S. Bidell, Crown Point; Rev. E. P.
Ingersoll, J. V. R. Miller, Rev. Henry Blanchard, Rev. William
Hannaman, Professor A. C. Shortridge, Professor R. T. Brown,
Professor Thomas Rhodes, Dr. T. A. Bland, Indianapolis; Hon. Isaac
Kinley, Isaac H. Julian, Richmond; Hon. L. M. Nind, Fort Wayne;
Hon. S. T. Montgomery, Kokomo; D. R. Pershing and Rev. T. Sells,
Warsaw.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_327_327" id="Footnote_327_327"></a><a href="#FNanchor_327_327"><span class="label">[327]</span></a> The officers of the State Association in 1883 were:
<i>President</i>, Dr. Mary F. Thomas: <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. Helen V.
Austin, Mrs. S. S. McCain, Mrs. M. V. Berg, Mrs. G. Gifford, Mrs.
M. P. Lindsey, Mrs. C. A. P. Smith and Mrs. F. G. Scofield;
<i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. M. E. M. Price; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs.
F. M. Adkinson; <i>Treasurer</i>, Miss Mary D. Naylor; <i>State Central
Committee</i>, Mrs. Mary E. Haggart, Mrs. Z. G. Wallace and May Wright
Sewall.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_328_328" id="Footnote_328_328"></a><a href="#FNanchor_328_328"><span class="label">[328]</span></a> Annual&mdash;1871, June 21, 22, Bloomington; 1872, June
5, 6, Dublin; 1873, June 11, 12, Terre Haute; Semi-Annual, November
19, Richmond. Annual&mdash;1874, May 28, 29, Fort Wayne; 1875, May 25,
26, Liberty; Semi-Annual, November 23, 24, Winchester.
Annual&mdash;1876, May 30, 31, Anderson; 1877, September 4, 5,
Knightstown; 1878, June 11, 12, Richmond: 1879, May 14, 15, Kokomo;
1880, April 27, 28, Crawfordsville; 1881, June 15, 16, Kokomo;
Semi-Annual, October 29, Dublin. Annual&mdash;1882, May, Columbus; 1883,
June, Logansport; 1884, Kokomo; 1885, November 22, 23, Warsaw.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_329_329" id="Footnote_329_329"></a><a href="#FNanchor_329_329"><span class="label">[329]</span></a> See <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_851">Vol. II., page 851</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_330_330" id="Footnote_330_330"></a><a href="#FNanchor_330_330"><span class="label">[330]</span></a> The Equal Suffrage Society has now, 1885, a
membership of 175, including many representatives of whatever in
Indianapolis is best in character, culture and social place. The
society has lately districted the city for local work, assuming the
boundaries of the school districts as its own for this purpose; its
present plan is to place each of these twenty-six districts under
the especial care of a committee whose business shall be to hold
meetings, distribute literature and circulate petitions. The
society thus hopes to create a stimulating suffrage atmosphere at
the capital which shall inspire the legislators with courage to do
good work for women at their next session.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_331_331" id="Footnote_331_331"></a><a href="#FNanchor_331_331"><span class="label">[331]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Invitation</span>.&mdash;The Indianapolis Equal Suffrage Society
requests the pleasure of your company at a literary and social
entertainment to be given in the Bates House parlors, Friday
evening, November 4, 1881. <i>Committee</i>&mdash;May Wright Sewall, Mary C.
Raridan, Mrs. H.G. Carey, Mrs. Charles Kregelo, and Miss Lydia
Halley. Please present invitation at the door.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Programme</span>.&mdash;1. Music, piano solo, Miss Dietrich; 2. Toast,
Yorktown, Henry D. Pierce; 3. Toast, The True Republic, Mrs. Z.G.
Wallace; 4. Music, solo (vocal), Mrs. J.J. Cole; 5. Toast, Women in
Indiana, Gen. John Coburn; 6. Toast, Women in the "Revised
Version," Arthur W. Tyler; 7. Music, solo (vocal), Arthur Miller:
8. Toast. The Literary Women of Indiana. 9. Toast, Women in the
U.S. School System, Horace S. Tarbell; 10. Recitation, Lida Hood
Talbott; 11. Toast, Our Forefathers, Rev. Myron W. Reed; 12. A
Reply, Mary C. Raridan; 13. Music, solo (vocal), Mrs. J.C. New.
Music In charge of Mrs. John C. New. W.B. Stone, accompanist.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_332_332" id="Footnote_332_332"></a><a href="#FNanchor_332_332"><span class="label">[332]</span></a> The speakers were Helen M. Gouger, Florence M.
Adkinson, Mary A. Haggart, Ex-Gov. Baker, Judge Martindale, Mrs.
Wallace, Messrs. Walker and Dooley, editors of the <i>Times</i> and
<i>Herald</i>, Mr. Tarbell, superintendent of the city schools, and May
Wright Sewall.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_333_333" id="Footnote_333_333"></a><a href="#FNanchor_333_333"><span class="label">[333]</span></a> See <a href="#Indiana_A">Indiana Appendix, note A</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_334_334" id="Footnote_334_334"></a><a href="#FNanchor_334_334"><span class="label">[334]</span></a> See <a href="#Indiana_B">Appendix to Indiana, note B</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_335_335" id="Footnote_335_335"></a><a href="#FNanchor_335_335"><span class="label">[335]</span></a> The following invitation was sent to every member of
the legislature who had voted for the amendment, and also to all
the leading people of the city: The pleasure of your company is
requested at the parlors of the New-Denison, Friday evening, April
15, from 8 to 12, where a social entertainment will be given in
honor of the passage of the suffrage amendment by our State
legislature. [Signed:] Mrs. Zerelda G. Wallace, Miss Catherine
Merrill, Mrs. Harvey G. Carey, Mrs. Charles Kregelo, Mrs. Henry D.
Pierce, Mrs. Thomas A. Hendricks, May Wright Sewall, Mrs. George
Merritt, Mrs. John C. New and Mrs. John M. Judah. The programme was
as follows: 1. Music, Solo (vocal), Zelda Seguin Wallace. 2. Toast,
Our Legislature, Senator Spann. 3. Toast, Our Opponents, Colonel
DeWitt Wallace. 4. Toast, The Press and Progress, Laura Ream. 5.
Toast, The Indiana Woman under the Law, William Wallace. 6. Music,
Solo (vocal), Mrs. John C. New. 7. Toast, The Ideal Man, Mrs. J. M.
Judah. 8. Toast, The Ideal Woman, Mr. A. S. Caldwell. 9. Toast, The
Home of the Future, May Wright Sewall. 10. Music, German Song,
Professor John Fiske. 11. Toast, The Woman who "Don't want to
Vote," Gertrude Garrison. 12. Recitation, Lida Hood Talbot. 13.
Toast, The Attitude of the Pulpit toward Reform, Rev. Myron W.
Reed. 14. Music, Solo (vocal), Zelda Seguin Wallace.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_336_336" id="Footnote_336_336"></a><a href="#FNanchor_336_336"><span class="label">[336]</span></a> The persons thus authorized by the central committee
to hold meetings and organize societies were Dr. Mary F. Thomas,
Mary E. Haggart, Zerelda G. Wallace, Helen M. Gougar, May Wright
Sewall and L. May Wheeler.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_337_337" id="Footnote_337_337"></a><a href="#FNanchor_337_337"><span class="label">[337]</span></a> Besides these five-minute reports, addresses were
delivered by Rev. Myron W. Reed, pastor of the First Presbyterian
Church of Indianapolis; Captain DeWitt Wallace of Lafayette, Dr.
Ridpath of DePaun University, Colonel Maynard, chief editorial
writer on the <i>Sentinel</i>; Mrs. Haggart, Mrs. Gougar, Mrs. Josephine
R. Nichols, and other men and women of less prominence, but on that
occasion of hardly less interest.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_338_338" id="Footnote_338_338"></a><a href="#FNanchor_338_338"><span class="label">[338]</span></a> Among these the names of William Dudley Foulke of
Richmond, W. DeWitt Wallace of Lafayette, G. H. Thomas of
Huntington, and S. P. Yancey, merit honorable mention.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_339_339" id="Footnote_339_339"></a><a href="#FNanchor_339_339"><span class="label">[339]</span></a> Mrs. Sewall, Mrs. Merritt and Mrs. Mary E. Newman
Carey.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_340_340" id="Footnote_340_340"></a><a href="#FNanchor_340_340"><span class="label">[340]</span></a> Republican, May Wright Sewall and Paulina T.
Merritt; Democratic, Mary E. Haggart and Florence M. Adkinson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_341_341" id="Footnote_341_341"></a><a href="#FNanchor_341_341"><span class="label">[341]</span></a> For an account of this prison, see <a href="#Indiana_C">Appendix to
Indiana chapter, note C</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_342_342" id="Footnote_342_342"></a><a href="#FNanchor_342_342"><span class="label">[342]</span></a> See <a href="#Indiana_G">Appendix to Indiana chapter, note G</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_343_343" id="Footnote_343_343"></a><a href="#FNanchor_343_343"><span class="label">[343]</span></a> Miss Merrill resigned in the autumn of 1883, and was
immediately succeeded by Miss Harriet Noble of Vincennes, a
graduate of Vassar, and a lady of most admirable qualities, whose
success is assured by the record of her first year in this
responsible position.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_344_344" id="Footnote_344_344"></a><a href="#FNanchor_344_344"><span class="label">[344]</span></a> See sketch of Dr. Thomas, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_324">Vol. I., page 324</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_345_345" id="Footnote_345_345"></a><a href="#FNanchor_345_345"><span class="label">[345]</span></a> For these bills and amendments, see
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_325">Vol. II., pages 325</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_333">333</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_346_346" id="Footnote_346_346"></a><a href="#FNanchor_346_346"><span class="label">[346]</span></a> See <a href="#Indiana_E"> Appendix, Indiana chapter, notes E and F.</a></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_347_347" id="Footnote_347_347"></a><a href="#FNanchor_347_347"><span class="label">[347]</span></a> Mrs. Sarah T. Bolton, Laura Ream, Mrs. Lew Wallace,
Mary H. Korut, Mary Dean, Margaret Holmes (Mrs. M. V. Bates), Mrs.
M. E. Banta, Mrs. Louise V. Boyd, Mrs. Helen V. Austin, Mrs. Hettie
A. Morrison, Mrs. E. S. L. Thompson, Mrs. Amy E. Dunn, Mrs. A. D.
Hawkins, Miss Rena L. Miner, Miss Edna C. Jackson and Mrs. D. M.
Jordan are all literary women who sympathize with and aid this
reform.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_348_348" id="Footnote_348_348"></a><a href="#FNanchor_348_348"><span class="label">[348]</span></a> The woman's department has constantly grown in
extent and value, until it has become one of the most important
features of the State fair, and this year, 1885, the managers have
allowed to it twice the space hitherto occupied. It is worthy of
note that suffrage papers, tracts and books are always to be found
among the exhibits.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_349_349" id="Footnote_349_349"></a><a href="#FNanchor_349_349"><span class="label">[349]</span></a> Mrs. Garrison left Indianapolis for New York in May
of 1882. Success followed her to the metropolis and she now has,
1885, the entire editorial management of the literary department of
the American Press Association, and her work goes into more than
fifty of the best weekly papers in the country.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_350_350" id="Footnote_350_350"></a><a href="#FNanchor_350_350"><span class="label">[350]</span></a> <i>Our Herald</i> did royal service in the campaign of
1882; it subsequently became a monthly and in addition to other
admirable efforts, undertook to introduce leading western women to
the larger world by publishing a series of biographical sketches of
the most prominent. In the winter of 1885 Mrs. Gougar sold <i>Our
Herald</i> to Mrs. Harbert, who published it in Chicago as the <i>The
New Era</i>.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_559" id="Page_559">[Pg 559]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLIII" id="CHAPTER_XLIII"></a>CHAPTER XLIII.</h2>

<h3>ILLINOIS.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Chicago a Great Commercial Center&mdash;First Woman Suffrage
Agitation, 1855&mdash;A. J. Grover&mdash;Society at Earlville&mdash;Prudence
Crandall&mdash;Sanitary Movement&mdash;Woman in Journalism&mdash;Myra
Bradwell&mdash;Excitement in Elmwood Church, 1868&mdash;Mrs. Huldah
Joy&mdash;Pulpit Utterances&mdash;Convention, 1869, Library Hall,
Chicago&mdash;Anna Dickinson&mdash;Robert Laird Collier Debate&mdash;Manhood
Suffrage Denounced by Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony&mdash;Judge
Charles B. Waite on the Constitutional Convention&mdash;Hearing Before
the Legislature&mdash;Western Suffrage Convention, Mrs. Livermore,
President&mdash;Annual Meeting at Bloomington&mdash;Women Eligible to
School Offices&mdash;Evanston College&mdash;Miss Alta Hulett&mdash;Medical
Association&mdash;Dr. Sarah Hackett Stephenson&mdash;"Woman's Kingdom," in
the <i>Inter-Ocean</i>&mdash;Mrs. Harbert&mdash;Centennial Celebration at
Evanston&mdash;Temperance Petition, 180,000&mdash;Frances E.
Willard&mdash;Social Science Association&mdash;Art Union&mdash;International
Congress at Paris&mdash;Jane Graham Jones&mdash;Moline Association. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">Illinois</span>, one of the Central States in our vast country, stretching
over five and a half degrees of latitude, was admitted to the Union
in 1818. Its chief city, Chicago, extending for miles round the
southern shores of Lake Michigan, is the great commercial center of
the boundless West. We may get some idea of the magnitude of her
commerce from the fact that the receipts and shipment of flour,
grain and cattle from that port alone in 1872 were valued at
$370,000,000.</p>

<p>When the battles with the Indians were finally ended, the
population of the State rapidly increased, and in 1880 the census
gave 1,586,523 males and 1,491,348 females. In the school
statistics we find about the same proportionate number of women and
girls as teachers and scholars in the public schools and in all the
honest walks of life; while men and boys in the criminal ranks are
out of all proportion. For example, in the state-prison at Joliet
there were, in 1873, 1,321 criminals; fifteen only were women. And
yet the more virtuous, educated, self-governed part of the
population, that shared equally the hardships of the early days,
and by industry and self-sacrifice helped to build up that great
State, is still denied the civil and political rights<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_560" id="Page_560">[Pg 560]</a></span> declared by
the constitution to belong to every citizen of the commonwealth.
The trials and triumphs of the women of Illinois are vividly
portrayed in the following records sent us by Elizabeth Boynton
Harbert, Ph. D.:</p>

<blockquote><p>His biographer asserts that Bernini, the celebrated Florentine
artist, architect, painter and poet, once gave a public opera in
Rome, for which he painted the scenes, composed the music, wrote
the poem, carved the statues, invented the engines, and built the
theater. Because of his versatile talents the man Bernini has
passed into history. Of almost equal versatility were the women
of the equal-rights movement, since in many instances their names
appear and reäppear in the records we have consulted as authors,
editors, journalists, lecturers, teachers, physicians, lawyers,
ordained ministers and home-makers; and in many localities a
woman, to be eligible for the lyceum, was expected to be
statesmanlike as Elizabeth Cady Stanton, executive as Susan B.
Anthony, spiritual as Lucretia Mott, eloquent as Anna Dickinson,
graceful as Celia Burleigh, fascinating as Paulina Wright Davis;
a social queen, very domestic, a skillful musician, an excellent
cook, very young, and the mother of at least six children; even
then she was not entitled to the rights, privileges and
immunities of an American citizen. So "the divine rights of the
people" became the watchword of thoughtful men and women of the
Prairie State, and at the dawn of the second half of the present
century many caught the echoes of that historic convention at
Seneca Falls and insisted that the fundamental principles of our
government should be applied to all the citizens of the United
States.</p>

<p>In view of the fearless heroism and steady adherence to principle
of many comparatively unknown lives, the historian is painfully
conscious of the meagerness of the record, as compared with the
amount of labor that must necessarily have been performed. In
almost every city, village and school district some earnest man
or woman has been quietly waging the great moral battle that will
eventually make us free; and while it would be a labor of love to
recognize every one who has wrought for freedom, doubtless many
names worthy of mention may unintentionally be omitted.</p>

<p>The earliest account of specific work that we have been able to
trace is an address delivered in Earlville by A. J. Grover, esq.,
in 1855, who from that time until the present has been an able
champion of the constitutional rights of women. As a result of
his efforts, and the discussion that followed, a society was
formed, of which Mrs. Susan Hoxie Richardson (a cousin of Susan
B. Anthony) was elected president, and Mrs. Octavia Grover
secretary. This, we believe, was the first suffrage society in
Illinois. Its influence was increased by the fact that, during
two years of Mr. Grover's editorial control, the Earlville
<i>Transcript</i> was a fearless champion of equal rights. While that
band of pioneers was actively at work, Prudence Crandall, who was
mobbed and imprisoned in Connecticut for teaching a school for
colored girls, was actively engaged in Mendota,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_561" id="Page_561">[Pg 561]</a></span> in the same
county. A few years later, lectures were delivered<a name="FNanchor_351_351" id="FNanchor_351_351"></a><a href="#Footnote_351_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a> on the
subject of equal rights for women in different parts of the
State.</p>

<p>Copies of two of the early appeals have been secured. One by A.
J. Grover, published in pamphlet form, was extensively
circulated; the other by Mrs. Catharine V. Waite, appeared in the
Earlville <i>Transcript</i>. Both of these documents are yellowed with
age, but the arguments presented are as logical as the more
recent utterances of our most radical champions. There is a
tradition of a convention at Galesburg some years later, but we
have failed to find any accurate data. During the interim between
these dates and that never-to-be-forgotten April day in 1861, but
little agitation of this great subject can be traced, and during
the six years subsequent to that time we witness all previously
defined boundaries of spheres brushed away like cobwebs, when
women, north and south, were obliged to fill the places made
vacant by our civil war. An adequate record of the work
accomplished during those eventful years by Illinois women,
notably among them being Mary A. Livermore and Jane C. Hoge, lies
before us in a bound volume of the paper published under the
auspices of the Northwestern Sanitary Fair, edited by the Hon.
Andrew Shuman. This little journal was called the <i>Voice of the
Fair</i>, a prophetic name, as really through the medium of these
sanitary fairs were the voices of the <i>fair</i> all potent, and
through their patriotic services to our soldiery did the women of
the United States first discover their talent for managing and
administering great enterprises. In his first editorial
Lieutenant-Governor Shuman says:</p>

<blockquote><p>On motion of Mrs. Elizabeth A. Loomis, it was decided to open the
fair on February 22, 1865, Washington's birthday, and to continue
it till March 4, the presidential inauguration day. A committee,
consisting of Mrs. H. H. Hoge, Mrs. D. P. Livermore and Mrs. E.
W. Blatchford for the commission, and Mrs. O. E. Hosmer, Mrs. C.
P. Dickinson and Mr. L. B. Bryan for the Home, was appointed as
executive. This was the little cloud, scarcely larger than a
man's hand, which grew till it almost encircled the heavens,
spreading into every corner of our broad land, and including
every department of industry in its ample details. </p></blockquote>

<p>The undertaking was herculean, and on the grand occasion of the
opening of the fair, although we do not find any account of women
sharing in the honors of the day, yet they were vouchsafed
honorable mention in the following terms by the governor of the
State: "I do not know how to praise women, but I can say nothing so
good as our late president once said on a similar occasion, 'God
bless the women of America.' They have been our faithful allies
during this fearful war. They have toiled steadily by our side,
with the most enduring constancy through the frightful contest."
Amid the first impulses of genuine gratitude men recognized what at
present they seem to forget, that by inheritance and patriotic
service woman has an equal right with man to a share in the rights
and privileges of this government.</p>

<p>In the winter of 1860 Hannah Tracy Cutler, M. D., and Mrs. Frances
D. Gage made a canvass of the interior and western parts of the
State, procuring<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_562" id="Page_562">[Pg 562]</a></span> signatures to petitions asking for equality
before the law, and especially for the right of married women to
earn and hold and dispose of property the same as a <i>feme-sole</i>.
Also, that property acquired before marriage, or that may afterward
accrue to a married woman by gift, devise, descent or deed, may be
held, controlled and disposed of by herself where it had not been
intentionally converted to common property by her consent. In
response to a request for data on this point, Mrs. Cutler writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>At the close of our campaign we were summoned to Ohio to assist
in the canvass in that State. Returning to Illinois, I learned
that no action had been taken on our petitions. The member to
whom we had consigned them, and who had promised to act in our
behalf, had found no convenient opportunity. I at once repaired
to Springfield, and, on inquiry, was told that it was now too
late in the session&mdash;that members were so busy that no one could
be induced to draft a bill for an act granting such laws as we
desired. I found one member ready to assist to the full measure
of his ability&mdash;Mr. Pickett of Rock Island. By his encouragement
I went to the State library and there drew up a bill giving
women, during coverture, certain personal and property rights.
Mr. Pickett presented our petitions, got a special committee,
took my bill before it, got a favorable report, and a law was
passed to that effect. Some decisions occurred under this law. I
think, however, that in a codification a year or two after, this
law was left out, I know not by what authority, and some years
later Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Bradwell and others presented the
matter afresh, and succeeded in procuring again a similar
enactment. The winter following I presented petitions for the
right of guardianship; also, I asked that for estates not
exceeding $5,000 the widow should not be required to take out
letters of administration, but should be permitted to continue in
possession, the same as the husband on the decease of the wife,
the property subject to the same liabilities for the payment of
debts and the maintenance of children as before the decease of
the husband. I made this small claim for the relief of many wives
whose husbands had gone into the army, leaving them with all the
responsibility; and there seemed no sufficient reason for
disturbing and distributing either the family or the estate, when
the husband exchanged the battle-field for the "sleep that knows
no waking." This petition, asking for these reasonable and
righteous laws, was, by motion of Colonel Mack, in a spirit of
burlesque, referred to the Committee on Internal Navigation, and
a burlesque report was made in open Senate, too indecent to be
entered on the records. The grave and reverend seigniors, on
this, indulged in a hearty guffaw, hugely enjoyed by his honor
Lieutenant-Governor Hoffman, and, to this day, no further action
has been taken to give the wife and mother this small modicum of
justice, though many of the senators at that time promised the
question an early consideration. </p></blockquote>

<p>On Saturday, October 3, 1868, a genuine sensation was produced by
the appearance of the Chicago <i>Legal News</i>, edited by Mrs. Myra
Bradwell. At this day it is impossible to realize with what supreme
astonishment this journal was received. Neither can we estimate its
influence upon the subsequent legislation of the State. Looking
through its files we find that no opportunity was lost for exposing
all laws unjust to woman, or for noting each indication of progress
throughout the world. Under date of October 31, 1868, a short
article in regard to the "Citizenship of Women" reads thus:</p>

<blockquote><p>The act of congress provides that any alien, being a free white
person, may become a citizen of the United States. While congress
was very careful to limit this great privilege of citizenship to
the free white person, it made no distinction or limitation
whatever on account of sex. Under this statute it has been held
that a married woman<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_563" id="Page_563">[Pg 563]</a></span> may be naturalized and become a citizen of
the United States, and that, too, without the consent of her
husband. A woman may be a citizen of the United States, be
subject to the laws, own property, and be compelled to pay taxes
to support a government she has no voice in administering or vote
in electing its officers. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the same issue of the <i>News</i> we meet with an earnest appeal for
the prompt passage of a law conferring upon woman a right to her
earnings. When we realize that one of the Supreme Judges soon after
this assured Mrs. Bradwell that she was editing a paper that no
lawyer could afford to do without, we shall understand how
important a part this journal has played in the courts. In the
sixth number of the <i>News</i> we find the attention of the legal
fraternity called to the fact that in the reign of James I. it was
held in the cases of <i>Coats vs. Lyall</i> and <i>Holt vs. Lyall</i>, tried
in Westminster Hall, that a single woman, if a freeholder, had the
right to vote for a parliament man; and in the reign of Queen
Elizabeth, Lady Packington, in right of property held by her, did
actually vote for a return of two burgesses to parliament for the
borough of Aylesburg; and in the time of Charles I., Mrs. Copley
voted, in right of her property, for the return of a burgess for
Gratton. The subject of their return was brought before parliament,
and amended by joining other persons with Mrs. Copley in the right
of returning burgesses for Gratton. Women have actually sat and
voted in the English parliament.</p>

<p>In 1868, Sorosis, a woman's club, was organized in Chicago, with
Mrs. Delia Waterman president, and soon after several periodicals
were established; <i>The Chicago Sorosis</i>, with Mrs. Mary L. Walker,
Cynthia Leonard and Agnes L. Knowlton, editors; <i>The Inland
Monthly</i>, Mrs. Charlotte Clark, editor and publisher; and <i>The
Agitator</i>, with Mary A. Livermore and Mary L. Walker editors.
Though all were short-lived, they serve to show woman's ambition in
the direction of journalism.</p>

<p>In 1868 there was a decided "awakening" on the question of woman
suffrage in central Illinois. In the town of Elmwood, Peoria
county, the question drew large audiences to lyceum discussions,
and was argued in school, church and caucus. The conservatives
became alarmed, and announced their determination to "nip the
innovation in the bud." A spirited editorial in the New York
<i>Independent</i> was based upon the following facts, given by request
of some of the disfranchised women:</p>

<blockquote><p>Rev. W. G. Pierce was the pastor of the Elmwood Congregational
Church. A large majority of the members were women, and there was
no discrimination against them in the church manual. The pastor
and two or three members decided that a change of rules was
needed. A church meeting was held in March, 1868, at which the
number in attendance was very small, owing to some irregularities
in issuing the call. The suffrage question was brought up by the
pastor, and the talk soon became so insulting that the women
present felt compelled to leave the house. The manual was then
amended so as to exclude women from voting "in matters pertaining
to the welfare of the church," and making a two-thirds vote of
adult males necessary to any change thereafter. This was carried
by five yeas to one nay&mdash;only six votes out of a membership of
210! The church was taken by surprise, and there was no little
excitement when the fact became known next day. A vigorous
protest and a call for reconsideration was quickly signed by
nearly a hundred members and sent to the pastor. The meeting was
not called for weeks, and when at last it was secured, he, as
moderator, ruled reconsideration out, on the ground that there
was an error in the announcement<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_564" id="Page_564">[Pg 564]</a></span> of the business (by himself!)
from the pulpit. At a later meeting a vote on reconsideration was
reached, and enough of the male adult minority were in attendance
to make the vote stand 19 to 17, not two-thirds of the male adult
element voting for reconsideration.</p>

<p>The contention now became bitter, and twenty-eight of the more
intelligent and earnest members withdrew and asked for letters to
other churches. Such of the "adult males" as "tarried by the
altar," refused to give the outgoing members the usual letters,
to join in a mutual council on an equal footing, or to discipline
the seceders. The latter called an ex-parte council, composed of
such men as Dr. Bascom, of Princeton; Dr. Edward Beecher, of
Galesburg; Dr. Haven, of Evanston; Dr. C. D. Helmer, of Chicago,
and others. This council gave the desired letters, but advised
reconciliation. Among the seceders, Mrs. Huldah Joy, an educated
and intensely religious woman, was one of the most active and
earnest, her husband, F. R. Joy, and her daughters, also doing
good service. Mrs. H. E. Sunderland,<a name="FNanchor_352_352" id="FNanchor_352_352"></a><a href="#Footnote_352_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a> another woman of
culture, and Mrs. Mary Ann Cone and Mrs. S. R. Murray were
faithful, brave and earnest. The church, which previous to the
secession, was strong and flourishing, became an inharmonious
organization, and has never rallied from the effects of that
unjust action. </p></blockquote>

<p>At a meeting held in Chicago, in the autumn of 1868, a resolution
was offered to the effect that "a State association be formed,
having for its object the advocacy of universal suffrage." Among
the many interesting facts connected with the "rise and progress"
of the equal-rights movement is the large number of representative
men and women who have from the first been identified with it.<a name="FNanchor_353_353" id="FNanchor_353_353"></a><a href="#Footnote_353_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a>
January 25, 1860 we find among the most progressive utterances from
the pulpit, a sermon by the Rev. Sumner Ellis of Chicago, while
Rev. Charles Fowler and Dr. H. W. Thomas were ever fearless and
earnest in their advocacy of this measure. In February, 1869, the
<i>Legal News</i> said: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_565" id="Page_565">[Pg 565]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>A call has been issued, inviting all persons in favor of woman
suffrage to meet in convention in Library Hall, Chicago. There
are many hundred names appended, including the judges of all the
courts of Cook county, leading members of the bar throughout the
State, representatives of the press, ministers of the gospel,
from all denominations, and representatives from every profession
and business. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, and the
Rev. Olympia Brown have been invited and are expected to attend. </p></blockquote>

<p>Pursuant to the foregoing "call," a notable convention was
held.<a name="FNanchor_354_354" id="FNanchor_354_354"></a><a href="#Footnote_354_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a> The <i>Tribune</i> devoted nine columns to an account of the
proceedings, respectful in tone and fair in statement. During its
two days' session, Library Hall was packed to its utmost capacity
with the beauty and fashion of the city. Able lawyers, eloquent and
distinguished divines and gallant generals occupied seats upon the
platform and took part in the deliberations. The special importance
of this convention at this time, was the consideration of the
immediate duty of securing a recognition of the rights of women in
the new constitution, for the framing of which a convention had
been called.</p>

<p>All the speakers had strong convictions and showed broad
differences, continually making sharp points against each other.
Several clergymen were present, some in favor of woman suffrage,
some opposed, some in doubt. Among these were the two
Collyers&mdash;one, the Rev. Robert, the English blacksmith of former
days, liberal, progressive, of large physical proportions; the
other, the Rev. Robert Laird, a much smaller man, and of
conservative tendencies.</p>

<blockquote><p>The Rev. Robert Collyer dissented so entirely from what the
preceding speaker, Dr. Hammond, had said, that he was determined
to run the risk of attempting to reply. He thought that a
majority of men who began by being reformers, ended by being old
fogies, and he thought that might be the case with Mr. Hammond.
He felt no doubt that the whole movement of women's rights was to
be established in America. He had seen the effects of woman's
presence in associations upon men, and he was sure that this same
agency would have the effect of bringing politics to such a
condition as that decent people of either sex might take part in
it. As to the Bible declaring that man shall rule over woman, he
found a similar case where it used to be quoted in support of the
institution of slavery, but when the grander and more beautiful
principles of the Bible came to be applied the contrary was
clearly established. So it was with the question of woman's
rights. To him the Bible seemed like an immense pasture wherein
any and every species of animal might find its own peculiar food.
In regard to what Mr. Hammond said as to the rights of infants,
he wished he had conferred with his wife and got her approval
before he said it. The speaker was sure his own wife would not
have advised him to say it. He believed that when maternal and
home duties conflicted, the children and the home relations would
take the preference invariably, and the remarks of Mr. Hammond
seemed to imply a terrible want of confidence in woman. He
believed that woman would always do her duty to her children and
her home. Then, too, he had been surprised, that Mr. Hammond, in
speaking of preventing children from coming into the world, had
failed to speak of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_566" id="Page_566">[Pg 566]</a></span> the complicity of man, in reality the
greatest criminal, in that matter. As to the excitement attendant
upon political issues, was it worse, viewed as mere excitement,
than that which is so earnestly sought to be aroused at religious
meetings? Elizabeth, Anne, and Victoria were, with the exception,
perhaps, of Cromwell, the best rulers England ever had, and, when
the administration of Andrew Johnson was remembered, he thought
we might do worse than to have a woman for president, after
Grant's term shall have expired. [Applause.] In conclusion, Mr.
Collyer said that, even if the fearful picture drawn by Mr.
Hammond, of 70,000 immoral women marching to the polls in New
York, were realized, he could draw another picture&mdash;that of
75,000 good and pure women marching to the polls to vote the
others down. [Applause.]</p>

<p>Rev. Edward Beecher, of Galesburg, said: Exclusive class
legislation was not safe; it was oppressive and degrading. Female
influence has procured the repeal of some obnoxious laws, and
that proved it was a powerful element. He thought the Bible, as
regards man being the head, had been misinterpreted. When man
took the attitude in relation to women which Christ sustains to
the church, that of love, of service, of helpfulness and
sacrifice, he would be an example of true headship. He read an
extract from an editorial in the <i>Tribune</i>, of February 11, in
regard to the giving way of moral integrity in the affairs of the
nation, and commended the question to the consideration of all.
The country was never in greater danger than now of having the
whole political system destroyed. Some great moral influence
ought to be brought to eradicate the corruption so prevalent
among public men. There were two great vices in
existence&mdash;drunkenness and licentiousness&mdash;and in both, woman was
the victim of man in the majority of cases. The legislation which
pressed down women was wrong, and should be remedied. He admitted
it was an experiment to introduce the female element into
legislation, but the success of the male element had thus far
been such that, according to his judgment, things could not be
much worse than they are. Women were always deeply interested in
all public questions. If responsibilities were put upon them they
would become greater intellectually, morally and socially. </p></blockquote>

<p>Several able lawyers also took part in the convention, who brought
their legal learning to bear on the question. Mrs. Stanton and Miss
Anthony, hostile to the action of the Republican party as
manifested in the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, were present
with their stern criticisms and scathing resolutions on "manhood
suffrage," submitting the following to the convention:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a man's government is worse than a white man's
government, because in proportion as you increase the rulers you
make the condition of the ostracised more hopeless and degraded.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That as the Democratic cry of "a white man's
government" created an antagonism between the Irish and the
negro, culminating in the New York riots of '63, so the
Republican cry of "manhood suffrage" creates an antagonism
between the black man and all women, and will culminate in
fearful outrages on womanhood, especially in the Southern States.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That by the establishment of an aristocracy of sex in
the District of Columbia, by the introduction of the word "male"
into the federal constitution in article <span class="smcap">XIV.</span>, section 2, and by
the proposition to enforce manhood suffrage in all the States of
the Union, the Republican party has been guilty of three
successive arbitrary acts, three retrogressive steps in
legislation, alike invidious and insulting to women and suicidal
to the nation. </p></blockquote>

<p>After a long and earnest discussion, the resolutions were voted
down. Mrs. Stanton's speech setting forth six reasons against a
"male aristocracy"<a name="FNanchor_355_355" id="FNanchor_355_355"></a><a href="#Footnote_355_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a> was pronounced able and eloquent, though
directly in opposition to the general sentiment of the convention,
which was mainly Republican.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_567" id="Page_567">[Pg 567]</a></span> Miss Anna Dickinson, having a lyceum
engagement in Chicago, was present at one of the sessions, and had
quite a spirited encounter with Robert Laird Collier. As she
appeared on the platform at the close of some remarks by that
gentleman, loud calls were made for her, when she came forward and
spoke as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Mrs. President, Ladies and Gentlemen</span>: It is impossible for me to
continue in my seat after so kind and cordial a call from this
house, and I thank you for the pleasant and friendly feeling you
have shown. I have but a word to say. I had gone out of the room,
not because of the discussion, but because it was too warm and
the atmosphere so stifling, when I was recalled by hearing
something to this effect: "That there had not been a single
logical argument used on this platform in behalf of woman
suffrage; that woman is abundantly represented by some man of her
family; that when a woman lifts herself up in opposition against
her husband, she lifts herself up, if I properly and rightly
understood the declaration, against God; that the inspired
assertion is that the husband is the head of the wife." Oh! but
Mr. Collier forgot to say the husband is the head of the wife as
Christ is the head of the church. In my observation, and it has
not been a limited one, though I confess I am not an unprejudiced
observer, I have never yet discovered a man who is the head of
the wife as Christ is the head of the church. Furthermore, he
announces that these women, being represented by men, if they
lift themselves up in opposition to their husbands, lose that
womanly and feminine element which is so admirable and pure and
beautiful, and nothing can preserve them from the contamination
of politics. Woman is to lift herself against God if she lifts
herself against her husband, and woman is abundantly represented
by this same husband, or by some man in her own family. There are
a multitude of women who have no husbands [laughter]. There are a
multitude of women who never will have any husbands [renewed
laughter]. There are a great many women who have no men in their
own households to represent them, either for their wrongs or
their rights. Mr. Collier, I suppose, however, is talking about
women who have husbands.</p>

<p>He says the woman loses her purity, her delicacy, her feminine
attributes when she lifts her voice and sentiments against the
man whose name she bears. We will say, then, look across these
western prairies to Utah. If the women there dare to say to the
congress of the United States, "Amend this constitution that we
women of Utah can have one husband, and that the husband can take
but one wife"; if these women demand decency in the marriage
relation, demand justice for themselves, demand purity, they are
lifting themselves against the laws of womanhood and the laws of
God. Every woman represented by her husband is to lose her
purity, her delicacy, her refinement, if she dares to lift her
hand against him and his will. You have here, within the limits
of your State of Illinois, 100,000 drunkards. Every woman who
dares to lift her hand, cry out with her voice, "Give me the
ballot that may offset the votes of these drunkards at the polls
and save my children from starvation and myself from being put
into the workhouse"&mdash;this woman is lifting herself against the
laws of God and womanhood. That is not all! Last summer this
question of prohibition was being tested in Massachusetts by
votes. I went from town to town&mdash;my engagements taking me all
over the State at that time&mdash;and said my say upon this question
of woman suffrage. In whatever city or town I went, women, bowed
down with grief, who desired to preserve their womanhood, their
persons from blows and abuse, their sons from going to gambling
hells and rum shops, their girls from being sent to houses of
abomination, came to me and said: "Anna Dickinson, if you are a
woman, speak and use your influence for our cause." Women who
have drunken husbands, whether they lived in Beacon street or at
the North End, whether they lived in luxury or poverty, said:
"For the sake of womanhood, for the sake of motherhood, for the
sake of all things good and true in the world, lift up our hands
and voices, through yourself, to protest against these men whose
names we bear." Ah! that Mr. Collier could have seen these
drunkards' wives, standing with tears streaming down their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_568" id="Page_568">[Pg 568]</a></span>
cheeks, and begging for power, begging for the ballot to save
their homes, and themselves, and their children. Do you tell this
audience&mdash;do you tell any mother or daughter here this afternoon,
that she protests against the purity of womanhood, and lifts her
powers against the laws of God? Pardon me for taking this much of
your time. I will simply add a thought. This is the cause of
purity. This is the cause which is to strengthen young girls,
which is to give them self-reliance and self-respect. This is the
thing that is to put these girls on their feet; say to them "you
are an independent being; you are to earn the clothes that cover
you," and this will allow them to walk with steady feet through
rough places. This thing which is to give these women such power,
certainly will be strengthening to them by making them
independent and self-reliant. The ballot is to save womanhood and
save purity, which he says is in danger&mdash;the feminine element of
dependence and weakness and tenderness, of clinging helplessness,
which he so much adores. Let justice be done. Give us the ballot.
Here is the power to defend yourself when your rights are
assailed; when your home is entered. Here is the authority to
tell the spoiler to stand back; when our sons are being brought
up to wickedness and our daughters to lives of shame, here is the
power in the mother's hand which says these children shall be
taken from the wrong place and put in the right one. For the
rights of mothers I plead. Let us allow, from one end of this
country to the other, every man and woman, black and white, to go
to the polls to defend their own rights and the rights of their
homes.</p>

<p>The Rev. <span class="smcap">R. L. Collier</span> said he would to God that every woman in
America had such a heart and such a voice for woman's rights. But
sympathy was one thing and logic was another. If he thought the
ballot in the hand of woman would cure the wrongs she speaks of,
he would favor female suffrage, but he was firmly convinced that
it would only aggravate their wrongs. He could not fight Anna
Dickinson.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Anna Dickinson</span>: I certainly do not intend to fight Mr. Collier. I
believe I have the name of not being a belligerent woman. Mr.
Collier says sympathy is one thing and logic is another. Very
true! I did not speak of the 40,000 women in the State of
Massachusetts who are wives of drunkards, as a matter which shall
appeal to your sympathies, or move your tears. Mr. Collier says
that these women are to find their rights by influence at home.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Collier:</span> That is what I mean.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Dickinson</span>: That they are to do it by womanly and feminine
love, and I tell him that is the duty of this same feminine
element which is so admirable and adorable. I have seen men on
your street corners, as I have seen men on the street corners of
every city of America, with bloated faces, with mangled forms,
and eyes blackened by the horrible vice and orgies carried on in
their dens of iniquity and drunkenness and sin. I have seen men
with not a semblance of humanity in their form or in their face,
and not a sentiment of manhood in their souls. I have seen these
men made absolute masters of wives and children; men who reel to
their homes night after night to beat some helpless child; to
beat some helpless woman. A woman was beaten here in Chicago the
other day until there was scarcely a trace of the woman's face
left, and scarcely a trace of the woman's form remaining. Mr.
Collier tells me, then, that these women whose husbands reel home
at 12, 1, 2, 3 o'clock at night, to demolish the furniture, beat
the children, and destroy their wives' peace and lives&mdash;that
these women are to find their rights by influence, by argument,
by tenderness. These brutes who deserve the gallows if any human
being can deserve anything so atrocious in these days&mdash;are these
women, their wives, to find their safety, their security for
themselves and their children, by influence, through argument and
tenderness, or love, when nothing can influence save drink? The
law gives man the power to say, "I will have drink; I will put
this into my mouth." If the ballot were given to women they would
vote against drunkenness. It is not sentiment, it is logic, if
there be any logic in votes and in a home saved.</p>

<p>The Rev. <span class="smcap">R. L. Collier</span>, in reply to Miss Dickinson, quoted a
story from an English author of a drunkard who was reclaimed by a
daughter's love and devotion. He never wanted to hear a woman say
that law could accomplish what love could not.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_569" id="Page_569">[Pg 569]</a></span></p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Dickinson</span>: I only want to ask Mr. Collier a question, and it
is this: Whether he does not think that man would have been a
great deal better off if this woman's vote could have offset his
vote, and the rum thereby prevented from being sold at the
outset?</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Collier</span>: I wish to say that law never yet cured crime; that
men are not our only drunkards. Women are drunkards as well as
men.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Dickinson</span> (excitedly): It is not so, in anything like the
same proportion; a drunken woman is a rare sight.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Collier</span>: I wish to say that intemperance can never be cured
by law.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Dickinson</span>: Very well. You tell me that there are woman in
the land who are drunkards. Doubtless there are. Then I stand
here as a woman to entreat, to beseech, to pray against this sin.
For the sake of these drunken woman, I ask the ballot to drag
them back from the rum-shops and shut their doors [applause]. God
forbid that I should underrate the power of love; that I should
discard tenderness. Let us have entreaty, let us have prayers,
and let us have the ballot, to eradicate this evil. Mr. Collier
says he is full of sympathy, and intimates that women should
stand here and elevate love above law. So long as a man can be
influenced by love, well and good. When a man has sunk to the
point where he beats his wife and children, and burns the house
over them, reduces his family to starvation to get this accursed
drink; when a man has sunk to such a level, is woman to stand
still and entreat? Is this all woman is to do? No! She is to have
the power added that will drag the firebrand out of his hand, and
when sense and reason return, when the fire is extinguished,
then, I say, let us have the power of love to interfere. I think
keeping a man out of sin is better than trying to drag him out
afterward by love.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Collier</span> said he was placed in a false position of prominence
because, unfortunately, he was the only gentleman on the platform
who entertained serious convictions on the negative side of the
subject. The only question was, would the ballot cure these
wrongs? If so, he would like to hear the reasons, philosophical
and logical, set forth. The appeals that had been made to the
convention were illogical and sympathetic. He believed the
persecutors of women were women. Fashion and the prejudice in the
minds of women had been the barriers to their own elevation. That
the ballot in the hands of women would cure these evils he
denied.</p>

<p>Miss <span class="smcap">Dickinson</span>: Mr. Collier says, "The worst enemies of women are
women"; that the worst opponents of this measure are fashion,
dress and idleness. I confess there are no bitterer opponents or
enemies of this measure than women. On that very ground I assert
that the ballot will prove woman's best friend. If woman has
something else to think about than simply to please men,
something else than the splendor of her diamonds, or the
magnificence of her carriage, you may be sure, with broader
fields to survey, it would be a good thing for her. If women
could earn their bread and buy the houses over their heads, in
honorable and lucrative avocations; if they stood in the eye of
the law men's equals, there would be better work, more hopeful
hearts, more Christian magnanimity, and less petty selfishness
and meanness than, I confess with sorrow and tears, are found
among women to-day. </p></blockquote>

<p>One of the ablest speeches of the convention was made by Judge
Chas. B. Waite, on woman's position before the law. Immediately
after this enthusiastic convention<a name="FNanchor_356_356" id="FNanchor_356_356"></a><a href="#Footnote_356_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a> the Illinois State Suffrage
Association was formed, a committee<a name="FNanchor_357_357" id="FNanchor_357_357"></a><a href="#Footnote_357_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a> appointed to visit
Springfield and request the legislature to so "change the laws that
the earnings of a married woman may be secured<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_570" id="Page_570">[Pg 570]</a></span> to her own use;
that married women may have the same right to their own property
that married men have; and that the mother may have an equal right
with the father to the custody of the children." The need of such a
committee existed in that year of 1869, and they seemed to have
wrought effective service, since on March 24 the married woman's
earnings act was approved.</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">An Act</span> <i>in Relation to the Earnings of Married Women.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 1.</span>&mdash;Be it enacted by the people of the State of Illinois,
represented in the General Assembly, That a married woman shall
be entitled to receive, use and possess her own earnings, and sue
for the same in her own name, free from the interference of her
husband or his creditors: <i>Provided</i>, This act shall not be
construed to give to the wife any compensation for any labor
performed for her minor children or husband. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Stanton, Judge Waite, Judge and Mrs. Bradwell,
had an enthusiastic meeting in the Opera House, Springfield, most
of the members of the legislature being present.</p>

<p>September 9, 10, 1869, the Western Convention was held in Library
Hall, Chicago; Mrs. Livermore presided. This influential gathering
was largely attended by leading friends from other States.<a name="FNanchor_358_358" id="FNanchor_358_358"></a><a href="#Footnote_358_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a>
Mrs. Kate Doggett and Dr. Mary Safford were appointed to attend the
Woman's Industrial Congress at Berlin. Letters were read from Wm.
Lloyd Garrison and others.<a name="FNanchor_359_359" id="FNanchor_359_359"></a><a href="#Footnote_359_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a></p>

<p>February 8, 9, 1870, the first annual meeting of the State
Association was held at Springfield in the Opera House, Hon. James
B. Bradwell in the chair. Many members of the legislature were
present during the various sessions and a hearing<a name="FNanchor_360_360" id="FNanchor_360_360"></a><a href="#Footnote_360_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a> before the
House was granted next day. Resolutions were discussed and adopted,
declaring that women were enfranchised under the fourteenth
amendment. As a constitutional convention was in session, and there
was an effort being made to have an amendment for woman suffrage
submitted to a vote of the people, greater interest was felt in all
that was said at this convention.</p>

<p>The strange inconsistency of the opponents of woman suffrage was
perhaps never more fully illustrated than by the following
occurrence: While the patriotic and earnest women of Illinois were
quietly acting upon the advice of their representatives, and
relying upon their "quiet, moral influence" to secure a just
recognition of their rights in the constitutional convention, a
conservative woman of Michigan, who, afraid that the women of
Illinois were about to lose their womanliness by asking for the
right to have their opinions counted, deserted her home in the
Peninsular State, went to Springfield, secured the hall of the
convention, and gave two lectures against woman suffrage. A meeting
was called at the close<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_571" id="Page_571">[Pg 571]</a></span> of the second lecture, and in a resolution
moved by a member of the convention, as Mrs. Bradwell pertinently
says, "the people of the State were told that <i>one woman</i> had
proved herself competent and well qualified to enlighten the
constitutional convention upon the evils of woman suffrage."<a name="FNanchor_361_361" id="FNanchor_361_361"></a><a href="#Footnote_361_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a>
Such was the effect of this self-appointed obtruder from another
State that the members of the convention, without giving a woman of
their own State opportunity for reply, not only struck out the
clause submitting the question to the people in a separate article,
but actually incorporated in the body of the constitution a clause
which would not allow a woman to hold any office, public position,
place of trust or emolument in the State. Through the efforts of
such staunch friends as Judge Bradwell, Judge Waite and others,
this latter clause was stricken out, and one inserted which, under
a fair construction, will allow a woman to hold almost any office,
provided she receives a sufficient number of votes.</p>

<p>By the accidental insertion of another clause in the constitution
under consideration, Section 1, of Article VII., any foreign born
woman, naturalized previous to January, 1870, was given the right
to vote. So that Illinois was the first State in the Union, since
the time when the women of New Jersey were disfranchised, to give
to foreign-born women the elective franchise. This mistake of the
wise Solons was guarded as a State secret.</p>

<p>Previous to the great fire of 1871, the most popular and
influential woman's club in Chicago was the organization known as
Sorosis. This club, by the generous aid of many prominent gentlemen
of the city, established pleasant headquarters, where, in addition
to bright carpets and artistic decorations, were books, flowers,
birds, and other refined accessories. Mrs. Elizabeth Loomis says of
the meetings held in those delightful parlors: "At every successive
session we could see that we were gaining ground and receiving
influential members. I well remember how it encouraged us to number
the Rev. Dr. Thomas among our friends; and how gladly I made the
motion to have him appointed temporary chairman in the absence of
the president&mdash;a position which he cheerfully accepted." One of the
most brilliant reunions ever enjoyed by the club, was a reception
given to Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, as they were <i>en route</i> to
California, early in June, 1871. Of this reception, Miss Anthony,
in a letter from Des Moines, Iowa, to <i>The Revolution</i>, said: "Mrs.
Stanton and I were in Chicago the evening the Illinois State and
Cook County Association held their opening reception at their new
central bureau, a suite of fine rooms handsomely carpeted and
furnished by prominent merchants of the city, where, with music,
conversation, speeches, etc., the hours passed delightfully away,"
forming, as Miss Anthony might have added, a delightful oasis amid
the many discomforts of a continuous appeal to the people to deal
justly.</p>

<p>In November, 1871, Mrs. Catharine V. Waite, of Hyde Park, made a
written application to the board of registration, asking them to
place her<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_572" id="Page_572">[Pg 572]</a></span> name upon the register as a voter, which they refused to
do on the ground that she was a woman, whereupon Mrs. Waite filed a
petition in the Supreme Court of Cook county, stating the facts,
and praying that the board be compelled by mandamus to place her
name upon the register. Chief-Justice Jameson granted an
alternative writ, returnable on the following Monday, commanding
the board to show cause, if any they have, why Mrs. Waite's name
should not be placed upon the register. Judge Charles B. Waite, the
husband of the plaintiff, made an exhaustive and unanswerable
argument before Judge Jameson, but to no purpose as far as the
result of that case was concerned, as the opinion of the court
delivered January 12, 1872, which was very lengthy,<a name="FNanchor_362_362" id="FNanchor_362_362"></a><a href="#Footnote_362_362" class="fnanchor">[362]</a> denied the
relator with costs.</p>

<p>In 1872, Norman T. Gassette, esq., clerk of the Circuit Court of
Cook county, and recorder of deeds, remembering the limited number
of industrial occupations open to women, and seeing no reason why
they could not perform the work of that office, resolved to try the
experiment. A room was fitted up for the special use of women, a
number of whom gladly accepted the proffered positions and received
the same pay per folio as that earned by men. The experiment proved
entirely satisfactory, Major Brockway having officially testified
in regard to woman's especial fitness for the work.</p>

<p>There was an attempt this year to get a law licensing houses of
ill-fame in Chicago, and an immense petition was rolled up and
presented to the legislature by ladies who desired to defeat the
proposed enactment. They carried their point by as neat a flank
movement as Sherman ever executed. A quiet move to Springfield with
a petition signed by thousands of the best men and women of the
city, and our enemies found themselves checkmated before the game
had fairly begun.</p>

<p>February 13, 14, 1872, the State Association held its annual
meeting at Bloomington, with large and interested audiences.<a name="FNanchor_363_363" id="FNanchor_363_363"></a><a href="#Footnote_363_363" class="fnanchor">[363]</a>
March 28 Mrs. Jane Graham Jones secured a hearing before the
legislature for Miss Anthony, who made one of her most convincing
arguments, and had in her audience nearly every member of that body
who voted for what was termed the Alta Hulett bill.</p>

<p>To Myra Bradwell and Alta C. Hulett belongs the credit of a long
and persevering struggle to open the legal profession to women. The
latter succeeded at last in slipping the bolt which had barred
woman from her right to practice law. We take the following
statement in regard to Miss Hulett's experience from the "Women of
the Century":</p>

<blockquote><p>At the age of seventeen, Miss Alta Hulett entered the law office
of Mr. Lathrop, of Rockford, as a student, and after a few
months' study passed the required examination, and sent her
credentials to the Supreme Court, which, instead of granting or
refusing her plea for admission, ignored it altogether. Myra
Bradwell, the successful editor of the <i>Legal News</i>, had just
been denied admission. Her case, stated in brief,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_573" id="Page_573">[Pg 573]</a></span> is this: Mrs.
Bradwell made application for a license to practice law. The
court refused it on the ground of her being a married woman. She
immediately brought a suit to test the legality of this decision.
This interesting case was carried to the Supreme Court of the
United States, which sustained the decision of the lower
courts.<a name="FNanchor_364_364" id="FNanchor_364_364"></a><a href="#Footnote_364_364" class="fnanchor">[364]</a> Miss Hulett had reason to expect that since she was
unmarried, this decision would not prejudice her case. Just on
the threshold of her chosen profession, the rewards of youthful
aspirations and earnest study apparently within her grasp, her
dismay may be imagined when no response whatever was vouchsafed
her petition. A fainter heart would have accepted the situation.
To battle successfully with old prejudices, entrenched in the
strongholds of the law, required not only marked ability, but
also a courage which could not surrender. Miss Hulett took a
country school for four months, and bravely went to work again.
While teaching and "boarding round," she prepared a lecture,
"Justice vs. The Supreme Court," in which she vigorously and
eloquently stated her case. This lecture was delivered in
Rockford, Freeport, and many other towns, enlisting everywhere
sympathy and admiration in her behalf. After taking counsel with
Lieutenant-Governor Early and other prominent members of the
legislature, she drafted a bill, the provisions of which are:</p>

<p><i>Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois represented
in the General Assembly</i>, That no person shall be precluded or
debarred from any occupation, profession, or employment (except
military), on account of sex. Provided this act shall not be
construed to affect the eligibility of any person to an elective
office.</p>

<p>Nothing in this act shall be construed as requiring any female to
work on streets or roads, or serve on juries. All laws
inconsistent with this act are hereby repealed.</p>

<p>Friends obtained for this bill a very favorable introduction into
the legislature, where it passed and received the Governor's
signature. Passing up the steps to her home one rainy day, the
telegram announcing that the bill had become a law was placed in
her hands, and in referring to the incident, Miss Hulett said: "I
shall never again know a moment of such supreme happiness." We
can only add in this connection that after a most vigorous
examination she stood at the head of a class of twenty-eight, all
the other members being gentlemen. This time the Supreme Court
made the amende honorable, courteously and cordially welcoming
her into the ranks of the profession on her birthday, June 4,
1873, and at the age of nineteen Miss Hulett commenced the
practice of law. </p></blockquote>

<p>But Miss Hulett's career, so full of promise, was soon ended. The
announcement of her untimely death, which occurred at San Diego,
Cal., March 26, 1877, sent a pang to the hearts of those who knew
her personally, and of thousands who regarded her with pride as a
representative woman. A Chicago correspondent says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The daily press of the city have already borne ample testimony to
her professional talents and success and to the esteem and
admiration accorded her by the bar of Chicago and by the general
public; for her somewhat exceptional position as well as her
ability had made her one of the marked characters of the city.
Her short life, so successful and brilliant to the public eye,
was not without its dark and thorny places. Unusual
responsibilities of a domestic nature, opposition of various
kinds and keen disappointments only nerved her to greater
persistency, and her courage was upheld by the generous and
abundant recognition which she received on every hand from
leading members of the bar&mdash;a recognition for which she never
failed, when opportunity offered, to express her sense of
profound obligation&mdash;and she was accustomed to say that the law
was the most liberal of the professions. Much as Miss Hulett had
accomplished hitherto, it was felt that she had only crossed the
threshold of a career of surpassing usefulness; all things seemed
possible to one so richly endowed; her mental vigor seemed
matched by a <i>physique</i>, the apparent type of blooming health;
but the seeds of disease were inherited and only awaited a
combination of circumstances to assert<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_574" id="Page_574">[Pg 574]</a></span> their fatal power.
Absorbing enthusiasm for her profession, and the cares of a
rapidly increasing practice, made her overlook the insidious
danger lurking in a cold, and not until her alarmed physician
ordered her to the soft climate of Southern California did she
comprehend her danger. This peremptory order was a terrible
shock, and the forced exile from the field of her hopes and
ambitions, more bitter than death. She never rallied, but
continued rapidly to fail until the end came. At a meeting of the
bar of Chicago, held to take action in commemoration of the death
of Miss Alta M. Hulett, attorney-at-law, the following was one of
the resolutions adopted:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That although the legal profession has hitherto been
almost, if not altogether, considered as exclusively for men to
practice, yet we freely recognize Miss Hulett's right to adopt it
as her pursuit in life, and cheerfully bear testimony to the fact
that in her practice she never demeaned herself in any way
unbecoming a woman. She was always true to her clients and their
interests, but she was equally true to her sex and her duty; and
if women who now are, or hereafter shall become, members of our
profession shall be equally true, its honor will never be
tarnished, nor the respect, good-will and esteem which it is the
duty and pride of man to accord to woman be in the least
diminished by their membership.</p>

<p>Which, translated, means that men are not only ready to welcome
into one of their own professions women having the requisite
intellectual qualifications, but that the welcome will be the
warmer if the women entering shall not leave behind the more
feminine attributes of the sex. Portia did deliver judgment, but
the counselor's cap became the pretty locks it could not hide,
and the jurist's cloak lent additional grace to the symmetry and
litheness of female youth. </p></blockquote>

<p>M. Fredrica Perry began the study of law in the office of Shipman &amp;
Loveridge, Coldwater, Michigan, in the winter of 1870-71. She spent
two years in the law-office and then two years in the law-school of
Michigan University. On graduating from the law-school in March,
1875, she was admitted to the Michigan bar. She located in Chicago
in August, and in September was admitted to the Illinois bar and
began practice. A few weeks later she was, on motion of Miss
Hulett, admitted to the U.S. Circuit and District Courts for the
Northern District of Illinois. She was in partnership with Ellen A.
Martin under the name of Perry &amp; Martin. Her death occured June 3,
1883, and was the result of pneumonia. Miss Perry was a successful
lawyer and combined in an eminent degree the qualities which
distinguish able barristers and jurists; her mind was broad and
catholic, clear, quick, logical and profound; her information on
legal and general matters was extensive. She was an excellent
advocate, a skillful examiner of witnesses, and understood as few
do, save practitioners who have grown old in experience, the nice
discriminations of common-law pleading and the rules of evidence.
She was engrossed in the study and practice of law, and gained
steadily in efficiency and power year by year. She had the genius
and ability for the highest attainment in all branches of civil
practice, and joined with these the power of close application and
hard work. She belonged to the Strong family which has furnished a
good deal of the legal talent of the United States. Judge Tuley, a
chancery judge of Chicago before whom she often appeared, said of
her at the bar meeting called to take action upon her death: "I was
surprised at the extent of her legal knowledge and the great legal
acumen she displayed." And of her manner and method of conducting a
certain bitterly-contested case in his court: "I became satisfied
that the influence of woman would be highly beneficial in
preserving<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_575" id="Page_575">[Pg 575]</a></span> and sustaining that high standard of professional
courtesy which should always exist among the members of our
profession."&mdash;&mdash;Ellen A. Martin, of Perry &amp; Martin, Chicago, spent
two years in a law-office and two years in Michigan University
law-school, and was graduated and admitted to practice in Michigan
at the same time with Miss Perry. She was admitted in Illinois in
January, 1876, and since then to the U. S. Circuit Court.&mdash;&mdash;In the
summer of 1879, Mrs. M. B. R. Shay, Streator, graduating from the
Bloomington law-school, was admitted to the bar. She has published
a book entitled, "Students Guide to Common-Law Pleading."&mdash;&mdash;In
1880, Cora A. Benneson, Quincy, was graduated from the Michigan
University law-school and admitted to the Michigan and Illinois
bar.&mdash;&mdash;Ada H. Kepley, in practice with her husband at Effingham,
was graduated from the Chicago law-school in June, 1870, but was
refused admission to the bar. In November of that year, a motion
was made in the Court at Effingham that she should be allowed to
act as attorney in a case at that bar, and Judge Decius said that
though the Supreme Court had refused to license a woman, he yet
thought the motion was proper and in accord with the spirit of the
age and granted the motion. Mrs. Kepley was finally admitted,
January, 1881.&mdash;&mdash;Miss Bessie Bradwell, graduated from the Union
College of Law of Chicago and admitted to the bar in 1882, is
associated with her parents, Judge and Mrs. Bradwell, on the <i>Legal
News</i> and in the preparation of Bradwell's Appellate Court Reports.</p>

<p>July 1, 1873, the bill making women eligible as school officers
became a law, and in the fall elections of the same year the people
gave unmistakable indorsement of the champions of the bill, by
electing women as superintendent of schools in ten counties, while
in sixteen others women were nominated. Many of these earnest women
have been in the service ever since. As the practical results of
woman's controlling influence as superintendents of schools seems
to epitomize her work in all official positions, we submit a report
compiled by Miss Mary Allen West, made at the request of the
Illinois Social Science Association, regretting that we have not
space for one of the model reports of Miss Sarah Raymond, also for
ten years superintendent of the schools of Bloomington:</p>

<blockquote><p>During the session of 1872-3, Judge Bradwell introduced into the
legislature the following bill, which became a law April 3, 1873:
"Be it enacted by the people of Illinois, represented in General
Assembly, that any woman, married or single, of the age of
twenty-one years and upwards, and possessing the qualifications
prescribed for men, shall be eligible to any office under the
general school laws of this State." A second section provides for
her giving bonds.</p>

<p>At the next election, November, 1873, ten ladies were elected to
the office of county superintendent of schools for a term of four
years. As this term has now expired, it is a favorable time to
inquire how women have succeeded in this new line of labor. That
the work that devolves upon county superintendents may be
understood, I give a part of the synopsis of the duties
pertaining to the office, as enumerated by Dr. Newton Bateman:</p>

<p><i>First</i>&mdash;She must carefully inspect and pass upon the bonds of
all township treasurers, and upon the securities given in each
case, and is personally liable as well upon her official bond for
any loss to the school funds sustained through her neglect or
careless performance of duty.</p>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;She must keep herself fully and carefully informed as
to what townships<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_576" id="Page_576">[Pg 576]</a></span> have and what have not complied with the
provisions of the law in respect to maintenance of schools; so
that no funds may in ignorance be paid to townships having no
legal claim to them.</p>

<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;She must collect, transcribe, classify, verify,
tabulate, and transmit annually to the State superintendent the
school statistics of her county, together with a detailed written
report of the condition of the common schools therein.</p>

<p><i>Fourth</i>&mdash;She must arrange, classify, file and preserve all
books, papers, bonds, official correspondence and other documents
belonging to her office.</p>

<p><i>Fifth</i>&mdash;She must impart instruction and give directions to
inexperienced teachers in the science, art and method of
teaching, and must be ready, at all times, to counsel, advise and
assist the school officers of her county.</p>

<p><i>Sixth</i>&mdash;She must take an active part in the management of County
Teachers' Institutes, and labor in every way to improve the
quality of teaching in her county.</p>

<p><i>Seventh</i>&mdash;She must hear, examine, and determine all questions
and controversies under school law, which may be referred to her,
and must carefully prepare, to the best of her knowledge and
ability, such replies to all letters from school officers and
teachers as each case demands.</p>

<p><i>Eighth</i>&mdash;She must examine all candidates desiring to teach in
her county, and grant certificates to such, and such only, as she
honestly thinks are of good moral character and sufficient
scholastic attainments. As no one can teach in a public school
without such certificate, this gives her the veto power over all
teachers. Dr. Bateman, commenting on fourteen specifications, of
which the foregoing constitute but eight, says these are <i>some</i>
of the <i>many</i> duties made obligatory upon the county
superintendent by law. Besides all these, is the visitation of
schools, which every true superintendent considers a very
important part of the work.</p>

<p>For convenience we will group these duties in three classes: 1.
Those concerning finance. 2. Legal duties. 3. Duties to teachers
and schools.</p>

<p>I. To give an idea of the financial interests intrusted to the
hands of these women, we find by reference to the State
superintendent's report for last year that the total receipts for
school purposes in these ten counties which they superintend was
$1,009,441. So far as can be learned from the records, not one
cent of the large sums over which they had supervision has been
lost through their dishonesty, or, what was more to be feared,
their ignorance of business. Unlike those of Dora Copperfield,
their accounts <i>will</i> "add up." In the county (Knox) where the
receipts are greatest, aggregating $182,423.22, the greatest
difference between receipts and expenditures, as shown by the
superintendent's books, is ten cents. In many of these counties
the financial affairs were in the greatest confusion when the
ladies came into office. In one, perhaps more, the preceding
superintendent was a defaulter, in another he was engaged in a
law-suit with the county board, and in still others strange
irregularities were discovered. In every instance, so far as we
can ascertain, these crookednesses have been straightened out,
the finances put upon a surer basis, hundreds, we believe
thousands, of dollars of bad debts have been collected,
treasurers and directors have been induced to keep their books
with greater care and in better shape, reckless expenditure of
school funds has been discouraged, and directors encouraged to
expend the money for things which will permanently benefit the
schools. So much for finance.</p>

<p>II. <i>Legal Duties.</i>&mdash;Rightly to discharge the duties imposed by
specification 7, the county superintendent needs to be a very
good lawyer, for school law in its ramifications reaches many
other departments of law. Especially is it inextricably mixed up
with election laws, and all know that cases arising under
election laws are among the most complex and difficult to handle.
Probably a school election never occurrs in which some such cases
are not referred to the county superintendent. In the settlement
of these and other cases arising under school law, these women
have been peculiarly successful, and some of them have earned the
blessing bestowed upon the peacemakers. We know of one county
where, after last spring's election, five contested cases were
referred to the superintendent for settlement; these were all
satisfactorily adjusted by her. During her four years'
administration, scores of controversies were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_577" id="Page_577">[Pg 577]</a></span> referred to her,
and there has never been a single appeal from her decisions.
Another most complicated case involving a defaulting treasurer,
was conducted entirely by the county superintendent until it
became necessary to employ a lawyer to argue the case in court.
What she had done was then submitted to one of the leading
lawyers of the State, and he sanctioned and approved each step.
Numerous other instances might be cited to show that woman has
not failed in the legal part of her work as superintendent of
schools.</p>

<p>III. <i>Her Work with Teachers and Schools.</i>&mdash;Here our
superintendents were perfectly at home. Each of the ten had
taught successfully for years, and so knew the wants of the
school-room. This knowledge was invaluable, both in the
examination of teachers and in the supervision of schools. Fears
were expressed lest in the examination of candidates, womanly
sympathy would lead them to grant certificates to needy
applicants who were not altogether qualified. But the
motherliness which is in every true woman's heart, warded off
this danger. As one remarked, "I have a great deal of the milk of
human kindness in my nature, but its streams flow toward the
roomful of children to be injured by an incompetent teacher,
rather than toward that teacher, however needy he may be. If his
claims rest on his needs rather than his merits, let the
poormaster attend to his wants, not the superintendent. School
money is not a pauper fund." This motherliness comes in good play
in school visitation. It draws the children to the
superintendent; keeps them from being afraid of her, and hence
leads them to work naturally during her visit; thus she can
obtain a true idea of the status of the school, and know just how
to advise and direct the teacher. The same thing holds true in
regard to teachers; the majority of them are ladies, and they
will come to a lady for the solution of their doubts and
difficulties much more freely than to a gentleman. This gives her
better opportunity to "impart instruction and give directions to
inexperienced teachers." Woman's power to lift up the teachers
under her control to a higher plane, both intellectually and
morally, has been signally demonstrated by the experience of the
past four years.</p>

<p>In looking after the details of official work, those tiresome
minutiæ so often left at "loose ends," producing endless
confusion, woman has shown great aptitude. You say, "this is but
the clean sweeping of a new broom." May be so, in part; but in
part it comes from the womanly instinct to "look well to the ways
of her household," whether that household be the occupants of a
cottage or the schools of a county. In the work of the State
Association of County Superintendents, the ladies have well
sustained their part. When placed on the programme, they have
come prepared with carefully written papers, showing their desire
to give the Association the benefit of their best thoughts, and
not put off upon it such crudely digested ideas as may spring up
at the moment. At the last meeting at Springfield, four out of
the nine superintendents now in office were present, 44 per
cent.; out of the 93 gentlemen in the same office, 18 were
present, 19 per cent. The ratio of attendance has been about the
same for the four years.</p>

<p>How has woman's work as county superintendent impressed other
educators? State-Superintendent Etter, who confesses that he was
not in favor of the plan, said at the State Teachers'
Association, above referred to: "The ladies compare very
favorably with their gentlemen co-laborers." Mr. E.L. Wells, for
twelve years county superintendent of Ogle county, and thoroughly
conversant with the work throughout the State, concurs in this
opinion. President Newton Bateman, than whom no man in the State
is better fitted to speak on this subject, in his
political-economy class in Knox college, took occasion to commend
the efficiency of women as county superintendents of our State. A
gentleman who travels extensively, and looks into school affairs
closely, says he is convinced that in every county where a woman
was elected four years ago, the efficiency of the office had been
doubled and in some cases increased four or even ten fold. If
this be not an exaggeration, an explanation may be found in the
fact that in most of these counties the best ladies were put in
the place of gentlemen most poorly fitted for the place. The
office had become a political foot-ball, kicked about as party
exigencies demanded, and often came into possession of political
hacks who "must be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_578" id="Page_578">[Pg 578]</a></span> provided for," and for whom no other place
could be found. They had no qualifications for the office, and,
of course, could not perform its duties. The people, disgusted,
turned to the women for relief, and took good care to elect the
ones best fitted to do the work. Had equal care been used in the
selection of their predecessors, they might have done equally
good work. In quoting opinions, I have purposely confined myself
to those given by gentlemen.</p>

<p>The limits of this paper have restricted this discussion to the
work of woman as a county superintendent; but in other school
offices she is doing efficient work. All over the State we have
examples of her efficiency as school director. Miss Sarah E.
Raymond, in Bloomington, and Miss Ludlow, in Davenport (by the
way, the Iowa State Teachers' Association last year honored
itself by electing her president), abundantly proves woman's
ability to superintend the schools of large cities. M.A.W. </p></blockquote>

<p>In <i>Zion's Herald</i> 1873, on the origin of the Woman's College in
Evanston, Miss Frances E. Willard writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>In 1866, when we were all tugging away to build Heck Hall for
ministers, I heard several thoughtful women say, "We ought to be
doing this for our own sex. Men have help from every side, while
no one thinks of women." In the summer of 1868 Mrs. Mary F.
Haskins, who had been treasurer of the American Methodist Ladies'
Centenary Association, which built Heck Hall, raising for the
purpose $50,000, invited the ladies of Evanston to her home to
talk over the subject of founding a Woman's College, which should
secure to young women the highest educational advantages. Mrs.
Haskin originated the thought&mdash;with her own hands assisted in
laying the corner-stone, and in her first address as president
she said: "I have often thought that to the successful teacher
the words must be full of hope and promise, which a great writer
uses of education: 'It is a companion which no misfortune can
distress, no crime destroy, no enemy alienate, no despot enslave;
at home a friend, abroad an introduction; in solitude a solace,
in society an ornament. It chastens vice, it guides virtue, it
adds a grace to genius. Without it what is man?'&mdash;and I would add
with emphasis, Without an education, what is woman?" </p></blockquote>

<p>This Woman's College at Evanston is the first on record to which a
charter, granting full collegiate powers, was ever given by
legislative act, including only names of women in its board of
trustees. This board, elected Miss Frances E. Willard president,
who presided over the institution for two years, during which term
a class of young women was graduated, the first in history to whom
diplomas were voted and conferred by women. The degree of A. M. was
given Mrs. Jennie Fowler Willing, of Chicago, who preached the
baccalaureate sermon at the unique commencement exercises. Mrs.
Mary F. Haskin, and Mrs. Elizabeth Greenleaf were respectively
presidents of the board of trustees.</p>

<p>Later on, as a higher evolution of the central thought, an
arrangement was made between the Woman's College and the
Northwestern University, by which the former became the woman's
department of the latter, on condition that in its board of
trustees, faculty of instruction, and all its departments of
culture, women should be admitted on an equality with men, as to
opportunities, positions and salaries. Miss Willard was then chosen
dean of the Woman's College, and professor of æsthetics in the
University. Mrs. Emily Huntington Miller was placed on the
executive committee of the board, and Mrs. R. F. Queal, Mrs. Jennie
Fowler Willing, Mrs. Mary Bannister Willard, and Mrs. L. L.
Greenleaf were elected trustees. One year later, Miss Willard
entered the temperance work<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_579" id="Page_579">[Pg 579]</a></span> since which time Miss Ellen M. Soule
and Miss Jane Bancroft have successively served in the position of
dean.</p>

<p>The young women have led in scholarship, taken prizes in
composition and oratory, while upon one occasion the delighted
students dragged forth the only artillery in the village to voice
their enthusiasm over the fact that to Miss Lizzie R. Hunt had been
awarded at the great international contest the first prize for the
best English essay.</p>

<p>In 1873, while filling the duties of professor in Wesleyan
University, Mrs. Jennie Fowler Willing was licensed as a local
preacher in the Methodist Episcopal Church, the first woman engaged
as evangelist in Illinois.</p>

<p>The Monticello Ladies' Seminary at Godfrey is worthy of mention.
Miss Harriet N. Haskell, its president, has done a noble work there
in making possible for many girls, by labor under her roof to pay
in part for a liberal education. She has been at the head of this
institution for thirty years. Mrs. F.A. Shiner at Mt. Carroll, is
another grand woman worthy of mention. She, too, gives poor girls
an opportunity in her household to pay in part for their education.
In this way many are being trained in domestic accomplishments as
well as the higher branches of education. There is no distinction
made between those who work a certain number of hours each day and
those who pay in full for their advantages; and in many cases the
best scholars have been found from year to year among those who had
the stimulus of labor. As Miss Haskell and Mrs. Shiner have
uniformly entertained all the lyceum lecturers<a name="FNanchor_365_365" id="FNanchor_365_365"></a><a href="#Footnote_365_365" class="fnanchor">[365]</a> at their
beautiful homes, many have had the pleasure of seeing and talking
with these bright girls, and the worthy presidents of the
institutions.</p>

<p>We believe to Illinois belongs the distinction of being the
birthplace of the first woman admitted to the American Medical
Association&mdash;Dr. Sarah Hackett Stevenson, born at Buffalo Grove,
Ogle county. Dr. Stevenson was admitted to this time-honored
association June, 1876. The Philadelphia <i>Evening Bulletin</i> thus
refers to the innovation:</p>

<blockquote><p>The doctors have combined millennial with centennial glories. The
largest assemblage of the medical profession ever held in America
yesterday honored itself by bursting the bonds of ancient
prejudice, and admitting a woman to its membership by a vote that
proved the battle won, and that henceforth professional
qualification, and not sex, is to be the test of standing in the
medical world. Looking over the past fierce resistance by which
every advance of woman into the field of medical life was met,
yesterday's action seems like the opening of a scientific
millennium. It was a most appropriate time and place for the
beginning of this new era of medical righteousness and peace.
Here, in the centennial year, in the "City of Brotherly Love,"
where the first organized effort for the medical education of
women was made, where the oldest medical college for women in the
world is located, and where the fight against woman's entry into
the medical profession was most hotly waged, was the place to
take the manly new departure, which, so far as the National
Association is concerned,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_580" id="Page_580">[Pg 580]</a></span> began yesterday in the election of Dr.
Sarah Hackett Stevenson as a member in full standing from the
State of Illinois. </p></blockquote>

<p>Dr. Mary H. Thompson, who was graduated at Boston in 1863, and who,
removing to Chicago, succeeded in establishing a woman's hospital,
is included in a short list of notable alumnæ of the Boston Medical
School. Dr. Lelia G. Bedell, Dr. E. G. Cook, Dr. Julia Holmes
Smith, Dr. Alice B. Stockham, and many others have won honorable
distinction in this profession.</p>

<p>One of the marked crises in the history of the reform we trace was
the centennial Fourth of July. The daughters of the Pilgrims
realized as never before the cruel injustice by which they were
deprived of their birthright, and from the Western prairies and
Eastern hills their earnest protest was given to the nation. As
early as May 2, 1876, at a special convention of the Illinois Woman
Suffrage Association, two vigorous protests were read as the
official utterances of State and National Associations. The
convention was called to order by Mrs. Alma Van Winkle, who stated
that Mrs. Jane Graham Jones,<a name="FNanchor_366_366" id="FNanchor_366_366"></a><a href="#Footnote_366_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a> the beloved and efficient
president of the association, having determined upon a European
sojourn, had sent her resignation to the executive committee, and
that Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, recently removed to the State,
had been elected to fill her place. This action being ratified,
Susan B. Anthony was introduced, and although she had just
concluded an intensely vigorous lyceum tour, extending through many
months, she spoke with unusual power. Just here I wish to emphasize
the great loss to women in the fact that as Miss Anthony's speeches
were never written, but came with thrilling effect from her
patriotic soul, scarce any record of them remains, other than the
intangible memories of her grateful countrywomen. At this
convention the following address was read and adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Women of the United States of America, greeting:</i></p>

<p>While the centennial clock is striking the hour of opportunity
for the Pilgrims' daughters to prove themselves regenerate
children of a worthy ancestry, while the air reverberates to the
watchwords of the statesmen of the Revolution, let the daughters
of the nation, in clear, steady and womanly voices, chorus
through the States: "Taxation without representation is tyranny,"
and "all governments derive their just powers from the consent of
the governed."</p>

<p>Womanly hands, firm, capable and loving, have been steadily,
persistently and unceasingly knocking, knocking at the doors of
judicial, ecclesiastical and legislative halls, until at last the
rusty bars are yielding and the persistent knocking is beginning
to tell upon iron nerves and all kinds of masculine
constitutions. Just now, in the centennial year, another door has
opened, preparing the way for the Pilgrims' daughters to present
their claim before the assembled nation on the "Fourth of July,
1876."</p>

<p>A joint resolution of congress, signed by the president of the
United States, and made the subject of proclamation by the
governor of the State, reads as follows:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_581" id="Page_581">[Pg 581]</a></span></p>

<p><i>Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America</i>, That it be, and is hereby, recommended
by the Senate and the House of Representatives to the people of
the several States, that they assemble in the several counties
and towns on the approaching centennial anniversary of our
national independence, and that they cause to have delivered on
such day an historical sketch of said county or town from its
foundation, and that a copy of said sketch may be filed, in print
or manuscript, in the clerk's office of said county, and an
additional copy be filed in the office of the librarian of
congress at the city of Washington, to the intent that a complete
record may thus be obtained of the progress of our institutions
during the first centennial of their existence.</p>

<p>The governor of this State earnestly recommends that prompt
measures be taken in each county and town for the selection of
one or more persons who shall prepare complete, thorough and
accurate historical sketches of each county, city, town or
village, from the date of the settlement to the present time.</p>

<p>In view of the fact that since our civil war thousands of
charitable, scientific, philanthropic, religious and political
associations have been organized among women, of which but few
accurate records are now accessible to the general public, and in
view of the fact that the Supreme Court and many of our
legislators construe "persons" to indicate only men (except when
persons are to be taxed, fined or executed), we respectfully
suggest that in all cases one member of the committee shall be a
woman, to the end that there may be submitted to future
historians accurate data of the extent and scope of the work of
American women; that this historian of woman shall carefully and
impartially record the literary, educational, journalistic,
industrial, charitable and political work of woman as expressed
in temperance, missionary and woman suffrage organization.</p>

<p>Let a meeting of every woman suffrage organization throughout the
State, or, where none exists, let any friend of the cause call a
meeting, at which a committee shall be appointed to present this
suggestion to the people as they may meet in the different
cities, villages and towns, to perfect arrangements for their
local celebration.</p>

<p>As American citizens we salute the tri-color, emblem of the
rights obtained and liberties won by husbands, fathers and sons,
meanwhile pledging, if need be, another century of toil and
effort to the sacred cause of human rights, and the establishment
of a genuine republic.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Elizabeth Boynton Harbert</span>,<br />
<i>Pres. Ill. Woman Suffrage Society.</i></p>
</blockquote>

<p>It was decided at this convention to celebrate the Fourth of July
in some appropriate manner. Under the auspices of Mrs. Harbert this
was done at Evanston. The occasion was heralded as "The Woman's
Fourth," and programmes<a name="FNanchor_367_367" id="FNanchor_367_367"></a><a href="#Footnote_367_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a> were scattered through the village.</p>

<p>The auditorium of the large Methodist Church was tastefully
decorated with exquisite flowers; flags were gracefully festooned
about the pulpit, and all the appointments were pronounced artistic
by the most critical, and Mrs. Harbert's oration, of which we give
a few extracts, aimed to be in keeping with her surroundings:</p>

<blockquote><p>If possessed of artistic genius, I would seize the pencil and
imprison in rich and gorgeous coloring two pictures for the
woman's pavilion of our centennial; for the first I would
reproduce that prophetically symbolic scene at the dawn of our
history, when with a faith and generosity worthy of honorable
mention, Isabella of Castile placed her jewels in the almost
discouraged mariner's hands, and bade Columbus give to the world
Columbia. The second scene would be the antithesis of the first,
as to-day, the women of the United States make haste to lay at
the feet of our statesmen and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_582" id="Page_582">[Pg 582]</a></span> prophets their jewels of thought
and influence, bidding them, in the name of woman, give to the
world a perfected government, a genuine republic, a purer
civilization. Now, as then, there are many ready with mocking
jeers; but, turning not to the right nor the left, the faith of
woman and the courage of man move on apace to sure success. That
historic "first gun" not only jarred loose every rivet in the
manacles of 4,000,000 slaves, but when the smoke of the
cannonading had lifted, the entire horizon of woman was
broadened, illuminated, glorified. On that April day when a
nation of citizens were suddenly transformed into an army of
warriors, American women, with a patriotism as intense as theirs,
a consecration as true, quietly assumed their vacated places and
became citizens. Out from market-place and forum, counting-house
and farm&mdash;keeping time to the chime of the music of the
Union&mdash;marched father, husband and son; into office, store and
farm, called there by no ambitious desire to wander out of their
sphere, but by the same dire military necessity that called our
men to the front stepped orphaned daughter and widowed wife. Anna
Dickinson captured the lyceum and platform. The almost classic
scene of "Corinne at the Capitol" is not more remarkable than
that historic scene of the Quaker girl at Washington, called
there to receive the plaudits of the highest officials of our
nation, for services rendered in the then vital political
campaigns of New Hampshire, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and New
York.</p>

<p>The cruel, scarlet days of war dragged wearily on. Up from the
Southern battle-fields, borne northward in the lull of the war
tempest, came a wailing appeal from "the boys," who hitherto had
never appealed to "mother" in vain: "We are wounded, sick and
starving." Instantly the mother-heart responded&mdash;waiting not for
"orders," snapping official red-tape, as though it had been woven
of cob-webs, two women started southward with the needed
supplies, and this great, anxious, agonized North gave a sob of
relief when the message thrilled through the land that Jane C.
Hoge and Mary A. Livermore had arrived at the front with the
needed supplies. Idle, helpless, dependent queens were not then
in demand, but women fitted to be wives of heroes. Because our
lake-bordered, tree-fringed village was once her home, I lovingly
trace first on Evanston's scroll of honor the name of Jane C.
Hoge, while just underneath it I write that of our venerable
philanthropist, who was the first woman in these United States to
receive the badge of the Christian commission, Mrs. Arza Brown.</p>

<p>And now, standing here upon the border-land of two centuries,
over-shadowed by the dear old flag, re-baptized with the blood of
my beloved as of yours&mdash;standing here, a native-born citizen, as
a woman to whom the honor, purity, peace and freedom of native
land is dear as life; as a wife vitally interested in the
interests of manhood; as a mother responsible for the best
development of her children; as a human being, responsible to her
Creator for the highest possible usefulness, I claim equality
before the law. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Mary Bannister Willard gave some surprising facts in regard to
woman's work in connection with the North Western University, and
reminded us that foremost among the women of the dawning century
was Eliza Garret of Chicago, who secured to the Garret Biblical
Institute its endowment of a quarter of a million of dollars, with
the proviso that a certain increase of income from the same after
the wants of the young theologues had been met, should be applied
to the erection and endowment of a seminary for young ladies. But
alas! the theological appetite has been insatiate, even unto this
last, and deliverance has come to our girls from another quarter.
And this was the throwing down of university gates and bars, and a
free extension of all educational privileges to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_583" id="Page_583">[Pg 583]</a></span> women. Upon the
roll of honor connected with this work we gratefully place the
names of many brave, self-sacrificing women.<a name="FNanchor_368_368" id="FNanchor_368_368"></a><a href="#Footnote_368_368" class="fnanchor">[368]</a></p>

<p>The Rev. Mr. Chappell, pastor of the Baptist church, then gave a
most eloquent, liberal oration. In closing, he said: "But what
think you, sisters, of the dangers that threaten the republic? Do
they lie on your hearts? Are they in your prayers? Do they enter
into your plans? All compliments and gallantries aside, it makes a
vast difference in the destiny of the republic whether you
understand and feel its dangers. The scale has turned. No longer
need we dread oppression, disability, power; but on the other hand,
license, luxury, listlessness, forgetfulness of God and the
wholesome truth. This watch-night of the republic augurs well. This
gathering of the sisterhood has its meaning. You are the power
behind the throne; with you and with God lies the destiny of the
republic." After the benediction the audience dispersed, all
expressing of the entire programme the most enthusiastic approval.</p>

<p>About the close of the year 1876, a noticeable change in the
direction of thought and effort was very apparent in the State of
Illinois. As a result of the ravages of the fire and the severe
mental strain to which business men were subjected, women sprang to
the rescue, and actively engaged in business. These additional
burdens assumed by the many, the few were left to bear the weight
of religious, philanthropic and social duties. Women had tested
their powers sufficiently to realize their strength, and were
impatient for immediate results, hence many of the active friends
of woman suffrage, believing that the temperance ballot could be
more speedily secured than entire political equality, joined the
home-protection movement, while through the broadening and helpful
influence of the Grange in the farm-homes of the northwest,
requests for aids to organization came from all quarters. In order
that the earnest thoughts of the one class and the practical
methods of the other, might be rendered mutually beneficial, I one
day entered the sanctum of the progressive editor of the
<i>Inter-Ocean</i>, and asked for a ten-minute audience. The request was
granted, and Wm. Penn Nixon, esq., courteously listened to the
following questions: "As a progressive journalist, and one who must
recognize the philanthropic activity of the women of the Northwest,
has it ever occurred to you that there is nowhere in journalism a
special recognition of their interests? We have special fashion
departments, special cooking departments, but no niche or corner
devoted to the moral, industrial, educational, philanthropic and
political interests of women; and does not your judgment assure you
that such a department could be rendered popular?" As a result of
this conversation a special corner of the <i>Inter-Ocean</i> was yielded
to woman's interests, designated by the editors, "Woman's Kingdom,"
and on January 6, 1877, the following announcement appeared:</p>

<blockquote><p>Congratulations to women that we have at last found a home in
journalism; that amid the clashing of sabers of our modern press
tournament, the knights of the quill<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_584" id="Page_584">[Pg 584]</a></span> recognize that women have
some rights that journalists are bound to respect. These columns
are in the interest of no class, clique, sect, or section, and we
earnestly request accurate data of woman's work. All missionary,
literary, temperance and woman suffrage organizations, will be
accorded space for announcing their aims. With an occasional
review of new books, we will confer in regard to what woman has
written; wandering through studios and sanctums, we will record
what she is painting and preaching. Pleading an intense and
loving interest in the splendid opportunities now opening to
American women, we shall hope that some truth may be evolved that
may enrich their lives. </p></blockquote>

<p>Notwithstanding this was the first special department of the kind,
much of the best journalistic work of the State was being done by
women,<a name="FNanchor_369_369" id="FNanchor_369_369"></a><a href="#Footnote_369_369" class="fnanchor">[369]</a> who seemed to have received a new baptism to serve the
higher interests of humanity. From the desire for coöperation
expressed by many contributors to "Woman's Kingdom," the following
little item was set afloat in May, 1877:</p>

<blockquote><p>Many facts recently arresting attention, in connection with the
industrial, political, and moral interests of women, seem to
render a conference of their representatives in regard to
business aims, expedient. There is need of a bureau through which
the industrial interests of women can be promoted and some
practical answer given to the question everywhere heard, "How can
we earn a living?" There is a demand for an educational bureau of
correspondence and also a lyceum bureau through whose agency good
lectures upon practical subjects can be secured in every city and
village. All interested in such a conference are requested to
send their names to Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Evanston,
Ill., or Mrs. Louise Rockwood Wardner, Cairo, Ill. </p></blockquote>

<p>Hon. Frank Sanborn, in his annual report to the American Social
Science Association, mentioned the formation of a branch
society<a name="FNanchor_370_370" id="FNanchor_370_370"></a><a href="#Footnote_370_370" class="fnanchor">[370]</a> in this State. He said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Like the State Charities Aid Association of New York, which was
organized and is directed by women, the Illinois Association
devotes itself chiefly to practical applications of social
science, though in a somewhat different direction. It was formed
in October, 1877, with a membership of some two hundred women; it
publishes a monthly newspaper, <i>The Illinois Social Science
Journal</i>, full of interesting communications, and it has
organized in its first seven months' existence eight smaller
associations in other States. </p></blockquote>

<p>The enthusiasm in this society branching out in so many practical
directions, absorbed for a time the energies of the Illinois women.
Our membership reached 400. This may account for the apparent
lethargy of the Suffrage Association during the years of 1877-78.
Caroline F. Corbin<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_585" id="Page_585">[Pg 585]</a></span> dealt an effective blow in her novel, entitled
"Rebecca; or, A Woman's Secret." Jane Grey Swisshelm, with
trenchant pen, wrote earnest strictures against the shams of
society. Elizabeth Holt Babbitt wrote earnestly for all reform
movements. Myra Bradwell persistently held up to the view of the
legislators of the State the injustice of the laws for woman. Mrs.
Julia Mills Dunn and Mrs. Hannah J. Coffee were doing quiet but
most effective work in Henry county. Miss Eliza Bowman was
consecrating her young womanhood to the care of the Foundlings'
Home. Mrs. Wardner, Mrs. Candee, Mrs. George, and other women in
the southern part of the State, were founding the library at Cairo,
while in every village and hamlet clubs for study or philanthropic
work were being organized. Mrs. Kate N. Doggett, as president of
the Association for the advancement of Women, was lending her
influence to the formation of art clubs. And all this in addition
to the vast army of faithful teachers, represented by Sarah B.
Raymond, Professor Louisa Allen Gregory and Mary C. Larned. Mrs.
Louise Rockwood Wardner, president of the Illinois Industrial
School for Girls, and the noble band of women associated with her,
were earnestly at work in the endeavor to secure to the vagrant
girls of the State an industrial education. Miss Frances E. Willard
and the dauntless army of temperance workers were petitioning for
the right to vote on all questions pertaining to the liquor
traffic.</p>

<p>Meanwhile many of the members of the Illinois Social Science
Association were beginning to realize that every measure proposed
for progressive action was thwarted because of woman's inability to
crystallize her opinions into law. This has been the uniform
experience in every department of reform, and sooner or later all
thinking women see plainly that the direct influence secured by
political power gives weight and dignity to their words and wishes.
Mrs. Jane Graham Jones, ex-president of the State Association,
continued her effective work in Europe, and, as a delegate from the
National Association, prepared the following address of welcome to
the International Congress, convened in Paris, July 5, 1878:</p>

<blockquote><p>Friends, compatriots, and confrères of the International Congress
assembled to discuss the rights of women: Allow me to extend to
you the congratulations of the National Woman Suffrage
Association of America, which I have the honor to represent. I
congratulate you upon this important, this sublime moment, this
auspicious place for the meeting of a woman's congress. Paris,
gorgeous under the grand monarch who surrounded his royal person
with a splendid galaxy of beauty, genius, and chivalry;
attractive and influential under the great emperor whose meteoric
genius held spell-bound the wondering gaze of a world; to-day,
with neither king nor court, nor man of destiny, is grander, more
gorgeous, more beautiful and more influential than ever before.
To-day this is the shrine toward which the pilgrims from every
land turn their impatient steps.</p>

<p>Each balmy breeze comes to us heavily laden with the dialects of
all nations. Not only are the different parts represented in
their economic and industrial products, but each thought, idea,
motive and need is brought before the world in the various
congresses assembled during this great union festival of liberty,
peace and labor. Literature, science, religion, education,
philosophy, and labor, each has had its eloquent advocates. At
this time, when the great ones of the earth are met together in
earnest thought and honest discussion, when each mind and
conscience is attuned to the highest motive, how appropriate that
woman, whose labor, wealth and brain have cemented<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_586" id="Page_586">[Pg 586]</a></span> the stones in
every monument that man has reared to himself; that woman, the
oppressed, woman, the hater of wars, the faithful, quiet drudge
of the centuries, watching while others slept, working while
others plundered and murdered; woman, who has died in prison and
on the scaffold for liberty, should here and now have her
audience and her advocates.</p>

<p>As a child of America I love and venerate France. We cannot
forget LaFayette, although a hundred years have passed since
generous France sent him to our aid in our great struggle for
freedom. But as a woman I glory in her. [Great and deafening
applause.] All true women love and honor France. [At this point
the reader was interrupted with wild cries of "Bravo! bravo!"
"Live America!" "True, true."] France, in whose prolific soil
great and progressive ideas generate and take root, in spite of
king, emperor, priest or tyrant; France, the protectress of
science, art, and philosophy; France, the home of the scholar and
thinker; France, the asylum which generously received the women
who came hither seeking those intellectual advantages and
privileges cruelly denied them at home; France, that compelled
republican America and civilized England to open their
educational institutions to women; France, the birth-place of a
host of women whose splendid genius, devoted lives, and heroic
deaths have encouraged and inspired women of other lands in their
struggles to strike off the ignominious shackles which the ages
have riveted upon them! [Loud applause.] How apropos it is, then,
that the women from all nations meet on the free soil of France
to give to the world their declaration of rights. To-day we clasp
hands and pledge hearts to the sacred cause of woman's
emancipation. To-day we meet to thank France for the grand women
whose lofty utterances come echoing and reëchoing to us through
the corridors of time, and to thank her for her great men who
have been the beacon lights to guide the world to higher
civilization and greater hatred of oppression. In the name of my
great countrywomen, inaugurators and leaders of the woman's
rights movement in America, the eloquent and ardent advocates of
liberty for men and women alike, both black and white; in the
name of the officers of the National Woman Suffrage Association;
in the name of those grand women, Lucretia Mott, Elizabeth Cady
Stanton, and Susan B. Anthony, I salute the women of France and
of the world assembled in this congress, and bid them god-speed.
When we call to mind what has been accomplished by noble women
everywhere, we are encouraged to renewed effort.</p>

<p>In America we have accomplished wonders, and yet we demand more;
and shall continue to demand until we are equal in the state, in
the church, and in the home. Twenty years ago woman entered our
courts of law only as a criminal to be tried; now she enters as
an advocate to plead the cause of justice, and invoke the spirit
of mercy. Twenty years ago woman entered the sick room only as
the poorly-paid nurse; now she is the trusted medical adviser,
friend and counsellor. To-day she is in many respects the peer of
man, to-morrow she will be in all respects his acknowledged
equal. [Great and continued applause.]</p>

<p>Who can measure the influence this congress may have on woman's
advancement toward that perfect equality which justice and
humanity demand. Women of France and of the world, be of good
cheer, and continue to agitate for the right, for in the
elevation of woman lies the progress of the world. [Deafening
applause, and cries of hear, hear.] </p></blockquote>

<p>A letter to the Chicago <i>Times</i> commenting upon the above address
says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Jones being indisposed, was replaced momentarily by her
daughter, a beautiful young lady of about sixteen summers, who
read the opening address of her mother; her rich voice
pronouncing with such distinctness and beauty, the earnest words,
translated into French, won all hearts, and gave to the opening
of the congress such a prestige as it would otherwise never have
had. After its close, Miss Jones regained her seat amidst the
hearty congratulations of the throng assembled in that great
hall, and I was proud of our little American. Her beauty and
courage, coupled with her extreme youth, were the principal
topics discussed during the day by outsiders. I was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_587" id="Page_587">[Pg 587]</a></span> thankful
that our nation was so well represented at the very first
meeting, and the Parisian journals were all loud in their praise
of Mrs. Jones' welcoming address, as well as the charming
apparition of her young and accomplished daughter. </p></blockquote>

<p>As indicating the numerous lines along which woman's aroused
energies have found expression, we would call attention to the Art
Union of central Illinois. It is composed of nine societies, "The
Historical," and "The Palladium," of Bloomington; the art class at
Decatur; "Art Society," of Lincoln; "Art Association," of
Jacksonville; "Art Society," of Peoria; "Art Society," of
Springfield, and "Art Club," of Champagne. Mrs. Lavilla Wyatt
Latham, wife of Col. Robert G. Latham, of Lincoln, was the
originator of the Art Union. Their spacious home, built with large
piazzas in true southern style, is a museum of curiosities. Its
library, cabinet, pictures, and statuary, make it a most attractive
harbor of rest to the wandering band of lecturers, especially as
the cultivated host and hostess are in warm sympathy with all
reform movements. Mr. Latham was a warm friend of Abraham Lincoln,
and entertained him many times under his roof.</p>

<p>The <i>Woman's Journal</i> of March 24, 1877, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Seventy women of Illinois, appointed by the Woman's State
Temperance Union, went to the legislature, bearing a petition
signed by 7,000 persons, asking that no licenses to sell liquor
be granted, which are not asked for by a majority of the citizens
of the place.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span> moved a suspension of the rules to admit of the
presentation of the petition.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Merritt</span> objected, but, by a decided vote, the rules were
suspended, and the petition was received and read.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Sherman</span> moved that Mrs. Prof. S. M. D. Fry of Wesleyan
University of Bloomington, be invited to address the House upon
the subject of the petition.</p>

<p>Mr. <span class="smcap">Herrington</span> objected to the obtrusion of such trifling matter
upon the House, which had business to do. It was well enough to
let the petition be received, but he wanted nobody to be allowed
to interfere with the business of the House. Referring to some
forty or fifty ladies of the Union who had been admitted to the
floor of the House, he wanted to know by what authority persons
not entitled to the privilege of the floor had been admitted. He
insisted on his prerogative as a member, and asked that the floor
and lobbies be cleared of all persons not entitled to the
privilege of the House.</p>

<p>According to the Chicago <i>Tribune</i>, this speech of Herrington
created a slight sensation, among the ladies especially, but Mr.
Herrington's demand was ignored, and a recess of thirty minutes
was taken to allow Mrs. Fry to address the House in support of
the petition, which she did in a speech put in very telling
phrases. At its conclusion, some of the members opposed to
temperance legislation, signalized their ill-breeding, to say the
least, by derisive yells for Mr. Herrington and others to answer
Mrs. Fry. Presently the hall was resonant with yells and cheers,
converting it into a a very babel, and the hubbub was kept up
until, at the expiration of the half-hour recess, Speaker Shaw
called "order" and the House immediately adjourned.</p>

<p>If any body of men bearing a petition of 7,000 voting men, had
gone to the same legislature, and by courtesy been admitted to
speak for their petition, no member would have dared to insult
them. It is because they had no recognized political rights that
these women were insulted. Claim your right, ladies, to be equal
members of the legislature, then you can enact temperance laws,
and have an unquestioned right "to the privilege of the floor." </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1879, under the lead of their president, Frances E. Willard, the
women of Illinois rolled up a mammoth petition of 180,000, asking
the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_588" id="Page_588">[Pg 588]</a></span> right to vote on the question of license. This prayer, like
that of the 7,000, met the fate of all attempts of disfranchised
classes to influence legislation. Following this repulse, in some
ten or fifteen of the smaller cities of the State, boards of common
council were prevailed upon to pass ordinances giving the women the
right to vote on the question. Without an exception, the result was
overwhelming majorities for "No License." In the cities where
officers were elected at the same time, almost without exception,
the majority of them were in favor of license, while in those in
which the old board of officers held over, no licenses were
granted, until the new board elected only by the votes of the men
of the city, was installed. Dr. Alice B. Stockham, in her report at
the Washington convention of 1885, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>After the city ordinance of Keithsburg allowed women to vote, the
hardest work was to convert the women themselves. Committees were
appointed who visited from house to house to persuade women to go
to the polls for the suppression of the rule of liquor. On the
morning of election they met in a church for conference and
prayer. At 10 o'clock forty brave women marched to the polls and
cast their first ballot for home protection. Carriages were
running to and fro all day to bring the invalid and the aged. For
once they were induced to leave the making of ruffles and crazy
quilts, to give their silent voice for the suppression of vice.
Three weeks later not a woman could be found in the town opposed
to suffrage, and for one year not a glass of liquor could be
bought in Keithsburg. </p></blockquote>

<p>Under the act of 1872, the women of Illinois thought their right to
pursue every avocation, except the military, secure. But in 1880, a
judicial decision proved the contrary. We quote from the <i>National
Citizen</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>In June, 1879, the Circuit Court of Union County, Judge John
Dougherty presiding, appointed Helen A. Schuchardt, resident of
the county, to the office of Master in Chancery. Mrs. Schuchardt
gave bond with security approved by the court, taking and
subscribing the required oath of office. Since that day, she has
been the acting Master of Chancery of that county, taking proofs,
making judicial rules, and performing the other various duties
incident to such office. At the last term of the court the State
attorney, at the instance of Mr. Frank Hall, relator, filed an
information in the nature of a <i>quo warranto</i> charging that Mrs.
Schuchardt had usurped and was unlawfully holding and exercising
the office. Mrs. Schuchardt filed pleas setting forth the order
of the court appointing her, her bonds with the order of
approval, and the oath of office filed by her. To these pleas a
general demurrer was interposed and argued.</p>

<p>The questions presented by the demurrer were: <i>First</i>&mdash;Is the
defendant eligible to this office, she being neither a practicing
nor a learned lawyer? <i>Second</i>&mdash;Is the defendant eligible to this
office, she being a female? The court dismissed the first
question on the ground that the statute does not require
admission to the bar as a qualification. Of the eleven Masters in
Chancery in that Judicial Circuit, it was shown that only five
had been admitted to the bar. As to the second objection, <i>i.
e.</i>, that Mrs. Schuchardt was a female (!) it was decided that
the common law never contemplated the admittance of a woman to
the office of Master in Chancery, and that doubtless it was the
first instance in which a woman had been admitted to the office.
It was also decided that the act of March 22, 1872, did not make
women eligible to this office; Master in Chancery&mdash;for woman&mdash;did
not mean "occupation, profession, or employment," and that
"persons do not select an office, but are selected for the
office."</p>

<p>Judge Harker, in delivering this opinion, said: "It is due to
Mrs. Schuchardt to say in conclusion, that while I am constrained
to sustain this demurrer and hold that under the law she cannot
retain this office, there is not one of the Masters in Chancery
in the four counties where I preside, who has been more faithful
or attentive in the discharge of his duties, and none who has
exhibited higher qualifications to discharge<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_589" id="Page_589">[Pg 589]</a></span> well those duties.
And it is my sincere hope that at its next session the
legislature will make this office accessible to females." </p></blockquote>

<p>One of the most influential local associations has been that of
Chicago, or Cook county.<a name="FNanchor_371_371" id="FNanchor_371_371"></a><a href="#Footnote_371_371" class="fnanchor">[371]</a> From 1870 to 1876 Mrs. Jane Graham
Jones was its president, as well as the leading spirit in the State
Society.<a name="FNanchor_372_372" id="FNanchor_372_372"></a><a href="#Footnote_372_372" class="fnanchor">[372]</a> She was the one to plan and execute the attacks upon
the board of education, the common council, and the legislature,
holding many meetings in Chicago, and at Springfield, the seat of
government. Another flourishing association is that of Moline. We
give the following from its secretary:</p>

<blockquote><p>In May, 1877, Mrs. Eunice G. Sayles, and Mrs. Julia Mills Dunn,
secured Mrs. Stanton to give a lecture on woman suffrage in
Moline, and at a reception given to her by Mrs. Sayles, a society
with 22 members was organized, which has held meetings regularly
since that time, with the reading of papers on topics previously
arranged by the president. It is a matter of pride that not a
failure has ever occurred, each member always cheerfully
performing the duty assigned her. An evening reception is held
annually to celebrate the organization of the society, to which
two hundred or more guests are invited, each member being
entitled to bring several outside of her own family. The meetings
have been valuable, not only in promoting friendly relations
between the members, but also in the mental stimulus they have
afforded. Much of the success of this society is due to the
literary culture and earnestness of Mrs. Anne M. J. Dow, who was
our president for three years. We have sustained a great loss in
the death of Mrs. Sarah D. Nourse, who for thirty-five years was
an earnest friend of all reforms.</p>

<p>Soon after its organization, our society became auxiliary to the
National Association. We have circulated petitions and forwarded
them to Springfield and Washington, where they have met the fate
common to all prayers of the disfranchised; we have circulated
tracts, placed on file in the public reading room all the
suffrage journals, and secured the best lecturers on the
question. We are organizing an afternoon reading society, to have
read aloud "The History of Woman Suffrage," and shall soon place
it on the shelves of the public library of the village. While we
cannot point to any wonderful revolution in public sentiment
because of our work, we are nevertheless full of courage, and
under the leadership of our State president, Elizabeth Boynton
Harbert, we shall go forward in faith and good works, hoping for
the end of woman's political slavery.<a name="FNanchor_373_373" id="FNanchor_373_373"></a><a href="#Footnote_373_373" class="fnanchor">[373]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>In concluding this meager record of the methods of earnest men and
women of Illinois in their brave work for liberty, we are painfully
conscious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_590" id="Page_590">[Pg 590]</a></span> of a vast aggregate of personal toil and self sacrifice
which can never be reported. We write of petitions presented to
State and National legislative assemblies, but it is impossible to
record the personal sacrifice and moral heroism of the women who
went from house to house in the cities and villages, or traveled
long distances across the broad prairies to secure the signatures.
Only those who have carried a petition from door to door can know
the fatigue and humiliation of spirit it involves. Though these
earnest women ask only the influence of the names of persons to
help on our reform, they are often treated with less courtesy than
the dreaded book-agent and peddler.</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Watseka</span>, Ill.</p>

<p>I send you petitions, the one circulated by me has 270 names&mdash;the
other by Clara L. Peters, 139.<a name="FNanchor_374_374" id="FNanchor_374_374"></a><a href="#Footnote_374_374" class="fnanchor">[374]</a> We are interested heart and
soul in the movement, and our efforts here have made many friends
for the cause. Have been an ardent worker since I was a child,
and well remember that grand hero of moral reforms, Samuel J. May
of Syracuse, N. Y., at a Woman's Temperance Convention held in
Rochester in 1852, when I was eight years old.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">
Viola Hawks Archibald.<a name="FNanchor_375_375" id="FNanchor_375_375"></a><a href="#Footnote_375_375" class="fnanchor">[375]</a></p>
</blockquote>

<p>The following letter from Mary L. Davis, gives some idea of the
toils of circulating petitions:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Davis</span>, Stephenson Co., Ill., May 28, 1877.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Editor</span> <i>Ballot-Box</i>:&mdash;The question of suffrage for woman has been
thoroughly discussed in our society, and last week I started out
with my petition. I could work but a short time each day, but I
systematically canvassed our beautiful little village, taking it
by streets, and although I have been over but a small portion, I
have ninety signatures. I met with but little opposition, and
with kind wishes in abundance; with some amusing, some provoking,
some pathetic, and some disgusting phases of human nature&mdash;with
very agreeable disappointments, and very disagreeable ones. Very
often some person would say to me, there is no use in calling at
such a house; the man will not, and the woman dare not, sign. I
went to such a place last week, was met with all the courtesy one
could ask. The man looked over the petition thoughtfully, affixed
his own name, and asked his wife if she did not wish to do so,
and called in a beautiful sister who was out playing ball with
the children, telling her as it was for the especial benefit of
women, she ought to sign it too. I write these things to
encourage our young girls, who will take up the work. Take every
house, ask every person; "No," will not hurt or kill you. Be
prepared to meet every argument that can possibly be advanced.
The one which I meet oftenest, is that woman cannot fight, and
therefore she shall not vote; and strange to relate, it is almost
always advanced by a person who was never a soldier, through
physical disability, cowardice, or over or under age.</p>

<p>The shortest "No," without the slightest shadow of courtesy, was
shot from the lips of a man who is doing business on capital
furnished by his wife, and who lives in a house purchased with
his wife's money. Graceful return for her devotion, wasn't it? I
suppose he prefers to keep her in her present state of serfdom,
as, if she should ever<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_591" id="Page_591">[Pg 591]</a></span> find out that she was of any importance
in the world, except as his housekeeper, cook, washerwoman, and
waiter-in-general, she might possibly inquire into the
stewardship of her lord and master. And it seemed to me if that
ever came to pass, a man who could say "no" so cavalierly,
without even a "thank you, ma'am," or, "you're quite welcome,"
both could and would manage to make surroundings rather
disagreeable to the party of the second part. So far no person
who has thought much, read much, or suffered much, has refused to
sign, and in the few hours which I have devoted to the work,
three grandmothers nearly ninety years of age, wished to have
their names recorded on the right side of the question, and in
two of those instances the grandmother, daughter, and grandfather
affixed their signatures, one after another.<a name="FNanchor_376_376" id="FNanchor_376_376"></a><a href="#Footnote_376_376" class="fnanchor">[376]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>We have been permitted to copy the following private letter from
A.J. Grover to Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who is now at her home
in Tenafly, N. J., busily at work with Miss Anthony and Mrs. Gage
on the second volume of the "History of Woman Suffrage." The first
volume should be on the center-table of every family in the land as
a complete text-book on the woman suffrage question, which is to be
one of the great issues, social and political, in the coming years.
These three women have grown old and won their crowns of white hair
in the cause of not only their sex, but of mankind:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Chicago</span>, November 29, 1881.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Friend</span>: You represent a movement of more importance to
mankind than any that ever before claimed attention in the whole
history of the race, viz.: the freedom of one-half of it. You
have enforced this claim by half a century of heroic
discussion&mdash;of persistent, unanswerable logic and appeal against
the theory and practice of all nations, against all governments,
codes and creeds. You proclaimed fifty years ago the novel
doctrine that woman by nature is, and by law and usage should be,
the absolute equal of man. A claim so self-evident should only
have to be stated to be recognized by all civilized nations; and
yet to this hour the highest civilization, equally with the
lowest, is built on the slavery of woman. In the darkest corners
of the earth and on the sunlit heights of civilization, the
mothers of the race are by law, religion and custom doomed to
degradation. And if the seal of their bondage is never to be
broken, they themselves as well as the lords and masters they
serve, are equally unconscious of the servitude. No religion, no
civil government, has ever taught or recognized any other
condition for woman than that of subjection. Against the
accumulated precedents of all the ages, you and your noble
coädjutors have rebelled in the face of derision for fifty long,
weary years. Was ever such sublime womanly heroism and
self-sacrifice before known? Was ever such worth of culture, such
wealth of womanhood, laid on the altar of country and humanity?
And all this comparatively unrecognized and unrewarded. Where is
the boasted chivalry of the English-speaking nations? It is a
virtue we boast of, but do not possess. It never, in fact, had
any real existence based on genuine respect for woman. It is a
bitter sarcasm in the mouth of an American male citizen. A few
men like Theodore Parker, Joshua R. Giddings, William Lloyd
Garrison, Wendell Phillips, Gerrit Smith, Samuel J. May and
Parker Pillsbury have measurably redeemed this nation,
recognizing your claim for woman as self-evidently just and
righteous, and coöperating with you in maintaining it. There are
only a score or two of such men in a generation with sufficient
chivalry or perception of justice to publicly claim for women the
rights they themselves possess.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_592" id="Page_592">[Pg 592]</a></span></p>

<p>Science has demonstrated that men to be manly must be well born,
must have noble mothers. How can a mother give birth to a noble
soul while herself a slave? How can she impart a free spirit when
her own is servile? A stream cannot rise higher than its
fountain.</p>

<p>We have thought to bring about a high order of civilization by
freeing our sons, while chaining our daughters, by sending sons
to college and daughters to menial service for a mere pittance as
wages, or selling them in marriage to the highest bidder&mdash;by
robbing them on the very threshold of life of all noble ambition.
By the degradation of our women we take from the inherited
qualities of the race as much as is added by culture. We take
from the metal before casting as much as we restore by polish
afterwards, and thus we curse and stultify both sexes.</p>

<p>The law and religion of man can be no better than man himself. If
religion, law, justice and social order are to improve, man must
first be improved. Religion and law are effects, not causes. They
are fruits, not the tree&mdash;the products of the human mind. If
these are to be improved, mankind must first be improved. This
will be impossible until freedom and culture shall become the
inalienable rights of woman. It would be a thousand times better,
if either must be a slave to the other, that man should be a
slave to woman. The History of Woman Suffrage, on which you are
engaged, if the second volume shall prove equal to the first,
will be the richest legacy this age will bequeath to the future.
It is a revelation from God, in which, if men believe, they shall
be saved. Religion itself, without this great salvation, will
continue to remain little else than "a wretched record of
inspired crime" against woman. Woman must be free! Protection as
an underling from man, savage or civilized, she in reality never
had and never will have. Protection she does not want. What she
needs is equal rights, when she can protect herself&mdash;rights of
person, rights of labor, rights of property, rights of culture,
rights of leisure, rights to participate in the making and
administering of the laws. Give her equality in exchange for
protection; give her her earnings in exchange for support; give
her justice in exchange for charity. Let man trust woman as woman
trusts man, with entire liberty of action, and she will show the
world that liberty is her highest good.</p>

<p>In conclusion, let me confess that I read your first volume with
a feeling of inexpressible shame and mortification for my sex.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">A.J. Grover</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours faithfully,</p>
</blockquote>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 386px;">
<a name="v3_592" id="v3_592">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_592.jpg" width="386" height="500" alt="Elizabeth Boynton Harbert" title="" /></a>
</div>
</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Boynton Harbert, to whom we are indebted for this chapter, has
from girlhood been an enthusiastic advocate of the rights of women.
Growing up in Crawfordsville, Indiana, under the very shadow of a
collegiate institution into which girls were not permitted to
enter, she early learned the humiliation of sex. After vain
attempts to slip the bolts riveted with precedent and prejudice
that barred the daughters of the State outside, she tried with pen
and voice to rouse those whose stronger hands could open wide the
doors to the justice of her appeals. Her youthful peäns to liberty
in prose and verse early found their way into our Eastern journals,
and later in arguments before conventions and legislative
assemblies in Illinois, Iowa and other Western States. As editor
for seven years of the "Woman's Kingdom" in the Chicago
<i>Inter-Ocean</i>&mdash;one of the most popular journals in the nation&mdash;she
has exerted a widespread influence over the lives of women,
bringing new hope and ambition<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_593" id="Page_593">[Pg 593]</a></span> into many prairie homes. As
editor-in-chief of the <i>New Era</i>, in which she is free to utter her
deepest convictions; as wife and mother, with life's multiplied
experiences, a wider outlook now opens before her, with added
wisdom for the responsibilities involved in public life. In all her
endeavors she has been nobly sustained by her husband, Mr. William
Harbert, a successful lawyer, many years in practice in Chicago,
whose clear judgment and generous sympathies have made his services
invaluable in the reform movements of the day.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_351_351" id="Footnote_351_351"></a><a href="#FNanchor_351_351"><span class="label">[351]</span></a> Judge and Mrs. Catharine V. Waite, Mrs. Hannah M.
Tracy Cutler, Amelia Bloomer, Dr. Ellen B. Ferguson, Mrs. E. O. G.
Willard, the Rev. Mr. and Mrs. Harrison of Earlville; Professor and
Mrs. D. L. Brooks, Mrs. M. E. De Geer, Mrs. Frances D. Gage.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_352_352" id="Footnote_352_352"></a><a href="#FNanchor_352_352"><span class="label">[352]</span></a> Mrs. Sunderland was one of the many New England
girls who in the early days went West to teach. Speaking of the
large number of women elected to the office of county
superintendent (one of them her own daughter), she told me that
thirty years ago when she arrived at the settlement where she had
been engaged as teacher, the trustees being unable to make the
"examination" deputed one of their number to take her to an
adjoining county, where another New England girl was teaching. The
excursion was made in a lumber wagon with an ox-team. All the
ordinary questions asked and promptly answered, the trustee rather
hesitatingly said, "Now, while you're about it, wouldn't you just
as lief write out the certificate?" This was readily done, and the
man affixing his cross thereto, triumphantly carried the applicant
back to his district, announcing her duly qualified to teach; and
that trio of unlettered men installed the cultivated New England
girl in their log school-house, probably without the thought
entering the heads of trustees or teacher, that woman, when better
educated, should hold the superior position.&mdash;[S. B. A.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_353_353" id="Footnote_353_353"></a><a href="#FNanchor_353_353"><span class="label">[353]</span></a> Dr. Mary Safford, Mrs. A. M. Freeman, Hon. and Mrs.
Sharon Tyndale, Hon. E. Haines, Fernando Jones, Jane Graham Jones,
Professor Bailey, Mr. and Mrs. Ezra Prince, Mr. and Mrs. R. M.
Fell, Mrs. Belle S. Candee, General J. M. Thompson, Mrs. Professor
Noyes of Evanston, Charles B. Waite, Catharine V. Waite, Susan
Bronson, E. S. Williams, Kate N. Doggett, C. B. Farwell, L. Z.
Leiter, J. L. Pickard, Henry M. Smith, Frank Gilbert, Ann Telford,
Mrs. L. C. Levanway, Myra Bradwell, Mary E. Haven, Mrs. A. L.
Taylor, Elizabeth Eggleston, P. D. Livermore, James B. Bradwell,
Joseph Haven, J. H. Bayliss, D. Blakely, R. E. Hoyt, C. D. Helmer,
Alfred L. Sewell, George D. Willigton, H. Allen, R. N. Foster, W.
W. Smith, M. B. Smith, Amos G. Throop, Robert Collyer, L. I.
Colburn, G. Percy English, Arthur Edwards, A. Reed and Sons, S. M.
Booth, Sumner Ellis, George B. Marsh, Sarah Marsh, Ruth Graham,
John Nutt, J. W. Butler, Mrs. J. Butler, Mrs. S. A. Richards, Mrs.
S. W. Roe, F. W. Hall, Mrs. Fanny Blake, Mary S. Waite, J. F.
Temple, A. W. Kellogg, W. H. Thomson, J. W. Loomis, James E.
Curtis, Elizabeth Johnston, E. F. Hurlbut, E. E. Pratt, Mrs. E. M.
Warren, William Doggett, Edward Beecher, James P. Weston, E. R.
Allen, J. E. Forrester, Mrs. J. F. Temple, Mrs. F. W. Adams, L.
Walker, Mary A. Whitaker, Elvira W. Ruggles, W. W. Corbett, H. B.
Norton, W. H. Davis, I. S. Dennis, G. T. Flanders, Mrs. H. B.
Manford, Edward Eggleston, Sarah G. Cleveland, G. G. Lyon, E.
Manford, William D. Babbitt, Elizabeth Holt Babbitt, I. S. Page, W.
O. Carpenter, Mrs. W. O. Carpenter, Mrs. H. W. Cobb, T. D. Fitch,
Harriet Fitch, Mary A. Livermore, T. W. Eddy, A. G. Brackett,
Andrew Shuman, John A. Jameson, John V. Farwell, B. W. Raymond, E.
G. Taylor, Mems Root and lady, Rev. John McLean, Mrs. Owen Lovejoy,
Mrs. Noyes Kendall.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_354_354" id="Footnote_354_354"></a><a href="#FNanchor_354_354"><span class="label">[354]</span></a> The officers were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. M. Livermore;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, the Rev. Dr. Goodspeed, Mrs. Helen M. Beveridge,
Judge Bradwell, the Rev. Edward Beecher, the Rev. D. Eggleston,
Miss Eliza Bowman, the Rev. Dr. Fowler, Mrs. Elizabeth Loomis, Mrs.
M. Hawley, Mrs. M. Wheeler, Mrs. Myra Bradwell; <i>Secretaries</i>, Mrs.
Jeanne Fowler Willing, of Rockford, Mrs. Elizabeth Babbitt, and
George Graham, Esq.; <i>Committee on Finance</i>, Judge Bradwell,
General Beveridge and the Hon. S. M. Booth. The speakers were Anna
Dickinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Rev. Robert
Collyer, Rev. Mr. Hammond, Rev. Robert Laird Collier, Kate N.
Doggett, and many of the officers of the convention.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_355_355" id="Footnote_355_355"></a><a href="#FNanchor_355_355"><span class="label">[355]</span></a> For this speech see <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_348">Vol. II., page 348</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_356_356" id="Footnote_356_356"></a><a href="#FNanchor_356_356"><span class="label">[356]</span></a> The officers of the convention were: <i>President</i>,
Mary A. Livermore; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, the Rev. Robert Collyer,
Professor Haven; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Jeanne Willing, of
Rockford; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Myra Bradwell; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Professor Haven, chairman; the Rev. Dr. Edward Beecher,
Elizabeth J. Loomis, Hannah B. Manford, the Rev. E. Eggleston, the
Rev. C. H. Fowler the Rev. E. J. Goodspeed, Rebecca Mott, Charlotte
L. Levanway.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_357_357" id="Footnote_357_357"></a><a href="#FNanchor_357_357"><span class="label">[357]</span></a> The committee to visit Springfield were Hon. James
B. Bradwell, Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Mrs. Kate N. Doggett, the Rev. E.
Goodspeed, the Hon. C. B. Waite, and Mrs. Rebecca Mott.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_358_358" id="Footnote_358_358"></a><a href="#FNanchor_358_358"><span class="label">[358]</span></a> <i>Indiana</i>&mdash;Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Dr. Mary
Wilhite, Emma Mallory, and Amanda Way; <i>Missouri</i>&mdash;Rebecca N.
Hazzard; <i>Wisconsin</i>&mdash;Lelia Peckham; <i>Iowa</i>&mdash;Mary Newbury Adams,
Matilda Fletcher; <i>Minnesota</i>&mdash;Mrs. Bishop; <i>Kansas</i>&mdash;Mrs. Henry;
<i>Ohio</i>&mdash;Margaret V. Longley; <i>Michigan</i>&mdash;Professor Stone;
<i>Massachusetts</i>&mdash;Henry B. Blackwell, and Lucy Stone; <i>New
York</i>&mdash;Susan B. Anthony, most of whom took part in the
discussions.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_359_359" id="Footnote_359_359"></a><a href="#FNanchor_359_359"><span class="label">[359]</span></a> Letters were also received from Paulina Wright
Davis, Frederick Douglass, Hon. Sharon Tyndale, Rev. D. H. N.
Powers, Mrs. Arabella Mansfield, Rev. Willis Lord.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_360_360" id="Footnote_360_360"></a><a href="#FNanchor_360_360"><span class="label">[360]</span></a> The speakers were Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Stone, Hon.
Sharon Tyndale, Hon. E. Haines, and Judge Bradwell.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_361_361" id="Footnote_361_361"></a><a href="#FNanchor_361_361"><span class="label">[361]</span></a> One thousand three hundred and eighty women of
Peoria also prayed that the constitution might not be so amended as
to enfranchise women; another evidence of the demoralizing
influence of any form of slavery upon the human mind. Had not these
women been lacking in a proper self-respect they would not have
protested against the right to govern themselves.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_362_362" id="Footnote_362_362"></a><a href="#FNanchor_362_362"><span class="label">[362]</span></a> Our limited space prevents the publication of Judge
Waite's argument and Judge Jameson's decision.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_363_363" id="Footnote_363_363"></a><a href="#FNanchor_363_363"><span class="label">[363]</span></a> Jane Graham Jones and Elizabeth Loomis represented
the Cook County Association. Delegates from several other districts
were present. The speakers were A. J. Grover, Mrs. Jane Graham
Jones, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Adelle Hazlett of Michigan, Dr. Ellen B.
Furguson of Indiana, Mr. and Mrs. Fell, Mr. and Mrs. Prince.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_364_364" id="Footnote_364_364"></a><a href="#FNanchor_364_364"><span class="label">[364]</span></a> For Mrs. Bradwell's case <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_601">see Vol. II., page 601</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_365_365" id="Footnote_365_365"></a><a href="#FNanchor_365_365"><span class="label">[365]</span></a> Those who have traveled and lectured through the
West and spent many rainy Sundays in dreary hotels, know how to
appreciate a few days rest in the delightful homes scattered over
the country as well as in the towns and cities. How many of these
memory recalls in the State of Illinois! What a hospitable
reception we had in the cozy farm-house of Mrs. Owen Lovejoy at
Princeton, and in the stately residence of Mrs. Noyes Kendall at La
Moile, in the home of Judge Lawrence at Galesburg, Mrs. Judge
Joslyn at Woodstock, Mrs. R.M. Patrick, Marengo; Mrs. A.W. Brayton,
Mt. Morris; Mrs. Eldridge Norwood, Olney; Rev. Dr. Moffatt,
Monticello; Col. E.B. Loop, Belvidere; Mrs. Judge Greer, Decatur;
Mr. and Mrs. Prince, Bloomington; Col. and Mrs. Latham, Lincoln,
and others too numerous to mention in all the Western
States.&mdash;[S.B.A.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_366_366" id="Footnote_366_366"></a><a href="#FNanchor_366_366"><span class="label">[366]</span></a> At her beautiful home, 910 Prairie avenue, her
social influence was even more than her public work. An unfriendly
report in any journal was uniformly followed by an invitation to
dinner to the editor or some one of his staff, to meet the lady
criticised, or discuss the point of attack. Miss Emily Faithful,
Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony and Miss Couzins have all in turn shared
these dinners and discussions. If the Methodist Episcopal
conference sent an opponent to preach in their church, and a little
social attention did not convert him, two persons left the church.
Neither Mrs. Jones nor her husband would listen to the Rev. Dr.
Hatfield, for Fernando Jones was always as staunch an advocate of
the suffrage for women as his wife, and had no faith in a religion
that did not teach human equality.&mdash;[S. B. A.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_367_367" id="Footnote_367_367"></a><a href="#FNanchor_367_367"><span class="label">[367]</span></a> "<i>Ducit Amor Patriæ</i>"; "1876."&mdash;Centennial
Commemoration, Evanston, Ill. Music, prayer, music; recitation,
Miss M. E. Brown; music, "Battle Hymn"; salutatory, "Woman and
Philanthropy," Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert; "Historical Record
of the Educational Work of Our Women," Mrs. Mary Bannister Willard;
music, "Whittier's Hymn; recitation, Miss M. E. Brown; Missionary
Roll of Honor, Miss Jessie Brown; oration, Rev. F. L. Chapell;
benediction.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_368_368" id="Footnote_368_368"></a><a href="#FNanchor_368_368"><span class="label">[368]</span></a> Mary F. Haskin, Melinda Hamline, Caroline Bishop,
Elizabeth M. Greenleaf, Harriet S. Kidder, Mary T. Willard, Mary I.
K. Huse, Cornelia Lunt, Harriet N. Noyes, Maria Cook, Margaret P.
Evans, Sarah I. Hurd, Annie H. Thornton, Abby L. Brown, and
Virginia S. Kent.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_369_369" id="Footnote_369_369"></a><a href="#FNanchor_369_369"><span class="label">[369]</span></a> Prominent among these journalists were Margaret
Buchanan Sullivan and Mrs. Annie Kerr of the Chicago <i>Times</i>, Mrs.
Hubbard of the <i>Tribune</i>, Miss Farrand of the <i>Advance</i>, Virginia
Fitzgerald and Alice Hobbins of the <i>Inter-Ocean</i>, Mrs. Myra
Bradwell, editor of the <i>Legal News</i>, Mrs. Catharine V. Waite and
Mrs. DeGeer of the <i>Crusader</i>, Mrs. Louisa White of the Moline
<i>Dispatch</i>, Mrs. C. B. Bostwick of the Mattoon <i>Gazette</i>, Mrs. J.
Oberly of the Cairo <i>Bulletin</i>, Miss Mary West of the Galesburg
<i>Republican</i>, Mrs. Celia Wooley, Miss Eliza Bowman, Mrs. Clara Lyon
Peters of the Watseka <i>Times</i>, Jane Grey Swisshelm, Elizabeth Holt
Babbitt, and many others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_370_370" id="Footnote_370_370"></a><a href="#FNanchor_370_370"><span class="label">[370]</span></a> The officers of the Illinois Social Science
Association were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert,
Evanston; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Miss Sarah A. Richards, Chicago;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. W. E. Clifford, Evanston;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. H. H. Candee, Cairo; <i>Directors</i>, Mrs. Helen M.
Beveredge, Evanston; Mrs. Frank Denman, Quincy; Mrs. C. A. Beck,
Centralia; Mrs. R. McLoughrey, Joliet; Mrs. W. O. Carpenter,
Chicago; Miss M. Fredricka Perry, Chicago; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, First
Congressional District, Mrs. Eliza R. Sunderland, Chicago; Second,
Mrs. W. D. Babbitt, Chicago; Third, Mrs. Chas. E. Brown. Evanston;
Fourth, Mrs. Carrie A. Potter, Rockford; Fifth, Mrs. F. A. W.
Shimer, Mt. Carroll; Sixth, Mrs. Sarah C. McIntosh, Joliet;
Thirteenth, Mrs. B. M. Prince, Bloomington; Fourteenth, Mrs. C. B.
Bostwick, Mattoon; Sixteenth, Mrs. J. W. Seymour, Centralia;
Nineteenth, Mrs. J. H. Oberly, Cairo.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_371_371" id="Footnote_371_371"></a><a href="#FNanchor_371_371"><span class="label">[371]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mrs. Fernando Jones; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>,
Mrs. Robert Collyer, Mrs. Richard Somers, Rev. C. D. Helmer;
<i>Corresponding-Secretary</i>, Mrs. C. B. Waite; <i>Recording-Secretary</i>,
Mrs. S. H. Pierce; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. J. W. Loomis; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Mrs. Rebecca Mott, Mrs. H. W. Fuller, Mrs. Dr. C. D. R.
Levanway, Fernando Jones, Miss Thayer, Rev. J. M. Reid, Mrs. Jno.
Jones, Mrs. Wm. Coker, Dr. S. C. Blake.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_372_372" id="Footnote_372_372"></a><a href="#FNanchor_372_372"><span class="label">[372]</span></a> The officers of the Illinois State Association are
now, 1885; <i>President</i>, Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Evanston;
<i>Vice-President-at-large</i>, Mrs. M. E. Holmes, Galva; <i>Secretary</i>,
Rev. Florence Kollock, Englewood; <i>Treasurer</i>, Dr. L. C. Bedell,
354 N. La Salle street, Chicago; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Hon. M. B.
Castle, Sandwich: Mrs. E. J. Loomis, 2,939 Wabash avenue, Chicago;
Mrs. Clara L. Peters, Watseka; Mrs. L. R. Wardner, Anna; Mrs. Julia
Mills Dunn, Moline; Mrs. Helen E. Starrett, Lake Side Building,
Chicago; Capt. W. S. Harbert, Evanston; Rev. C. C. Harrah, Galva.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_373_373" id="Footnote_373_373"></a><a href="#FNanchor_373_373"><span class="label">[373]</span></a> From time to time we have had for president, Mrs.
Eunice G. Sayles, Mrs. Anna M. J. Dow, Mrs. Flora N. Candee, Mrs.
Julia Mills Dunn, Mrs. Nettie H. Wheelock; for secretaries, Mrs. C.
W. Heald, Mrs. Lucy Anderson, Mrs. Kate Anderson; among those who
have been active members of the society from its formation are,
Harriet B. G. Lester, Ida Peyton, L. F. M'Clennan, Catharine H.
Calkins, Dr. Jane H. Miller, Margaret Osborne, Harriet M. Gillette,
Laoti Gates, Mary F. Barnes, Mary Wright, M. M. Hubbard, Emma
Jones, Mary A. Stewart, Kate S. Holt, Mary A. Stephens, Abbie A.
Gould, Mrs. M'Cord, Lydia Wheelock, Mrs. E. P. Reynolds, J. A.
Tallman, Ann Eliza Reator, Dr. S. E. Bailey, Dr. E. A. Taylor, Lucy
Ainsworth, Jerome B. Wheelock, M. A. Young, Mary Knowles, M. E.
Abbot, Lois Forward, Mrs. Young.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_374_374" id="Footnote_374_374"></a><a href="#FNanchor_374_374"><span class="label">[374]</span></a> Mrs. Clara Lyon Peters of Watseka, furnished the
largest petition ever sent from Illinois; W. B. Wright of
Greenview, Mrs. S. Eliza Lyon of Toulon, Mrs. Hannah J. Coffee of
Orion, Mrs. Eva Edwards of Plymouth, Mrs. C. E. Larned of
Champaign, Mrs. Barbara M. Prince of Bloomington, Mrs. F. B. Rowe
of Freedom, Mrs. Jane Barnett, Mrs. E. H. Blacfan, and Mrs. E. T.
Lippincott of Orion, Mrs. Julia Dunn of Moline, Mrs. Clara P.
Bourland of Peoria, Sybilla Leek Browne of Odell, Mrs. Jacob
Martin, Cairo, Mary E. Higbee, Kirkland Grove, Mary Thompson,
LaSalle, Emily Z. Hall of Savoy, Elizabeth J. Loomis of Chicago,
have all done worthy work in circulating petitions, both to
congress and the State legislature.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_375_375" id="Footnote_375_375"></a><a href="#FNanchor_375_375"><span class="label">[375]</span></a> Mrs. Archibald is the daughter of Betsey Hawks, of
Genesee county, N. Y. I well remember the brave-hearted mother in
the early days of the movement, when in 1852 I made my first
stammering speech in the town-hall at Batavia. She arranged the
meeting, and entertained the speakers, and was indeed "the cause"
in that conservative village.&mdash;[S. B. A.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_376_376" id="Footnote_376_376"></a><a href="#FNanchor_376_376"><span class="label">[376]</span></a> When at Durand, near Davis, in 1877, Mrs. Davis and
her husband drove over, and at the close of my lecture, she gave me
her maiden name and said, "Do you not remember me? I sat by your
side and fairly pushed you up in that teachers' convention at
Rochester, in 1853, when you made that first speech you told about;
and I have been most earnestly hoping and working for the
enfranchisement of women ever since."&mdash;[S.B.A.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_594" id="Page_594">[Pg 594]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLIV" id="CHAPTER_XLIV"></a>CHAPTER XLIV.</h2>

<h3>MISSOURI.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Missouri the First State to Open Colleges of Law and Medicine to
Woman&mdash;Liberal Legislation&mdash;Eight Causes for Divorce&mdash;Harriet
Hosmer&mdash;Wayman Crow&mdash;Works of Art&mdash;Women in the War&mdash;Adeline
Couzins&mdash;Virginia L. Minor&mdash;Petitions&mdash;Woman Suffrage
Association, May 8, 1867&mdash;First Woman Suffrage Convention, Oct.
6, 1869&mdash;Able Resolutions by Francis Minor&mdash;Action Asked for in
the Methodist Church&mdash;Constitutional Convention&mdash;Mrs. Hazard's
Report&mdash;National Suffrage Association, 1879&mdash;Virginia L. Minor
Before the Committee on Constitutional Amendments&mdash;Mrs. Minor
Tries to Vote&mdash;Her Case in the Supreme Court&mdash;Miss Ph&oelig;be
Couzins Graduated from the Law School, 1871&mdash;Reception by Members
of the Bar&mdash;Speeches&mdash;Dr. Walker&mdash;Judge Krum&mdash;Hon. Albert
Todd&mdash;Ex-Governor E. O. Stanard&mdash;Ex-Senator Henderson&mdash;Judge
Reber&mdash;George M. Stewart&mdash;Mrs. Minor&mdash;Miss Couzins&mdash;Mrs. Annie R.
Irvine&mdash;"Oregon Woman's Union." </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">It</span> has often been a subject for speculation why it was that a slave
State like Missouri should have been the first to open her medical
and law schools to women, and why the suffrage movement from the
beginning should there have enlisted so large a number of men<a name="FNanchor_377_377" id="FNanchor_377_377"></a><a href="#Footnote_377_377" class="fnanchor">[377]</a>
and women of wealth and position, who promptly took an active
interest in the inauguration of the work. A little research into
history shows that there must have been some liberal statesmen,
some men endowed with wisdom and a sense of justice, who influenced
the early legislation in Missouri.</p>

<p>By the constitution, imprisonment for debt is forbidden, except for
fines and penalties imposed for violation of law. A homestead not
exceeding $3,000 in value in cities of 40,000 inhabitants or more,
and not exceeding $1,500 in smaller cities and in the country, is
exempt from levy on execution. The real estate of a married woman
is not liable for the debts of her husband. There<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_595" id="Page_595">[Pg 595]</a></span> are eight causes
for divorce, so many doors of escape for unfortunate wives from the
bondage of a joyless union.</p>

<p>The memory of the unjust treatment of Miss Hosmer will always be a
reproach to Massachusetts. That she enjoyed the privileges of
education in Missouri denied her in Massachusetts was due in no
small measure to the generosity and public spirit of Wayman Crow.
Speaking of the gifted sculptor, a correspondent says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Harriet Hosmer was born in 1830. She studied sculpture in the
studio of Mr. Stephenson, in Boston, and also with her father. In
1830, after being denied admission to anatomical lectures in
Harvard and many other colleges at the East, she went to St.
Louis, where, through the spirited determination of Wayman Crow,
a most liberal benefactor of Washington University, she was
admitted to the Missouri Medical College through the kindness and
courtesy of Dr. Joseph N. McDowell, its founder and head. Here
for a whole winter she pursued her studies under the instruction
of Dr. McDowell and Dr. Louis T. Pim, the able demonstrator of
anatomy of the college, who gave her the benefit of their
constant and unremitting aid; also Dr. B. Gratz Moses and Dr. J.
B. Johnson were particularly kind in inviting her to be present
when important cases were before them. The names of these men are
gratefully mentioned, now that the doors of hundreds of colleges
have opened to women. While in St. Louis Miss Hosmer had a
constant companion and friend in Miss Jane Peck, a lady well
known in society circles, and together they daily attended at the
college; indeed, Miss Peck informed the writer, that on no
occasion did Miss Hosmer go to the college without her. So
quietly was this done, it was not until the month of February
that the students became aware of their attending, and when
informed of it the entire class, numbering about one hundred and
thirty, gave them a most cordial and hearty endorsement, and from
that time on until the day of graduation they were treated by the
young gentlemen with marked attention. The students were not
aware of their attending in the earlier part of the course,
because it had been the custom for the ladies to attend in the
amphitheater after the class had left to go to the various
hospitals. On one occasion while on their way to the college, a
number of the students being behind them, they heard the
gentlemen say to some men they met, "These ladies are under our
charge, and if you offer them an insult we will shoot you down."
They did not hear the language of the men, only the reply of the
students. At the close of the session the students gave a ball
and not only were Miss Hosmer and Miss Peck invited, but a
carriage was specially sent to take them to it. </p></blockquote>

<p>In March, 1869, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony again visited St.
Louis. In a letter to <i>The Revolution</i> the former said:</p>

<blockquote><p>We went to the Mercantile Library to see Miss Hosmer's works of
art, and there read the following letter to Wayman Crow, who had
been a generous friend to her through all those early days of
trial and disappointment.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_596" id="Page_596">[Pg 596]</a></span> One of the best of her productions is
an admirable bust of her noble benefactor:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Boston</span>, October 18, 1857.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Mr. Crow</span>: Will you allow me to convey through you to
the Mercantile Library Association "The Beatrice Cenci."
This statue is in execution of a commission I received three
years ago from a friend who requested me not only to make a
piece of statuary for that institution, but to present it in
my own name. I have finished the work, but cannot offer it
as my own gift&mdash;but of one who, with a most liberal hand,
has largely ministered to the growth of the arts and
sciences in your beautiful city. For your sake, and for
mine, I would have made a better statue if I could. The will
was not wanting, but the power&mdash;but such as it is, I rejoice
sincerely that it is destined for St. Louis, a city I love,
not only because it was there I first began my studies, but
because of the many generous and indulgent friends who dwell
therein&mdash;of whom I number you most generous and indulgent of
all, whose increasing kindness I can only repay by striving
to become more and more worthy of all your friendship and
confidence, and so I am ever affectionately and gratefully
yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">H.G. Hosmer</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Wayman Crow, Esq.</i></p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>The very active part that the women of Missouri had taken in the
civil war, in the hospitals and sanitary department, had aroused
their enthusiasm in the preservation of the Union and their sense
of responsibility in national affairs. The great mass-meetings of
the Loyal Women's Leagues, too, did an immense educational work in
broadening their sympathies and the horizon of their sphere of
action. So wholly absorbed had they been in the intense excitement
of that period, that when peace came their hands and hearts,
unoccupied, naturally turned to new fields of achievement. While in
some States it was the temperance question, in St. Louis it was
specifically woman suffrage.</p>

<p>We are indebted for the main facts of this chapter to Mr. Francis
Minor, Mrs. Rebecca N. Hazard, Miss Couzins and Miss Arathusa
Forbes, who have kindly sent us what information they had or could
hastily glean from the journals of the time or the imperfect
records of the association.</p>

<blockquote><p>The labors of Mrs. Minor and Mrs. Couzins were exceptionally
protracted and severe. The latter offered her services as nurse
at the very opening of the war. The letters received from men in
authority show how highly their services were appreciated. Dr.
Pope who writes the following, was the leading surgeon in St.
Louis:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">St. Louis</span>, April 26, 1861.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">J. E. D. Couzins</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Madam</i>: Your note in which, in case
of collision here, you generously offer your services in the
capacity of nurse, is just received. Should so dire a calamity
befall us (which God forbid), I shall, in case of need, most
assuredly remember your noble offer. With high regard and sincere
thanks, I am,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Chas. A. Pope</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours very truly,</p>


<p class="ltr-break ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Headquarters 2d Brig., Mo. Vol., St. Louis, Mo.</span>, Aug. 23, 1861.
</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">J. E. D. Couzins</span>, <i>present&mdash;Madam</i>: I received your kind
letter, dated Aug. 17. Accept my heartfelt thanks for your
generous offer. I regard the nursing of our wounded soldiers by
the tender hands of patriotic ladies as a most effectual means<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_597" id="Page_597">[Pg 597]</a></span>
of easing their condition and encouraging them to new efforts in
defense of our glorious cause. You will please confer with Mrs.
von Wackerbarth, corner Seventh and Elm streets, in regard to the
steps to be taken in this matter.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">F. Sigel</span>, <i>Brig.-Gen. Com.</i></p>
<p class="ltr-left">Your obedient servant,</p>


<p class="ltr-break ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Headquarters Department of the Missouri</span>, February 18th, 1862.
</p>

<p>The commanding officers at Cairo, Paducah, or vicinity, are
hereby requested to grant any facilities consistent with the
public interests that may be desired by the bearers of this note.
They are Mrs. Couzins and Crawshaw, of the Ladies' Union Aid
Society, who wish to administer relief to our sick and wounded.
By order of</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">Maj.-Gen'l <span class="smcap">Halleck</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><span class="smcap">J. T. Price</span>, <i>A. D. C.</i></p>


<p class="ltr-break ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Rooms Western Sanitary Commission, St. Louis</span>, Oct, 6th, 1862.
</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Mrs. Couzins</span>: The surgeon-general has notified me that he
may want me to send nurses and surgeons to Columbus and Corinth.
I look to you, my dear madam, as one ever ready to volunteer when
you can be of real service. In case it should become necessary,
may I rely on your valuable services? Such other names as you may
suggest I would be pleased to have.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Jas. E. Yeatman</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully,</p>


<p class="ltr-break ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Office of Western Sanitary Commission</span>, }<br />
<span class="smcap">Saint Louis, Mo.</span>, Oct. 8th, 1862.      }
</p>

<p>Mrs. Couzins has been detailed to service in the hospital steamer
T.L. McGill, as volunteer nurse.</p>

<p>N.B.&mdash;If the place of service is changed, a new certificate will
be issued.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">James E. Yeatman</span>, President of Sanitary Commission.
</p>


<p class="ltr-break ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Corinth</span>, Oct. 13, 1862.
</p>

<p>Pass Mrs. Couzins from Corinth to Columbus.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">W. S. Rosecranz</span>, <i>Maj.-Gen'l U. S. A.</i>
</p>


<p class="ltr-break ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Headquarters Dep't of the Tennessee</span>, }<br />
<span class="smcap">Before Vicksburg</span>, Feb'y 21st, 1863.  }
</p>

<p>The quartermaster in charge of transportation at Memphis, Tenn.,
will furnish transportation on any chartered steamer plying
between Memphis, Tenn., and St. Louis, to Mrs. Couzins and five
other ladies, members of the Western Sanitary Commission, and who
have been with this fleet distributing sanitary goods for the
benefit of sick soldiers.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">U.S. Grant</span>, <i>Maj.-Gen. Com</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-to">
Capt. <span class="smcap">J. B. Lewis</span>,
<i>A. Q. M. and Master of Transportation</i>, Memphis, Tenn.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>While Mrs. Couzins thus gave herself to mitigating the sufferings
of the "boys in blue," in camp and hospital, Mrs. Minor was no less
active and energetic in the equally important department of
preserving supplies for the sanitary commission. Although Mrs.
Minor resided too far from the city to attend the evening meetings,
and her name does not appear in the accounts of such gatherings,
she was one of the first members of the Ladies' Union Aid Society
of St. Louis, and took part in the meeting of loyal women called
and presided over by Gen. Curtis. Having an orchard and dairy on
her place, she furnished the hospital with milk and fruit, and for
more than two years, sent a supply every day to the soldiers in
camp at Benton barracks. When the news came that the army around
Vicksburg was suffering with scurvy, she took her carriage and
drove through the country soliciting fruit, and in one week she
canned with her own hands, a wagon-load of cherries, the sanitary
commission finding the cans and sugar, and from time to time she
continued the work until the end of the war. When the great fair
was held under the auspices of the Western Sanitary Commission, she
was a member of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_598" id="Page_598">[Pg 598]</a></span> the floral department, and worked with her
accustomed energy. The sanitary commission, feeling that she had
done so much, wrote her a letter of thanks, and enclosed her a
check for a liberal amount; but she returned the check, saying that
hers was a work of love, and not for money. Although the official
letter of the commission thanking Mrs. Minor for her most valuable
services, is lost, the following to Mr. Minor may fairly be
considered as including her also:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Rooms Western Sanitary Commission</span>, St. Louis, Oct. 7, 1863.
</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Francis Minor</span>, Esq.&mdash;<i>My Dear Sir</i>: I am directed by our board to
return you their thanks in behalf of the soldiers in the
hospitals, for your long-continued remembrance of them, and for
the daily supply of fresh fruits, vegetables and milk, which you
have furnished for the sick, now more than two years. Your garner
and sympathy have been like the widow's cruse, and may they ever
continue to be so. What you have done has been in the most quiet
and unobtrusive way. The sick soldier has had no more constant,
uniform and untiring friend, and it is with pleasure that I
convey the thanks of the board, both to yourself and wife, who
have been as indefatigable at home in preparing canned fruits and
other delicacies for the sick soldiers in the field, as you have
been in providing for those in the hospitals. With grateful
feelings and many thanks and best wishes, I remain,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF60">
<span class="smcap">James E. Yeatman</span>,<br />
<i>President Western Sanitary Commission</i>.
</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully yours,</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="ltr-clear">The submission of a constitutional amendment in Kansas, and the
preparations for a thorough canvass of that State, had its
influence in heightening the enthusiasm and increasing the
agitation in Missouri, as most of the speakers going to Kansas held
meetings at various points. Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony stopped
at St. Louis both going and returning, held large meetings in
Library Hall, and had a pleasant reception in the parlors of the
Southern Hotel, where many warm friendships that have lasted ever
since, were formed.</p>

<p>The subject of woman's enfranchisement had doubtless often occurred
to the thoughtful men and women of Missouri, long before the
movement in its behalf assumed anything like a practical shape. The
manifest absurdity and injustice of declaring, as the constitution
of the State did, "that all political power is vested in, and
derived from the people; that all government of right originates
from the people, is founded upon their will only, and is instituted
solely for the good of the whole," and at the same time, denying to
one-half of the people any voice whatever in framing their
government or making their laws, could not fail to strike the
attention of any one who gave the subject the slightest
consideration. But no attempt was made towards an organization in
behalf of woman suffrage until the winter of 1866-7; and the
movement then had its origin from the following circumstance:
During the debate in the Senate of the United States, on the
district suffrage bill, December 12, 1866, Senator Brown, of
Missouri, in the course of his remarks said: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_599" id="Page_599">[Pg 599]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>I have to say then, sir, here on the floor of the American
Senate, I stand for universal suffrage, and as a matter of
fundamental principle do not recognize the right of society to
limit it on any ground of race, color, or sex. I will go further,
and say that I recognize the right of franchise as being
intrinsically a natural right; and I do not believe that society
is authorized to impose any limitation upon it that does not
spring out of the necessities of the social state itself. </p></blockquote>

<p>When Mrs. Francis Minor, of St. Louis, who had given the subject
much thought, read the report of Senator Brown's speech, she
considered that it was due to him from the women of the State that
he should receive a letter of thanks for his bold and out-spoken
utterances in their behalf. She accordingly wrote him such a
letter, obtaining to it all the signatures she could, and it was
presented to Senator Brown on his return home. But although first
an advocate of the measure, he soon recanted, and gave his
influence against it.</p>

<p>It was next determined to petition the legislature of the State
then in session, January, 1867, to propose an amendment to the
constitution, striking out the word "male," in the article on
suffrage. Such a petition was presented, and attracted much
attention, as it was the first instance of the kind in the history
of the State. This move was followed by a formal organization of
the friends of the cause, and on May 8, 1867, the "Missouri Woman
Suffrage Association" was organized, and officers elected.<a name="FNanchor_378_378" id="FNanchor_378_378"></a><a href="#Footnote_378_378" class="fnanchor">[378]</a></p>

<p>We find the following letter from Mr. Minor in <i>The Revolution</i> of
January 22, 1868:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Editors of The Revolution</i>: In order to show the steady progress
that the grand idea of equal rights is slowly but surely making
among the people of these United States, I think it would be
well, in the beginning, at least, to make a record in <i>The
Revolution</i> of the fact of each successive State organization;
and for that purpose I send you the list of officers for the
association in Missouri not yet a year old; as also their
petition to the legislature for a change in the organic law, and
a brief address to the voters of the State, in support of the
movement:</p>


<p><i>To the Voters of Missouri:</i></p>

<p>The women of this State, having organized for the purpose of
agitating their claims to the ballot, it becomes every
intelligent and reflecting mind to consider the question fairly
and dispassionately. If it has merits, it will eventually
succeed; if not, it will fail. I am of the number of those who
believe that claim to be just and right, for the following, among
other reasons:</p>

<p>Taxation and Representation should go hand in hand. This is the
very corner-stone of our government. Its founders declared, and
the declaration cannot be too often repeated, "We hold these
truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable
rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That to secure those rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent
of the governed." The man who believes in that declaration,
cannot justly deny to women the right of suffrage. They are
citizens, they are tax-payers; they bear the burdens of
government&mdash;why should they be denied the rights of citizens? We
boast about liberty and equality before the law, when the truth
is, our government is controlled by one-half only of the
population. The others have no more voice in the making of their
laws, or the selection of their rulers, than the criminals who
are in our penitentiaries; nay, in one respect, their condition
is not as good as that of the felon, for he may be pardoned and
restored to a right which woman can never obtain. And this, not
because she has committed any crime, or violated any law, but
simply because she is, what God made her&mdash;a woman! Possessed of
the same intelligence&mdash;formed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_600" id="Page_600">[Pg 600]</a></span> in the same mold&mdash;having the same
attributes, parts and passions&mdash;held by her Maker to the same
measure of responsibility here and hereafter, her actual position
in society to-day is that of an inferior. No matter what her
qualifications may be, every avenue of success is virtually
closed against her. Even when she succeeds in obtaining
employment, she gets only half the pay that a man does for the
same work. But, it is said, woman's sphere is at home. Would
giving her the right to vote interfere with her home duties any
more than it does with a man's business? Again it is said, that
for her to vote would be unfeminine. Is it at all more indelicate
for a woman to go to the polls, than it is for her to go to the
court-house and pay her taxes? The truth is, woman occupies just
the position that man has placed her in, and it ill becomes him
to urge such objections. Give her a chance&mdash;give her the
opportunity of proving whether these objections are well founded
or not. Her influence for good is great, notwithstanding all the
disadvantages under which she at present labors; and my firm
belief is, that that influence would be greatly enhanced and
extended by the exercise of this new right. It would be felt at
the ballot-box and in the halls of legislation. Better men, as a
general rule, would be elected to office, and society in all its
ramifications, would feel and rejoice at the change.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">A Voter.</p>


<p><i>To the General Assembly of the State of Missouri: </i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Gentlemen</span>: The undersigned women of Missouri, believing that all
citizens who are taxed for the support of the government and
subject to its laws, should have a voice in the making of those
laws, and the selection of their rulers; that, as the possession
of the ballot ennobles and elevates the character of man, so, in
like manner, it would ennoble and elevate that of woman by giving
her a direct and personal interest in the affairs of government;
and further, believing that the spirit of the age, as well as
every consideration of justice and equity, requires that the
ballot should be extended to our sex, do unite in praying that an
amendment to the constitution may be proposed, striking out the
word "male" and extending to women the right of suffrage.</p>

<p>And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.</p>

<p>On behalf of the Missouri Woman Suffrage Association.</p>

<p>[Signed:] <i>President</i>, Mrs. Francis Minor; <i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs.
Beverly Allen; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Wm. T. Hazard;
<i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. Geo. D. Hall; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. N.
Stevens, St. Louis, Missouri.</p>

<p>Copies of the petition, and information furnished upon addressing
either of above named officers. Formation of auxiliary
associations in every county requested. Petitions when completely
signed, to be returned to the head office.</p>

<p>These papers will serve to show that the idea has taken root in
other States beyond the Mississippi besides Kansas; and may also
be somewhat of a guide to others, who may desire to accomplish
the same purpose elsewhere. A work of such magnitude requires, of
course, time for development; but the leaven is working. The
fountains of the great deep of public thought have been broken
up. The errors and prejudices of six thousand years are yielding
to the sunlight of truth. In spite of pulpits and politicians,
the great idea is making its way to the hearts of the people; and
woman may rejoice in believing that the dawn of her deliverance,
so long hoped for and prayed for, is at last approaching.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">F. M.</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>St. Louis</i>, January, 1868.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>The following from <i>The Revolution</i> shows that the women of St.
Louis were awake on the question of taxation:</p>

<blockquote><p>The women here have endeavored to find out to what extent
taxation without representation, because of sex, obtains in this
city, and as the result of their inquiries they are enabled to
place on their records the following very suggestive document.</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Assessor's Office, St. Louis</span>, January 30, 1869.
</p>

<p><i>To Mrs. Couzins and Emma Finkelnburg, Committee of the Ladies'
Suffrage Association:</i></p>

<p>In reply to your request to report to your association the amount
of property listed in the city of St. Louis in the name of
ladies, permit me to state that the property in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_601" id="Page_601">[Pg 601]</a></span> question is
represented by over 2,000 tax-paying ladies, and assessed at the
value of $14,490,199.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">Robt. J. Rombauer</span>, <i>Assessor</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours very respectfully,</p>
</blockquote>

<p class="ltr-clear">This exhibit has opened the eyes of a good many people. "Two
thousand on 'em," exclaimed a male friend of mine, "and over
fourteen millions of property! Whew! What business have these women
with so much money?" Well, they have it, and now they ask us,
"Shall 2,000 men, not worth a dollar, just because they wear
pantaloons go to the polls and vote taxes on us, while we are
excluded from the ballot-box for no other reason than sex?" What
<i>shall</i> we say to them? They ask us if the American Revolution did
not turn on this hinge, <i>No taxation without representation</i>. Who
can answer?</p>

<p>The advocates of suffrage in St. Louis made their attacks at once
in both Church<a name="FNanchor_379_379" id="FNanchor_379_379"></a><a href="#Footnote_379_379" class="fnanchor">[379]</a> and State, and left no means of agitation
untried. There has never been an association in any State that
comprised so many able men and women who gave their best thoughts
to every phase of this question, and who did so grand a work, until
the unfortunate division in 1871, which seemed to chill the
enthusiasm of many friends of the movement.</p>

<p>In the winter of 1869 the association sent a large delegation of
ladies to the legislature with a petition containing about 2,000
signatures. A correspondent in <i>The Revolution</i>, February 6, 1869,
said:</p>

<blockquote><p>It will not be feminine to say, yet I fear I must say, the women
of Missouri have stormed their capitol, and if it is not yet
taken, the outworks are in our hands, and I believe with a few
more well-directed blows the victory will be ours. On February 3
a large delegation of ladies, representing the Suffrage
Association of Missouri, visited Jefferson City for the purpose
of laying before the legislature a large and influentially signed
petition, asking the ballot for women; and we were gratified to
see the great respect and deference shown to the women of
Missouri by the wisest and best of her legislators in their
respectful and cordial reception of the delegates. Both Houses
adjourned, and gave the use of the house for the afternoon, when
eloquent addresses were made by Mrs. J.G. Phelps of Springfield,
Dr. Ada Greunan of St. Louis, and the future orator of Missouri,
Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins, whose able and effective address the press
has given in full. Of the brave men who stood up for us, it is
more difficult to speak. To give a list would be impossible; for
every name would require a eulogy too lengthy for the pages of
<i>The Revolution</i>. We will, therefore, record them on the tablets
of our memory with a hand so firm that they shall stand out
brightly till time shall be no more. Of the small majority who
oppose us we will say nothing, but throw over them the pall of
merciful oblivion. </p></blockquote>

<p>The first woman suffrage convention ever held in the city of St.
Louis, or the State of Missouri, assembled in Mercantile Library,
October 6, 7,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_602" id="Page_602">[Pg 602]</a></span> 1869. Many distinguished people were on the
platform.<a name="FNanchor_380_380" id="FNanchor_380_380"></a><a href="#Footnote_380_380" class="fnanchor">[380]</a> At this convention Mr. Francis Minor introduced a
very able series of resolutions, on which Mrs. Minor made a
remarkably logical address.<a name="FNanchor_381_381" id="FNanchor_381_381"></a><a href="#Footnote_381_381" class="fnanchor">[381]</a> The following letter from Mr.
Minor shows the careful research he gave to the consideration of
this question:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">St. Louis</span>, December 30, 1869.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Revolution</span>: So thoroughly am I satisfied that the
surest and most direct course to pursue to obtain a
recognition of woman's claim to the ballot, lies through the
courts of the country, that I am induced to ask you to
republish the resolutions that I drafted, and which were
unanimously adopted by the St. Louis convention. And I will
here add, that to accomplish this end, and to carry these
resolutions into practical effect, it is intended by Mrs.
Minor, the president of the State Association, to make a
test case in her instance at our next election; take it
through the courts of Missouri, and thence to the Supreme
Court of the United States at Washington. I think it will be
admitted that these resolutions place the cause of woman
upon higher ground than ever before asserted, in the fact
that for the first time suffrage is claimed as a privilege
based upon citizenship, and secured by the Constitution of
the United States. It will be seen that the position taken
is, that the States have the right to regulate, but not to
prohibit, the elective franchise to citizens of the United
States. Thus the States may determine the qualifications of
electors. They may require the elector to be of a certain
age, to have had a fixed residence, to be of a sane mind,
and unconvicted of crime, etc., because these are
qualifications or conditions that all citizens, sooner or
later, may attain; but to go beyond this, and say to
one-half the citizens of the State, notwithstanding you
possess all these qualifications you shall never vote, is of
the very essence of despotism. It is a bill of attainder of
the most odious character.</p>

<p>A further investigation of the subject will show that the
language of the constitutions of all the States, with the
exception of those of Massachusetts and Virginia, on the
subject of suffrage is peculiar. They almost all read
substantially alike: "White male citizens, etc., shall be
entitled to vote," and this is supposed to exclude all other
citizens. There is no direct exclusion, except in the two
States above named. Now the error lies in supposing that an
enabling clause is necessary at all. The right of the people
of a State to participate in a government of their own
creation requires no enabling clause; neither can it be
taken from them by implication. To hold otherwise would be
to interpolate in the constitution a prohibition that does
not exist. In framing a constitution the people are
assembled in their sovereign capacity; and being possessed
of all rights and all powers, what is not surrendered is
retained. Nothing short of a direct prohibition can work a
disseizin of rights that are fundamental. In the language of
John Jay to the people of New York, urging the adoption of
the Constitution of the United States, "silence and blank
paper neither give nor take away anything," and Alexander
Hamilton says (<i>Federalist</i>, No. 83), "Every man of
discernment must at once perceive the wide difference
between silence and abolition."</p>

<p>The mode and manner in which the people shall take part in
the government of their creation may be prescribed by the
constitution, but the right itself is antecedent to all
constitutions. It is inalienable, and can neither be bought,
nor sold, nor given away. But even if it should be held that
this view is untenable, and that women are disfranchised by
the several State constitutions directly, or by implication,
then I say that such prohibitions are clearly in conflict
with the Constitution of the United States, and yield
thereto. The language of that instrument is clear and
emphatic: "All persons<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_603" id="Page_603">[Pg 603]</a></span> 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 that shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States." It would be impossible to add to the force
or effect of such language, and equally impossible to
attempt to explain it away.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Francis Minor</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully,</p>

</blockquote>


<p>The St. Louis <i>Democrat</i> spoke of the convention as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>Readers of our report have doubtless been interested to observe
the fair spirit and dignified manner of the woman suffrage
convention, and the ability displayed in some of the addresses.
It is but due to the managers to say that they extended most
courteous invitations to gentlemen not identified with the
movement to address the convention, and state freely their
objections to the extension of the franchise. Of those invited
some were prevented by duties elsewhere from attending. Others,
it may be, felt that it would scarcely be a gracious thing, in
spite of the liberality of the invitation, to occupy the time of
a convention in favor of the extension of the franchise with
arguments against it. But the objections which, after all,
probably have most weight with candid men are those which it is
not easy to discuss in public, namely: "Will not extension of
suffrage to women have an injurious effect upon the family and
sexual relations?" "Will not the ballot be used rather by that
class who would not use it wisely than by those who are most
competent?" We do not argue these questions, but are sure that
some frank discussion of them, however delicate the subject may
be, is necessary to convince the great majority of those who are
still doubting or opposed. Meanwhile the reports are of interest,
and reflect no little credit upon the women of this city who have
taken so prominent a part in the movement. </p></blockquote>

<p>The officers of the Missouri Society were annually reëlected for
several years, and the work proceeded harmoniously until the
division in the National Association. The members of the Missouri
Society took sides in this division as preference dictated. Mr. and
Mrs. Minor, Miss Forbes, Miss Couzins and others were already
members of the National Association, and sympathized with its views
and modes of pushing the question.</p>

<p>In order that there might be no division in the Missouri
Association, a resolution was introduced by Mr. Minor and
unanimously adopted, declaring that each member of the society
should be free to join the National body of his or her choice, and
that the Missouri Association, as a society, should not become
auxiliary to either the "National" or the "American." The good
faith of the association was thus pledged to respect the feelings
and wishes of each member, and as long as this course was observed
all went well. But, at the annual meeting in 1871, just after Mrs.
Minor had for the fifth time been unanimously reëlected president,
in violation of the previous action of the association a resolution
was introduced and passed, declaring that the association should
henceforth become auxiliary to the American. This gross disregard
of the wishes and feelings of those who were members of the
National Association left them no alternative, with any feeling of
self-respect, but to withdraw; and accordingly Mrs. Minor at once
tendered her resignation as president and her withdrawal as a
member of the association. She was followed in this course by Mr.
Minor, Miss Couzins, Miss Forbes and others.<a name="FNanchor_382_382" id="FNanchor_382_382"></a><a href="#Footnote_382_382" class="fnanchor">[382]</a> However, the work
went steadily on. Meetings were held regularly from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_604" id="Page_604">[Pg 604]</a></span> week to week,
with occasional grand conventions, tracts and petitions were
circulated, and constant agitation in some way kept up. </p></blockquote>

<p>In answer to an earnest solicitation for facts and incidents of the
suffrage movement in Missouri, Mrs. Rebecca N. Hazard, one of the
earliest and most active friends in that State, sends us the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p>I think the cruel war had much to do in educating the women of
Missouri into a sense of their responsibilities and duties as
citizens; at least all who first took part in the suffrage
movement had been active on the Union side during the war, and
that having ended in the preservation of the government, they
naturally began to inquire as to their own rights and privileges
in the restored Union. My own feelings were first fully awakened
by the hanging of Mrs. Surrat; for, although a Unionist and an
abolitionist, I could but regard her execution by the government,
considering her helpless position, as judicial murder. I wrote on
the subject to the editor of the New York <i>Independent</i>. The
letter was handed to Miss Anthony, and resulted in an invitation
to the next meeting of the Equal Rights Society. This almost
frightened me, for I had hitherto looked askance at the woman's
rights movement.</p>

<p>Meeting an old friend and neighbor not long after, the talk
turned upon negro suffrage. I expressed myself in favor of that
measure, and timidly added, "And go farther&mdash;I think women also
should vote." She grasped my hand cordially, saying, "And so do
I!" This was Mrs. Virginia L. Minor. We had each cherished this
opinion, supposing that no other woman in the community held it;
and this we afterwards found to have been the experience of many
others. This was in 1866; and in the following autumn Mrs. Minor
prepared and circulated for signatures a card of thanks to Hon.
B. Gratz Brown for the recognition of woman's political rights he
had given in the United States Senate in a speech upon extending
the suffrage to the women of the District of Columbia.<a name="FNanchor_383_383" id="FNanchor_383_383"></a><a href="#Footnote_383_383" class="fnanchor">[383]</a> This
card received enough names to justify another step&mdash;that of a
petition to the Missouri General Assembly. This was headed by
Mrs. Minor, and circulated with untiring energy by her, receiving
several hundred signatures, and was sent to the legislature
during the winter, where it received some degree of favor.</p>

<p>But as yet no effort had been made toward an organization. The
first step in that direction was in May, 1867, by Mrs. Lucretia
P. Hall and her sister, Miss Penelope Allen, daughters of Mrs.
Beverly Allen, and nieces of General Pope, in the parlors of Mrs.
Anna L. Clapp, the president of the Union Aid Society during the
war. Mrs. Hall, Mrs. Clapp and myself called a public meeting on
May 8, when the Woman Suffrage Society of Missouri was organized,
with Mrs. Minor president.</p>

<p>In the winter of 1868 the association sent a large delegation of
ladies to Jefferson with a petition containing about 2,000 names,
to present to the legislature. The Republicans were then in the
ascendency, and the ladies having many professed friends among
the members, were received with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_605" id="Page_605">[Pg 605]</a></span> every demonstration of respect.
Addresses were made by Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins and Dr. Ada Greunan.
The petition was respectfully considered and a fair vote given
for the submission of an amendment.</p>

<p>Subsequent sessions of the legislature have been besieged, as was
also the constitutional convention in 1875; but beyond the
passage of several laws improving the general status of women, we
have not made much impression upon the law-making power of our
State; not so much since the State passed into the hands of the
Democrats, as while the Republicans were in the majority.</p>

<p>But the public meetings and social influence of our association
have done much for the cause of woman suffrage. Strangers are
surprised to find so little prejudice existing against a movement
so decidedly unpopular in many places. The convention held in St.
Louis in October, 1869, was one of the very best I have ever
known, and its influence was long felt for good. In the spring of
1871 our association became auxiliary to the American, and in
consequence several of our active members seceded, viz.: Mr. and
Mrs. Minor, Miss Couzins, Dr. Greunan and others. In the autumn
of 1872 the American Association held its annual meeting in St.
Louis.</p>

<p>The law school of Washington University has always been open to
women. Miss Couzins was the first to avail herself of its
advantages in 1869, though Miss Barkaloo of Brooklyn, denied
admission to Columbia Law School, soon joined her, and was
admitted to the bar in 1870. While Miss Barkaloo was not the
first woman admitted to the bar in the United States, she
doubtless was the first to try a case in court. She died after a
few months of most promising practice.<a name="FNanchor_384_384" id="FNanchor_384_384"></a><a href="#Footnote_384_384" class="fnanchor">[384]</a> Miss Couzins was
admitted to the bar in May, 1871.</p>

<p>The St. Louis School of Design, which has done much for woman,
was originated by members of our association; principally by Mrs.
Mary F. Henderson, who has given untiring effort in that
direction. Our members were also instrumental in opening to women
the St. Louis Homeopathic Medical College, and active in opposing
what was known as the St. Louis "Social Evil Law." They aided Dr.
Eliot in his valiant struggle against that iniquity. Mrs. E.
Patrick and myself called the first public meeting to protest
against the law. It was repealed March 27, 1874.</p>

<p>You are probably familiar with Mrs. Minor's suit to obtain
suffrage under the fourteenth amendment. We all admired her
courageous efforts for that object. Previous to that attempt our
society had earnestly advocated a sixteenth amendment for the
protection of woman's right to vote, but held the matter in
abeyance pending the suit. After its failure, we again renewed
our efforts for a sixteenth amendment, circulating and sending to
Washington our petitions. Our association holds monthly meetings
and proposes to continue the agitation.<a name="FNanchor_385_385" id="FNanchor_385_385"></a><a href="#Footnote_385_385" class="fnanchor">[385]</a> I ought to say,
perhaps,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_606" id="Page_606">[Pg 606]</a></span> that our society lends all the help possible to other
States. It gave $520 to Michigan in 1874, and $200 to Colorado in
1877.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">R. N. H.</p>

<p>To bring the question of woman's right as a citizen of the United
States to vote for United States officers before the judiciary,
Mrs. Minor attempted to register in order to vote at the national
election in November, 1872, and being refused on account of her
sex, brought the matter before the courts in the shape of a suit
against the registering officer.<a name="FNanchor_386_386" id="FNanchor_386_386"></a><a href="#Footnote_386_386" class="fnanchor">[386]</a> The point was decided
adversely to her in all the courts, being finally reported in
Vol. 21 of Wallace's U. S. Supreme Court Reports. The importance
of this decision cannot be over-estimated. It affects every
citizen of the United States, male as well as female, if, as
there pronounced, the United States has no voters of its own
creation. The Dred-Scott decision is insignificant in comparison.
Mrs. Minor made the following points in her petition:</p>

<blockquote><p>1. As a <i>citizen</i> of the United States, the plaintiff is entitled
to any and all the "privileges and immunities" that belong to
such position however defined; and as are held, exercised and
enjoyed by other citizens of the United States.</p>

<p>2. The elective franchise is a "privilege" of citizenship, in the
highest sense of the word. It is the privilege preservative of
all rights and privileges; and especially of the right of the
citizen to participate in his or her government.</p>

<p>3. The denial or abridgment of this privilege, if it exist at
all, must be sought only in the fundamental charter of
government&mdash;the Constitution of the United States. If not found
there, no inferior power or jurisdiction can legally claim the
right to exercise it.</p>

<p>4. But the Constitution of the United States, so far from
recognizing or permitting any denial or abridgment of the
privileges of citizens, expressly declares that "no State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States."</p>

<p>5. It follows that the provisions of the Missouri constitution
and registry law before recited are in conflict with, and must
yield to the paramount authority of, the Constitution of the
United States. </p></blockquote>

<p>At a mass meeting held in St. Louis January 25, 1875, a
committee<a name="FNanchor_387_387" id="FNanchor_387_387"></a><a href="#Footnote_387_387" class="fnanchor">[387]</a> was appointed to prepare an address to the people of
the State, setting forth the necessity of such action by the
constitutional convention, soon to assemble, as would insure to all
citizens the right of choice in their lawmakers and in the officers
whose duty it should be to execute the laws. The address was
prepared and widely circulated over the State. In June, the
convention being in session at Jefferson, Mrs. Minor, Miss Couzins,
and Mrs. Dickinson went to the capitol and were granted a gracious
hearing, but no action was conceded.</p>

<p>In May, 1879, the National Woman Suffrage Association held its
annual meeting at St. Louis, holding its session through the day,
morning, afternoon and evening, and so much interest was aroused
that on May 13 a local society was organized under the head of the
National Woman Suffrage Association for St. Louis,<a name="FNanchor_388_388" id="FNanchor_388_388"></a><a href="#Footnote_388_388" class="fnanchor">[388]</a> with Mrs.
Minor president, which has continued<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_607" id="Page_607">[Pg 607]</a></span> to do most efficient service
to the present. During the summer of 1879, Mrs. Minor refused to
pay the tax assessed against her:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">St. Louis, Mo.</span>, August 26, 1879.</p>

<p>Hon. <span class="smcap">David Powers</span>, <i>President Board of Assessors</i>: I honestly
believe and conscientiously make oath that I have not one
dollars' worth of property subject to taxation. The principle
upon which this government rests is representation before
taxation. My property is denied representation, and therefore can
not be taxable. The law which you quote as applicable to me in
your notice to make my tax return is in direct conflict with
section 30 of the bill of rights of the constitution of the State
which declares, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or
property, without due process of law," And that surely cannot be
due process of law wherein one of the parties only is law-maker,
judge, jury and executioner, and the other stands silenced,
denied the power either of assent or dissent, a condition of
"involuntary slavery" so clearly prohibited in section 31 of the
same article, as well as in the Constitution of the United
States, that no legislation or judicial prejudice can ignore it.
I trust you will believe it is from no disrespect to you that I
continue to refuse to become a party to this injustice by making
a return of property to your honorable body, as clearly the
duties of a citizen can only be exacted where rights and
privileges are equally accorded.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">Virginia L. Minor</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Respectfully,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Again, in February, 1881, Mrs. Minor made an able argument before
the legislative committee on constitutional amendments in support
of the petition for the enfranchisement of the women of the State.
Her pivotal point was, "By whatever tenure you, as one-half of the
people, hold it, we, the other half, claim it by the same." And
again in December of the same year at a meeting of the Knights and
Ladies of the Father Matthew Debating Club, at which the subject
was, "Is the woman's rights movement to be encouraged?" Patrick
Long, Daniel O'Connel Tracy, Richard D. Kerwen, spoke in the
affirmative; several gentlemen and two ladies in opposition, when
Mrs. Minor, who was in the audience, was called out amid great
applause, to which she responded in an able speech, showing that
the best temperance weapon in the hands of woman is the ballot. </p></blockquote>

<p>Of the initial steps taken for the elevation of women in the little
village of Oregon, Mrs. Annie R. Irvine writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Woman's Union, an independent literary club, designed to
improve the mental, moral, and physical condition of women, held
its first meeting in Oregon, Holt county, on the evening of
January 6, 1872, at the residence of Dr. Asher Goslin. Temporary
officers were elected, and a committee appointed to prepare
by-laws for the government of the club. Six ladies<a name="FNanchor_389_389" id="FNanchor_389_389"></a><a href="#Footnote_389_389" class="fnanchor">[389]</a> were
present. The succeeding meetings grew in interest, and took
strong hold upon the minds of all classes, from the fact that
hitherto no outlet had been found for the energies of our women
outside the circle of home and church. During the first two years
of its existence, the Woman's Union had to bear in a small way,
many of the sneers and taunts attending more pretentious
organizations, but luckily, when the novelty wore off, we were
allowed to pursue the quiet tenor of our way, with an occasional
slur at the "strong-minded" tendency of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_608" id="Page_608">[Pg 608]</a></span> the organization. During
nearly fourteen years we have held regular meetings in a hall
rented for the purpose, and paid for by earnings of the society.
An excellent organ is owned by the club; they have a library of
several hundred volumes, book-cases, carpet, curtains, pictures,
tables, chairs, stove, etc., and the members take great pride in
their cosy headquarters. At this writing, interesting meetings
are held on each Wednesday evening at the homes of the different
members of the society.<a name="FNanchor_390_390" id="FNanchor_390_390"></a><a href="#Footnote_390_390" class="fnanchor">[390]</a> In the course of so long a time,
this organization has had many changes. Members have removed to
all parts of the United States, and many similar clubs elsewhere
trace their origin to our society.</p>

<p>Several years ago an open letter from here to "Woman's Kingdom,"
in the Chicago <i>Inter-Ocean</i> called attention to our plan of work
for small towns; as a result fifteen similar Unions were
organized, some of them still flourishing. In northwest Missouri
the same kind of clubs were formed in Maryville, Nodaway county,
and Savannah, Andrew county, but neither of them became
permanent. In the course of twelve years many of the best
speakers on the American platform have addressed Oregon
audiences, brought here by the determined efforts of a few women.
To-day, public opinion in this part of Missouri is in advance of
other sections on all questions relating to the great interests
of humanity. In March, 1879, a call signed by prominent
citizens<a name="FNanchor_391_391" id="FNanchor_391_391"></a><a href="#Footnote_391_391" class="fnanchor">[391]</a> brought together a large assembly of men and women
in the court-house. An address in favor of woman suffrage was
delivered by Rev. John Wayman of the M. E. Church of St. Joseph.
Mr. James L. Allen acted as chairman of the meeting, and a
society was then organized, to bear the name of the Holt County
Woman Suffrage Society. At the National Woman Suffrage Convention
held at St. Louis later in the same year, Jas. L. Allen acted as
delegate from this association and reported our progress. The
best organized woman's society in the State is probably the
Women's Christian Temperance Union. In its different departments,
although hampered by too much theological red tape, it is
reaching thousands of ignorant, prejudiced, good sectarian women
who would expect the "heavens to fall" if they accidentally got
into a meeting where "woman's rights" was mentioned even in a
whisper. Mrs. Clara Hoffman, of Kansas City, is State president,
and a woman of great force. She, as well as other leading lights
in the Women's Christian Temperance Union, is strongly advocating
woman suffrage as a <i>sine qua non</i> in the temperance work. The
women of this part of the State have been given quite a prominent
place among organizations mentioned in a late "History of
Missouri, by Counties." The Woman's Union has taken the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_609" id="Page_609">[Pg 609]</a></span> place of
honor.<a name="FNanchor_392_392" id="FNanchor_392_392"></a><a href="#Footnote_392_392" class="fnanchor">[392]</a> From the very outset we have had the most bitter and
persistent opposition from the churches, more particularly the
Presbyterian, although some of our most capable members were of
that faith. Exceptions should be made in favor of the Christian,
or Campbellite, and as a general thing, the M. E. churches. The
greatest shock we have had to resist, however, came a few months
since in the shape of a division among our own members, and has
really discouraged the more independent among us more than
anything else. The W. C. T. U. sent their Mascatine organizer
here, to wake up the women in the interests of the State society.
Although ignorant and prejudiced, he created a fanatical
stampede, and in the goodness of their hearts and the weakness of
their heads, our church women in the Woman's Union proposed to
give to the three temperance clubs, numbering perhaps 150, the
free use of our rooms and property, and suspend our own club,
claiming that our mission was ended, and that a field of greater
usefulness was opened in the W. C. T. U. line of work. The
liberal element refused to abandon the old organization, although
many joined in the W. C. T. U. work and attended both clubs.</p>

<p>However, in a small community, where the consciences of many good
women are not free, we have met with serious drawbacks. We have
had to submit to a sort of boycotting process, for some time, the
orthodox, goody-goody people evidently trying to freeze us out;
although I must claim that nearly every member of the Woman's
Union is strongly interested in the temperance cause, and as the
different departments in the W. C. T. U. fail to cover the ground
we occupy, quite a respectable number seem determined to hold on
in their own way, trying little by little to better the condition
of all, and particularly to increase and strengthen the feeble
germ of independent thought in women, so often smothered and
destroyed by too much theology. What we need for women is not
more spirituality but more hard common-sense, applied to reform
as well as religion. One thing connected with our organization is
a matter of pride to all women, namely, that no pecuniary
obligation has ever been repudiated by the Woman's Union. Besides
paying our debts we have given hundreds of dollars to works of
charity and education, and keep a standing fund of $100, to be
used in case of emergency, when, as often happens, we fail to
make expenses on lectures, entertainments, etc. It would not be
claiming too much if the Woman's Union of Oregon was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_610" id="Page_610">[Pg 610]</a></span> to go upon
the historic page as the only free, independent woman's club ever
successfully carried on for any length of time, in the great
State of Missouri.<a name="FNanchor_393_393" id="FNanchor_393_393"></a><a href="#Footnote_393_393" class="fnanchor">[393]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>Missouri has always felt a becoming pride in the gifted daughter,
Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins, who was the first woman to enter the law
school, go through the entire course, and graduate with honor to
herself and her native State. Hence, a reception to her, to mark
such an event, was preëminently fitting. This compliment was paid
to her by Dr. and Mrs. G. A. Walker, and a large gathering of the
elite of St. Louis honored her with their presence.<a name="FNanchor_394_394" id="FNanchor_394_394"></a><a href="#Footnote_394_394" class="fnanchor">[394]</a> The
drawing-rooms were festooned with garlands of evergreens and
brilliant forest leaves and hanging-baskets of roses; the bountiful
tables were elaborately decorated with fruits and flowers and
statuettes, while pictures of distinguished women looked down from
the wall on every side. After the feast came letters, toasts and
speeches, a brilliant address of welcome was given by Dr. Walker,
and an equally brilliant reply by Miss Couzins. Witty and
complimentary speeches were made by Judge Krum, Hon. Albert Todd,
Mrs. Francis Minor, ex-Governor Stanard, Judge Reber, Professor
Riley, I. E. Meeker, Mrs. Henrietta Noa. Congratulatory letters
were received from several ladies and gentlemen of national
reputation, and the following regrets:</p>

<blockquote><p>Rev. W. G. Eliot, chancellor of the University, with "compliments
and thanks to Dr. and Mrs. Walker. I regret that engagements this
evening prevent me from enjoying the pleasure of meeting Miss
Couzins and welcoming her to her new and well-deserved honors, as
I had expected to do until an hour ago."</p>

<p>James E. Yeatman sent regrets accompanied with "his warmest
congratulations to Miss Couzins, with best wishes for her success
in the noble profession of the law."</p>

<p>George Partridge regrets, "hoping every encouragement will be
given to those who aspire to high honors by their intellectual
and moral attainments."</p>

<p>General J. H. Hammond, Kansas City, Mo.: "I would feel honored in
being allowed the privilege of congratulating this lady who so
practically honors her sex." </p></blockquote>

<p>In addition to the many congratulations showered upon Miss Couzins,
she was the recipient of testimonials of a more enduring<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_611" id="Page_611">[Pg 611]</a></span> and
equally flattering character. Among many valuable presents were
twelve volumes of Edmund Burke from Miss A. L. Forbes, who wished
to testify her appreciation of the event by deeds rather than
words. Mrs. E. O. Stanard presented a handsomely-bound set of
"Erskine's Speeches," in five volumes.</p>

<p>There were other gifts of great intrinsic worth. These tokens of
regard were sent from admiring friends scattered all over the
country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific.</p>

<p>Although Miss Couzins has never practiced in her chosen profession,
yet the knowledge and discipline acquired in the study of our
American system of jurisprudence and constitutional law have been
of essential service to her in the prolonged arguments on the
enfranchisement of woman, in which she has so ably and eloquently
advocated the case of the great plaintiff of the nineteenth
century, in that famous law-suit begun by Margaret Fuller in 1840,
"Woman versus Man." Our junior advocate has taken the case into the
highest courts and made her appeals to a jury of the sovereign
people and "the judgment of a candid world." On all principles of
precedent and importance our case now stands first on the calendar.
When will the verdict be rendered and what will it be?</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_377_377" id="Footnote_377_377"></a><a href="#FNanchor_377_377"><span class="label">[377]</span></a> Among them were Isaac H. Sturgeon, Francis Minor,
James E. Yeatman, Judge John M. Krum, Judge Arnold Krekel, Hon.
Thomas Noël, Ernest Decker, Dr. G. A. Walker, John E. Orrick, J. B.
Roberts, Rev. G. W. Eliot, Bishop Bowman, Albert Todd, Rev. John
Snyder, John Datro, J. B. Case, H. E. Merille, Mrs. Virginia L.
Minor, Mrs. Rebecca N. Hazard, Mrs. Adeline Couzins, Miss Ph&oelig;be
Couzins, Mrs. Beverly Allen, Miss Mary Beedy, Miss Arathusa Forbes,
Mrs. Isaac Sturgeon, Mrs. Hall, and many others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_378_378" id="Footnote_378_378"></a><a href="#FNanchor_378_378"><span class="label">[378]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mrs. Virginia L. Minor;
<i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs. Beverly Allen; <i>Secretaries</i>, Mrs. Rebecca
N. Hazard, and Mrs. George D. Hall; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. George W.
Banker. There were present, besides the officers, Mrs. Anna L.
Clapp, Miss Penelope Allen, Mrs. Frank Fletcher, Miss Arathusia L.
Forbes, Mrs. Nannie C. Sturgeon, Mrs. Harriet B. Roberts, Mrs. N.
Stevens, Mrs. Joseph Hodgman, Miss A. Greenman, etc. Among the men
who aided the movement were Francis Minor, Isaac W. Sturgeon, James
E. Yeatman, Judge John M. Krum, Judge Arnold Krekel, Hon. Thomas
Noël, who gave the society its first twenty-five dollars, Ernest
Decker, Dr. G.A. Walker, John C. O'Neill, J.B. Roberts, Wayman
Crow, Rev. Dr. Wm. G. Eliot, Bishop Bowman, Albert Todd, Rev. John
Snyder, John Datro, J.B. Case, H.C. Leville.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_379_379" id="Footnote_379_379"></a><a href="#FNanchor_379_379"><span class="label">[379]</span></a> The following we find in the St. Louis papers. It is
significant of the sentiment of the Methodist women of the West:
"We, the undersigned, join in a call for a mass-meeting of the M.E.
Church in St. Louis, to meet at Union Church on the 15th inst., at
3 o'clock <span class="sc">p.m.</span>, to consider a plan for memorializing the General
Conference to permit the ordination of women as ministers. All
women of the M.E. Church are requested to attend. Mrs. Henry
Kennedy, Mrs. T.C. Fletcher, Mrs. E.O. Stanard, Mrs. A.C. George,
Mrs. Lucy Prescott, Mrs. U.B. Wilson, Mrs. L. Jones, Mrs. E.L.
Case, Mrs. W.F. Brink, Mrs. S.C. Cummins, Mrs. R.N. Hazard, Mrs.
Dutro, Mrs. M.H. Himebaugh." The result of this meeting of the
ladies of the Methodist churches to discuss a plan for admitting
women into the pulpit as preachers was the appointment of a
committee to draft a memorial to the General Conference to meet at
Brooklyn, N.Y., asking that body to sanction and provide for the
ordination of women as ministers of the Methodist Church.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_380_380" id="Footnote_380_380"></a><a href="#FNanchor_380_380"><span class="label">[380]</span></a> On the platform were Julia Ward Howe, Massachusetts;
Lillie Peckham, Wisconsin; Miriam M. Cole, Ohio; Mary A. Livermore,
Hon. Sharon Tyndale, Judge Waite and Rev. Mr. Harrison, Illinois;
Susan B. Anthony, New York. The officers of the Woman Suffrage
Association of Missouri: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Francis Minor:
<i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs. Beverly Allen: <i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. William T.
Hazard: <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. George B. Hall; Miss Mary Beady, Miss
Ph&oelig;be Couzins, Mrs. E. Tittman, Mrs. Alfred Clapp, Miss A. L.
Forbes, Isaac H. Sturgeon, Mrs. J. C. Orrick, Mrs. R. J. Lackland,
Francis Minor, and many others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_381_381" id="Footnote_381_381"></a><a href="#FNanchor_381_381"><span class="label">[381]</span></a> For speech and resolutions, see <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_408">Vol. II., page 408</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_382_382" id="Footnote_382_382"></a><a href="#FNanchor_382_382"><span class="label">[382]</span></a> Dissension and division were the effect in every
State, except where the associations wisely remained independent
and all continued to work together, and the forces otherwise
expended in rivalry were directed against the common enemy.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_383_383" id="Footnote_383_383"></a><a href="#FNanchor_383_383"><span class="label">[383]</span></a> For this speech of B. Gratz Brown see
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_136">Vol. II., page 136</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_384_384" id="Footnote_384_384"></a><a href="#FNanchor_384_384"><span class="label">[384]</span></a> For full account of Miss Barkaloo see New York
chapter, page <a href="#Page_404">404</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_385_385" id="Footnote_385_385"></a><a href="#FNanchor_385_385"><span class="label">[385]</span></a> Besides those already named, there are many other
women worthy of mention&mdash;Mrs. Hannah Stagg, Mrs. George H. Rha,
Mrs. S. F. Gruff, Miss N. M. Lavelle, Mrs. Helen E. Starrett, Mrs.
A. E. Dickinson, Mrs. E. R. Case, Miss S. Sharman, Mrs. Mary S.
Phelps, Miss Mary E. Beedy, Mrs. Fanny O'Haly, Mrs. J. C. Orrick,
Miss Henrietta Moore, Mrs. Stephen Ridgeley, Mrs. M. E. Bedford,
Mrs. M. Jackson; and among our German friends are Mrs. Rosa
Tittman, Mrs. Dr. Fiala, Mrs. Lena Hildebrand, Mrs. G. G.
Fenkelnberg, Mrs. Rombauer, Miss Lidergerber.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_386_386" id="Footnote_386_386"></a><a href="#FNanchor_386_386"><span class="label">[386]</span></a> For a full report of Mrs. Minor's trial, see History
of Woman Suffrage, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_715">Vol. II., page 715</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_387_387" id="Footnote_387_387"></a><a href="#FNanchor_387_387"><span class="label">[387]</span></a> The committee were: J. B. Merwin, Virginia L. Minor,
John Snyder, Lydia F. Dickinson, Maria E. F. Jackson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_388_388" id="Footnote_388_388"></a><a href="#FNanchor_388_388"><span class="label">[388]</span></a> The officers were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Virginia L.
Minor; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. Eliza J. Patrick, Mrs. Caroline J.
Todd, Miss Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mrs. E. P.
Johnson, Mrs. W. W. Polk; <i>Secretary</i>, Miss Eliza B. Buckley;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Miss Maggie Baumgartner.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_389_389" id="Footnote_389_389"></a><a href="#FNanchor_389_389"><span class="label">[389]</span></a> They were, Mrs. S. L. Goslin, Mis. A. E. Goslin,
Mrs. M. M. Soper, Annie E. Batcheller, Mary Curry, Annie R.
Irvine.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_390_390" id="Footnote_390_390"></a><a href="#FNanchor_390_390"><span class="label">[390]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Emma G. Dobyns; <i>Vice-President</i>, Kate
Evans Thatcher; <i>Secretary</i>, Matilda C. Shutts; <i>Treasurer</i>, Lucy
S. Rancher; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Annie R. Irvine.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_391_391" id="Footnote_391_391"></a><a href="#FNanchor_391_391"><span class="label">[391]</span></a> Believing that the best interests of society, as
well as government, would be best served by admitting all citizens
to the full rights of citizenship, we, the undersigned, hereby give
notice that a meeting will be held at the court-house, Oregon, on
Saturday, March 1, 1879, at 2 p. m., for the purpose of organizing
a Woman Suffrage Association. Those interested are urged to attend.
Clarke Irvine, C. W. Lukens, James L. Allen, S. B. Lukens, Samuel
Stuckey, Sudia Johnson, D. J. Lukens, Elvira Broedbeck, Mary Curry,
Jas. B. Curry, Annie R. Irvine.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_392_392" id="Footnote_392_392"></a><a href="#FNanchor_392_392"><span class="label">[392]</span></a> In 1875 I made my first visit to Oregon, and
remember my surprise at meeting so large a circle of bright,
intelligent women. After taking an old stage at Travesty city, and
lumbering along two miles or more over bad roads on a dull day in
March into a very unpropitious looking town, my heart sank at the
prospect of the small audience I should inevitably have in such a
spot. Wondering as to the character of the people I should find, we
jolted round the town to the home of the editor and his charming
wife, Mrs. Lucy S. Rancher. Their cordial welcome and generous
hospitalities soon made the old stage, the rough roads, and the
dull town but dim memories of the past. One after another the
members of the Union club came to greet me, and I saw in that
organization of strong, noble women, wisdom enough to redeem the
whole State of Missouri from its apathy on the question of woman's
rights. One of the promising features of the efforts of the
immortal six women who took the initiative, was the full sympathy
shown by their husbands in their attempts to improve themselves and
the community. Miss Couzins and Miss Anthony soon followed me, and
were alike surprised and delighted with the Literary Club of
Oregon. I was there again in '77, and was entertained by Mrs. R. A.
Norman, now living in St. Joseph, and in '79, I stayed in a large,
old-fashioned brick house near the public square with Mrs.
Montgomery, then "fat, fair and forty," and all three visits, with
the teas and dinners at the homes of different members of the club,
I thoroughly enjoyed.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_393_393" id="Footnote_393_393"></a><a href="#FNanchor_393_393"><span class="label">[393]</span></a> Among progressive women in this part of Missouri,
Mrs. Adela M. Kelly, of Savannah, wife of Circuit Judge Henry S.
Kelly, is prominent; in Mound City, Mrs. Emma K. Hershberger, Mrs.
Mary L. Mamcher, Mrs. Mary C. Tracy, Mrs. Fanny Smith, and others,
are leading women, and were once residents here, and members of the
Woman's Union. Among those actively interested here now, I shall
only mention a few, Mrs. Nancy Hershberger, Mary Curry, Elvira
Broedbeck, Lucy A. Christian, Ella O. Fallon, Mary Stirrell, and
many others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_394_394" id="Footnote_394_394"></a><a href="#FNanchor_394_394"><span class="label">[394]</span></a> Among those present were the following ladies and
gentlemen: Dr. and Mrs. Walker, Ph&oelig;be Couzins, esq., Hon. and
Mrs. John B. Henderson, Gov. and Mrs. E. O. Stanard, Mr. and Mrs.
Chester H. Krum, Mr. and Mrs. Francis Minor, Mr. and Mrs. Wm.
Patrick, Major and Mrs. J. E. D. Couzins, Major and Mrs. J. R.
Meeker, Major and Mrs. W. S. Pope, Mr. and Mrs. Lippmann, Mr. and
Mrs. Leopold Noa, Miss Noa, Miss A. L. Forbes, Judge Krum, Judge
Reber, Judge Todd, Geo. M. Stuart (dean), Prof. Riley, State
Entomologist; Prof. Hager, State Geologist; J. R. Stuart, artist,
and others.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_612" id="Page_612">[Pg 612]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLV" id="CHAPTER_XLV"></a>CHAPTER XLV.</h2>

<h3>IOWA.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Beautiful Scenery&mdash;Liberal in Politics and Reforms&mdash;Legislation
for Women&mdash;No Right yet to Joint Earnings&mdash;Early
Agitation&mdash;Frances Dana Gage, 1854&mdash;Mrs. Bloomer Before the
Territorial Legislature, 1856&mdash;Mrs. Martha H. Brinkerhoff&mdash;Mrs.
Annie Savery, 1868&mdash;County Associations Formed in 1869&mdash;State
Society Organized at Mt. Pleasant, 1870, Henry O'Connor,
President&mdash;Mrs. Cutler Answers Judge Palmer&mdash;First Annual
Meeting, Des Moines&mdash;Letter from Bishop Simpson&mdash;The State
Register Complimentary&mdash;Mass-Meeting at the Capitol&mdash;Mrs. Savery
and Mrs. Harbert&mdash;Legislative Action&mdash;Methodist and Universalist
Churches Indorse Woman Suffrage&mdash;Republican Plank, 1874&mdash;Governor
Carpenter's Message, 1876&mdash;Annual Meeting, 1882, Many Clergymen
Present&mdash;Five Hundred Editors Interviewed&mdash;Miss Hindman and Mrs.
Campbell&mdash;Mrs. Callanan Interviews Governor Sherman,
1884&mdash;Lawyers&mdash;Governor Kirkwood Appoints Women to Office&mdash;County
Superintendents&mdash;Elizabeth S. Cook&mdash;Journalism&mdash;Literature&mdash;
Medicine&mdash;Ministry&mdash;Inventions&mdash;President of a National Bank&mdash;
The Heroic Kate Shelly&mdash;Temperance&mdash;Improvement in the Laws. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">The</span> euphonious Indian name, Iowa, signifying "the beautiful land,"
is peculiarly appropriate to those gently undulating prairies,
decorated in the season of flowers with a brilliant garniture of
honey-suckles, jassamines, wild roses and violets, watered with a
chain of picturesque lakes and rivers, chasing each other into the
bosom of the boundless Mississippi. The motto on the great seal of
the State, "Our liberties we prize and our rights we will
maintain," is the key-note to the successive struggles made there
to build up a community of moral, virtuous, intelligent people,
securing justice, liberty and equality to all. Iowa has been the
State to give large Republican majorities; to prohibit the
manufacture and sale of intoxicating liquors by a constitutional
amendment; and to present propositions before her legislature for
eight successive sessions to give the right of suffrage to woman.
In the article on Iowa, in the American Cyclopædia, the writer
says: "No distinction is made in law between the husband and the
wife in regard to property. One-third in value of all the real
estate of either, upon the death of the other, goes to the survivor
in fee simple. Neither is liable for the separate debts of the
other. The wife may make contracts and incur liabilities which may
be enforced<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_613" id="Page_613">[Pg 613]</a></span> by or against her in the same manner as if she was
unmarried; and so a married woman may sue and be sued without the
husband being joined in the action." Many women living in Iowa
often quote these laws with pride, showing the liberality of their
rulers as far as they go. But in new countries the number of women
that inherit property is very small compared to the number that
work all their days to help pay for their humble homes. It is in
the right to these joint earnings where the wife is most cruelly
defrauded, because the mother of a large family, who washes, irons,
cooks, bakes, patches and darns, takes care of the children, labors
from early dawn to midnight in her own home, is not supposed to
earn anything, hence owns nothing, and all the labors of a long
life, the results of her thrift and economy, belong absolutely to
the husband, so that when he dies they call it liberality for the
husband to make his partner an heir, and give her one-third of
their joint earnings.</p>

<p>For this chapter we are indebted to Mrs. Amelia Bloomer, who moved
into this State from New York in the spring of 1855 with her
husband, who commenced the practice of law in Council Bluffs, where
they have resided ever since. Mrs. Bloomer had been the editor for
several years of a weekly paper called the <i>Lily</i>, which advocated
both temperance and woman's rights, and for the six years of its
publication was of inestimable value alike to both reforms. She was
one of the earliest champions of the woman's rights movement, and
as writer, editor and lecturer, did much to forward the cause in
its infancy.<a name="FNanchor_395_395" id="FNanchor_395_395"></a><a href="#Footnote_395_395" class="fnanchor">[395]</a></p>

<blockquote><p>The first agitation of the question of woman suffrage in Iowa was
in the summer of 1854, when Frances Dana Gage of Ohio gave a
series of lectures in the southeastern section of the State on
temperance and woman's rights. Letters written to <i>Lily</i> at the
time show that large audiences congregated to see and hear a
woman publicly proclaiming the wrongs of her sex, and demanding
equal rights before the law. During the year 1855 the writer gave
several lectures at Council Bluffs, and in January,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_614" id="Page_614">[Pg 614]</a></span> 1856, by
invitation, addressed the second territorial legislature of
Nebraska, in Representative Hall, Omaha; and in the year
following lectured in Council Bluffs, Omaha, Nebraska City,
Glenwood and other towns.</p>

<p>In 1868 Mrs. Martha H. Brinkerhoff made a very successful
lecture-tour through the northern counties of Iowa. She roused
great interest and organized many societies, canvassing meanwhile
for subscribers to <i>The Revolution</i>. In the same year Mrs. Annie
C. Savery gave a lecture for the benefit of a blind editor at Des
Moines. In February, 1870, by invitation, she responded to a
toast at a Masonic festival in that city; and during that and the
year following she lectured in several places on woman suffrage,
and wrote many able articles for the press.</p>

<p>On April 17, 1869, the "Northern Woman Suffrage Association" was
organized at Dubuque.<a name="FNanchor_396_396" id="FNanchor_396_396"></a><a href="#Footnote_396_396" class="fnanchor">[396]</a> This was the first society in Iowa,
though about the same time others were being organized in
different localities. J. L. McCreery, in his editorial position,
advocated the enfranchisement of woman, and wrote an able paper
in favor of the object of the organization. Mrs. Mary N. Adams
opened a correspondence with friends of the movement in other
parts of the State; Henry O'Connor, Mary A. Livermore and others
lectured before the society, thus educating the people into a
better understanding of woman's rights and needs. Mrs. Adams not
only addressed the home society, but gave lectures before lyceums
and educational institutions.</p>

<p>Des Moines has always maintained the most successful organization
having a band of earnest women enlisted in the work, and being
the capital of the State, where every opportunity was afforded to
facilitate their efforts. The liberality of the press, too, aided
vastly in moulding public sentiment in favor of the cause. About
the earliest work done in that city was in June, 1870, when
Hannah Tracy Cutler and Amelia Bloomer (immediately on returning
from the formation of the State Society at Mt. Pleasant) held two
meetings there&mdash;one in the open air on the grounds where the new
capitol now stands, on the question of temperance, Sunday
afternoon, presided over by Governor Merrill; the other in the
Baptist Church, on woman suffrage, the following evening, Mrs.
Annie C. Savery presiding.</p>

<p>The Polk County Woman Suffrage Society was formed October 25, and
has never failed to hold its meetings regularly each month since
that time. Every congress and every legislature have been
appealed to by petitions signed by thousands of the best
citizens, and it is on record that the senators and
representatives of Polk county, with one exception,<a name="FNanchor_397_397" id="FNanchor_397_397"></a><a href="#Footnote_397_397" class="fnanchor">[397]</a> have
always voted in favor of submitting the question of woman's
enfranchisement to the electors of the State. When men are talked
of for legislative honors they are interviewed by a committee
from the society, and pledges secured that they will vote "aye"
on any woman suffrage bill that may come before them.</p>

<p>This society has from time to time engaged the services of
prominent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_615" id="Page_615">[Pg 615]</a></span> lecturers,<a name="FNanchor_398_398" id="FNanchor_398_398"></a><a href="#Footnote_398_398" class="fnanchor">[398]</a> and nearly all of the ministers and
lawyers of the city have given addresses in favor of the cause.
Only one minister has openly and bitterly opposed the measure,
and his sermon on the "Subordination of Woman," published in the
<i>Register</i>, called out spirited replies from Mrs. Savery and Mrs.
Bloomer in the same journal, which completely demolished the
flimsy fancies of the gentleman.</p>

<p>About 1874 Mrs. Maria Orwig edited a column in the <i>Record</i>, and
Mary A. Work a column in the <i>Republican</i>. Since 1880, Mesdames
Hunter, Orwig, Woods and Work have filled two columns in <i>The
Prohibitionist</i>, of which Laura A. Berry is one of the editors.
Mrs. M. J. Coggeshall has for several years served the society as
reporter for the <i>Register</i>, proving herself a very ready and
interesting writer. All of these ladies are efficient and
untiring in whatever pertains to woman's interest.<a name="FNanchor_399_399" id="FNanchor_399_399"></a><a href="#Footnote_399_399" class="fnanchor">[399]</a> The
<i>Register</i> says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The field of labor in Des Moines is pretty well occupied by the
ladies. You will find them at the desks in the county and United
States court-houses, in the pension office, in the insurance
office, in the State offices, behind the counters in stores, in
attorneys' offices&mdash;and there is one woman who assists her
husband at the blacksmith's trade, and she can strike as hard a
blow with a sledge as the brawniest workman in the shop. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the autumn of 1870 a society was organized at Burlington, with
fifty members. One of the earliest advocates of the cause in this
place was Mary A. P. Darwin, president of the association, who
lectured through the southern tier of counties during the summer of
1870. She was an earnest and forcible speaker.</p>

<p>At Oskaloosa the opening work was done in 1854 by Frances D. Gage,
who gave four lectures there, and roused the people to thought and
discussion. Mattie Griffith Davenport has long filled a prominent
place in the woman suffrage movement in that city. She commenced
lecturing in 1868, and during that and the two succeeding years
traveled over much of the State, speaking upon temperance and
woman's rights. During 1879 she edited a column of the Davenport
<i>News</i> in the interest of suffrage. In the summer of 1870 Mrs.
Cutler and Mrs. Bloomer held two meetings in Oskaloosa, in one of
which a gentleman engaged in the discussions, and as is usual in
such encounters, the women having right and justice on their side,
came out the victors; at least so said the listeners. Following
this a Woman's Suffrage Society was organized.<a name="FNanchor_400_400" id="FNanchor_400_400"></a><a href="#Footnote_400_400" class="fnanchor">[400]</a> Many prominent
speakers lectured here in turn, and helped to keep up the interest.</p>

<p>Council Bluffs also organized a society<a name="FNanchor_401_401" id="FNanchor_401_401"></a><a href="#Footnote_401_401" class="fnanchor">[401]</a> in 1870, holding
frequent meetings and sociables. There is here a large element in
favor of the ballot<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_616" id="Page_616">[Pg 616]</a></span> for woman; and though we are unfortunate in
not having an advocate in the press, still Council Bluffs will give
a good report of itself when the question of woman's
enfranchisement shall come before the electors for action. The
trustees of the public library of this city are women; the
librarian is a woman: the post-office is in the hands of a woman;
the teachers in the public schools, with one or two exceptions, are
women; the principal of the high school is a woman; and a large
number of the clerks in the dry goods stores are women. Miss
Ingelletta Smith received the nomination of the Republican party
for school superintendent in the fall of 1881, but was defeated by
her Democratic competitor.</p>

<p>Marshalltown had a suffrage organization as early as July,
1870.<a name="FNanchor_402_402" id="FNanchor_402_402"></a><a href="#Footnote_402_402" class="fnanchor">[402]</a> Nettie Sanford lectured in several of the central
counties of the State during that and the previous year. Josephine
Guthrie, professor of Belles-Lettres at Le Grand College, in a
series of able articles in the Marshalltown <i>Times</i> in 1869,
claimed for women equality of rights before the law. In 1873, Aubie
Gifford, a woman of high culture and an experienced teacher, was
elected to the office of county superintendent of the public
schools of Marshall county, by a handsome majority; she was
reëlected, serving, in all, four years.</p>

<p>At Algona a society<a name="FNanchor_403_403" id="FNanchor_403_403"></a><a href="#Footnote_403_403" class="fnanchor">[403]</a> was formed in 1871. At the annual meeting
of the State Society at Des Moines, in 1873, Lizzie B. Read
delivered an address entitled, "Coming Up Out of the Wilderness,"
and in July, 1875, at a mass-meeting at Clear Lake, one on "The
Bible in Favor of Woman Suffrage." Mrs. Read, formerly as Miss
Bunnel, published a paper called the <i>Mayflower</i>, at Peru, Indiana,
and in 1865 a county paper in this State called the <i>Upper Des
Moines</i>.</p>

<p>Since 1875 Jackson county has had an efficient Equal Rights
Society.<a name="FNanchor_404_404" id="FNanchor_404_404"></a><a href="#Footnote_404_404" class="fnanchor">[404]</a> On July 4, 1876, Nancy R. Allen, at the general
celebration at Maquoketa, the county-seat, read the "Protest and
Declaration of Rights," issued by the National Association from its
Centennial Parlors in Philadelphia. It was well received by the
majority of the people assembled; but, as usual, there were some
objectors. The Presbyterian minister published a series of articles
in the <i>Sentinel</i>, to each of which Mrs. Allen replied ably
defending the principles of the Woman Suffrage party. The Maquoketa
Equal Rights Society celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of the
woman's rights movement July 19, 1878, by holding a public meeting
in Dr. Allen's grounds, in the shade of the grand old trees. It was
a large gathering, and many prominent gentlemen of the city, by
their presence and words of cheer, gave dignity to the occasion.
Jackson county has long honored women with positions of trust. The
deputy recorder is a woman; Mrs. Allen was notary public; Mrs.
Patton was nominated for auditor by the Greenback party in 1880,
but was defeated with the rest of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_617" id="Page_617">[Pg 617]</a></span> the ticket. Women are
book-keepers, merchants, clerks, teachers; and, in fact, almost
every avenue is open to them.</p>

<p>Of Fort Dodge, Mrs. Haviland writes: "The subject has never been
much agitated here. I have stood almost alone these long years,
watching the work done by my sisters in other parts of the State,
and hoping the time would soon come when some move could be made in
this place. Last spring the annual meeting of our State Society was
held here, but it was with difficulty that I found places where the
few who came could be entertained, people were so afraid of woman's
rights. After the refusal of the other churches, the Baptists
opened theirs; the crowd of curious ones looked on and seemed
surprised when they failed to discover the 'horns.'" Mrs. A. M.
Swain also writes: "Miss Anthony came here first in June, 1871, and
has been here twice since. Mrs. Swisshelm was here in 1874. Both
were my guests when no other doors were open to the advocates of
woman suffrage. The late convention of the State Society held here
was a decided success; the best class of ladies attended; the
dignity and ability shown in the management, and the many
interesting and logical papers read disarmed all criticism and
awakened genuine interest. I have handed in my ballot for several
years, but it has never been received or counted."</p>

<p>Societies were organized in 1869 and 1870, in Independence and
Monticello. Humboldt, Nevada, West Union, Corning, Osceola,
Muscatine, Sigourney, Garden Grove, Decorah, Hamburg, and scores of
other towns have their local societies. At West Liberty Mrs. Mary
V. Cowgill and her good husband are liberal contributors to the
work, both State and National.</p>

<p>At a convention held at Mt. Pleasant, June 17, 18, 1870, different
sections of the State being well represented, the Iowa Woman
Suffrage Society<a name="FNanchor_405_405" id="FNanchor_405_405"></a><a href="#Footnote_405_405" class="fnanchor">[405]</a> was formed. Belle Mansfield, president, Frank
Hatton,<a name="FNanchor_406_406" id="FNanchor_406_406"></a><a href="#Footnote_406_406" class="fnanchor">[406]</a> editor of the Mt. Pleasant <i>Journal</i>, secretary. W.R.
Cole opened the convention with prayer. After many able addresses
from various speakers,<a name="FNanchor_407_407" id="FNanchor_407_407"></a><a href="#Footnote_407_407" class="fnanchor">[407]</a> in response to an invitation from the
president, Judge Palmer in a somewhat excited manner stated his
objections to woman's voting. He wanted some guarantee that good
would result from giving her the ballot. He thought "she did not
understand driving, and would upset the sleigh. Men had always
rowed the boat, and therefore always should. Men had more force and
muscle than women, and therefore should have all the power in their
hands." He spoke of himself as the guardian of his wife, and said
she did not want to vote. After talking an hour in this style, he
took his seat, greatly to the relief of his hearers. Mrs. Cutler,
in her<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_618" id="Page_618">[Pg 618]</a></span> calm, dignified, deliberate manner, answered his arguments.
She proved conclusively that muscular force was not the power most
needed in our government. If it were, all the little, weak men and
women, no matter how intellectual must stand aside, and let only
the strong, muscular do the voting and governing. In clearness of
perception, and readiness of debate, she distanced her opponent
altogether in the opinion of the convention.</p>

<p>The first annual meeting of the State Society was held at Des
Moines, October 19, 1871. Mrs. Bloomer presided<a name="FNanchor_408_408" id="FNanchor_408_408"></a><a href="#Footnote_408_408" class="fnanchor">[408]</a> in the absence
of the president, Gen. O'Connor. Speakers had been engaged for this
convention, a good representation secured, and every arrangement
made for a successful meeting. And such it was, barring a
difference of opinion among the friends of the movement as to what
questions should properly come before a society whose only object,
as declared in its constitution, was to secure suffrage for women.
The following letters were received:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Iowa City,</span> October 11, 1871.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Annie Savery</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Madam</i>: Your kind and very flattering
invitation to address the Woman's State Suffrage Convention, in
Des Moines, reached me just prior to my departure for this city,
and I avail myself of my first leisure to respond. It would not
only give me great pleasure, but I should esteem it among my
higher duties to accept your invitation, and give my emphatic
endorsement to the great reform movement represented by the woman
suffrage convention, were it at all practicable. But I have just
reached my new charge, and can not dispose of immediate pressing
claims upon my time and effort here. Please accept my apology for
declining, and believe me, ever yours for woman's
enfranchisement.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">C. R. Pomeroy.</p>


<p class="ltr-break ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Indianola</span>, Sept. 30, 1871.</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">Annie Savery</span>&mdash;<i>Madam</i>: I am in receipt of your letter,
asking me to take part in your annual convention. I thank you for
the honor, as I expect from such a convention results the most
salutary, not only to the condition of woman, but also to the
progress of our young and vigorous commonwealth. I have read
carefully the circular enclosed in your letter, and consider the
logic irrefutable, and its suggestions well worthy the attention
of all who desire the complete enfranchisement of woman. I fear
that I shall not be able to attend, but if I am, I shall be with
you, should I do no more than say "Amen" to the words of my
eloquent countryman, O'Connor, whom I learn you have honored with
the presidency of your association. Wishing for your cause the
fullest success, I subscribe myself&mdash;one for the enfranchisement
of woman.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Alexander Burns.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>A letter was also received from Bishop Matthew Simpson, of the
Methodist church, who was always ready to declare his adherence to
this great reform:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Owatoma</span>, Oct. 2, 1871.</p>

<p>Hon. <span class="smcap">J. Harlan</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Senator</i>: Yours, inclosing Mrs. Savery's
kind invitation, was received before I left Mankota. I would be
pleased to comply with her invitation, joined as it is with your
earnest solicitation. But I am under bonds&mdash;if not to keep the
peace, at least to keep silence&mdash;so far as either sermons or
public addresses are concerned, until the full restoration of my
health. I am glad to say my health is improving. I have presided
at five conferences this fall&mdash;two still await me. But I have not
ventured any extra labor, nor dare I for some time to come.
Please convey to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_619" id="Page_619">[Pg 619]</a></span> Mrs. Savery my thanks for her kind invitation,
and say to her that I sympathize fully with the suffrage
association in its desire to attain for women the ballot. </p></blockquote>

<p>A series of resolutions was discussed, other letters read, and a
large number of new converts joined the association. The <i>State
Register</i> spoke in a very complimentary manner of the deliberations
of this convention:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is but just, perhaps, that we should say, in general terms, of
the State woman suffrage convention, in session in Des Moines the
past week, that its proceedings were characterized with good
sense, dignity, and the best of order. The world has had an
impression for five or six thousand years that women cannot talk
without wrangling, counsel without confusion. Again, many are so
unjust as to imagine that a convention composed of ladies,
assembled to discuss serious subjects, can be nothing more than a
quilting party or tattlers' club enlarged and let loose.</p>

<p>We have never seen a convention conducted with more decorum, or a
greater degree of intelligent accord exhibited in the routine of
proceedings, than was noticeable in this first annual gathering
of the friends of suffrage in Iowa. A majority of the members
were women. They opened the convention and conducted the
discussions with a spirit and in a manner after which men might
well pattern. In some respects, the ladies who took the lead,
showed themselves better posted in general information, in all
matters of deliberation, than men.</p>

<p>We would not endorse all that was done at the convention, but we
would be fair enough to give to it the meed of having been, in
all respects, well conducted. The convention strengthened those
in whose name it met, not only among themselves, but with the
public. All who attended it were impressed with the conviction
that its members were earnest and honest, and could see that they
were intelligent and well armed. Whatever it may have done
directly, and that we know was much, it accomplished more good
for its cause by impressing the public mind that its adherents in
Iowa are banded together in union, and bound to make every
honorable effort for success. </p></blockquote>

<p>In January, 1872, I received a letter from a very prominent member
of the legislature, from which the following is an extract:</p>

<blockquote><p>After consultation I believe the House would resolve itself into
committee of the whole (when senators would be likely also to
come in), and hear you on the question of woman suffrage. Should
you desire to press it to vote this session, I should advise that
course. As to the time of your hearing, it should be in the day,
and appointed soon after the recess. We meet again on February
13. I think it could be arranged for Friday, the 16th, if
agreeable to you.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF sc">John A. Kasson.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">With kind regards,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Notwithstanding this kind proposal of Mr. Kasson, I did not act
upon his suggestion. But Mrs. Harbert and Mrs. Savery, feeling that
something must be done, had the courage and the conscience, on
their individual responsibility, to call a mass-meeting at the
capitol on the evening previous to the day appointed for the vote
on the amendment in the House. Mrs. Harbert presided and opened the
meeting with an earnest appeal; Mrs. Savery, Mr. C.P. Holmes,
Senator Converse, and Governor Carpenter, made eloquent speeches.
The governor, in opening his address said he voted to strike
"black" from the constitution sixteen years ago, and would then, as
now, had the opportunity been presented, have voted to strike out
"male."</p>

<p>On the following day when the amendment came up in the House for
the final vote, it was carried by 58 to 39. In the Senate there was
a spirited discussion, Hon. Charles Beardsley making an earnest
speech in favor of the resolution. The vote on engrossing the bill
for the third<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_620" id="Page_620">[Pg 620]</a></span> reading stood 26 ayes to 20 nays. Hope ran high with
the friends; but alas! on a final vote, taken but a few minutes
later, the bill was lost by 24 nays to 22 ayes.<a name="FNanchor_409_409" id="FNanchor_409_409"></a><a href="#Footnote_409_409" class="fnanchor">[409]</a> The general
sentiment was well stated by the Iowa <i>State Register</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Senate disposed of the woman suffrage question yesterday by
voting it down. We think it made a mistake. Certainly there was,
at the lowest count, thirty out of every hundred voters in the
State who desired to have this legislature ratify the action of
the last Assembly, and submit the question at the polls this
fall. The Republican party has its own record to meet here. The
first time the negro suffrage question was submitted to the
people of Iowa, it was submitted by a Republican legislature, and
the submission was made when not over one voter in a hundred
desired it done. This latter thing was a plain proposition, a
most justly preferred petition. The people who were anxious to
have the question submitted, are, it is confidently claimed, in
majority. We think their wishes might well and fitly have been
granted. Even those who were opposed to them must see that the
advocates of the reform will now have a chance to claim that the
opponents of it are afraid to go with them to the people. This is
not merely a defeat for the present year, but practically for
four years. Our State constitution can be amended only after two
legislatures have acted upon the amendment, and the people have
voted upon it. The legislature of two years ago passed the
resolution voted down yesterday. Now, we presume, it will have to
take another start. Four years of waiting and working before the
friends of the reform can be given a chance to get a verdict from
the people, is a long and painful ordeal. It will not be endured
with patience. It would be asking too much of human nature to
expect that. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the annual convention of 1874, at Des Moines, Bishop Gilbert
Haven of the Methodist Episcopal Church, a clear and liberal
thinker, made a very impressive speech on the power woman could
wield with the ballot in her own hand in making our towns and
cities safe for our sons and daughters to live in. This year, the
Des Moines annual conference of the M. E. Church passed resolutions
advocating woman suffrage as a great moral reform; while the State
convention of the Universalist Association in its resolution said:
"This convention recognizes that women are entitled to all the
social, religious, and political rights which men enjoy."</p>

<p>At the Diocesan Convention held at Davenport May 1881, the
Episcopal Church took a step forward by striking the word male out
of a canon, thus enabling women to vote for vestrymen, a right
hitherto withheld. It is but a straw in the right direction, but
"straws show which way the wind blows," and we may hope for more
good things to follow.</p>

<p>The Republican party, in convention assembled, at Des Moines, July
1, 1874, inserted the following, as the tenth plank of its
platform:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That since the people may be entrusted with all
questions of governmental reform, we favor the final submission
to them of the question of amending the constitution so as to
extend the right of suffrage to women, pursuant to the action of
the fifteenth General Assembly. </p></blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_621" id="Page_621">[Pg 621]</a></span></p>

<p>The reading of the resolution called forth cheers of approval, and
was adopted without a dissenting vote, Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton
Harbert is entitled to great credit for this "woman's plank," she
having gone before the committee on resolutions and made an earnest
appeal for woman's recognition by the Republican party. The <i>State
Record</i> said:</p>

<blockquote><p>When the Republicans, in national convention, recognized woman,
and gave her a plank in the platform of the party, it reflected
back a spirit of justice and progress which is looked for in vain
in the party opposing, of whatever name. But when the Republicans
of Iowa gave to a woman the privilege of bringing in a plank of
her own production, and that plank was added to the State
platform without a dissenting voice, it placed Iowa, men and
women alike, in the vanguard of the world's onward march to a
more rational life, more even justice, and purer government.</p>

<p>In the Republican State platform of Iowa is the first real and
purely woman's plank that ever entered into any political
platform&mdash;because it originated in the brain of woman. It was by
a woman carried to the committee, and in response to an able,
dignified, and true womanly appeal, it was accepted, and by the
convention incorporated into the platform of the party. It may
seem to be a small plank, but it has strength and durability. It
is the live oak of a living principle, that will remain sound
while other planks of greater bulk around it will have served
their purpose and wasted away.</p>

<p>It argues thus: if woman is competent to present a political
issue, clothed in her own language, with a dignity and modesty
that silence opposition, is she not competent to exercise with
prudence and intelligence the elective franchise? and would she
not, if entrusted with it, exercise it for the elevation of a
common humanity? The <i>Record</i> tenders hearty congratulations not
only to Mrs. Harbert, who we know will bear the honors modestly,
but also to those who by their presence in the convention gave
encouragement to greater respect for woman's wishes, and by whose
work is demonstrated woman's fitness to be in truth a helpmeet
for man. We had a mother, and have sisters, wife, and daughter,
and that is why we would have woman enjoy every privilege and
opportunity to be useful to herself and her country that we claim
for ourself. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the annual meeting of 1875, held at Oskaloosa, the following
letter from the governor of the State was received:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Executive Department</span>, Des Moines, Iowa.
</p>

<p>Mrs. <span class="smcap">R. G. Orwig</span>, <i>Cor. Sec. I. W. S. S.&mdash;Dear Madam</i>: I have
your letter inviting me to be present at your annual meeting.
Thanking you and the association for the consideration implied, I
have to express my regrets that business of an official character
will prevent me from coming. I hope your proceedings may be
characterized by such wisdom, moderation, and sincerity as to
advance the cause to which your efforts are given. I have never
been able to discover any argument to sustain my own right to
vote that does not equally apply to woman. Whether my right is
founded upon the interest I have, in common with my fellows, in
the preservation of the free institutions of my country; or upon
the protection of my personal interests as a citizen; or upon my
right to a voice in the creation of laws to which I am held
amenable; or upon my right to influence by a vote the direction
given to revenues which I am taxed to help supply; or upon any
other right, personal, political or moral, I have never been able
to see why the reasons which make the vote valuable to me do not
apply with equal force to woman. You doubtless think your efforts
are comparatively fruitless; but I need not tell you that while
your agitation has failed, so far, to bring you the ballot, it
has ameliorated the condition of woman in very many particulars.
Her property rights are better protected; her sphere of activity
has been enlarged, and her influence for good is more widely
recognized. So I wish you well. Yours truly,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">C. C. Carpenter.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_622" id="Page_622">[Pg 622]</a></span></p>

<p>This year women were members of a lay delegation in the Methodist
conference, and also lay delegates to the Presbyterian synod. And
in two or three instances women have been invited to address these
bodies, and have received a vote of thanks. Many of the orthodox
clergy are openly advocating our cause, and in some instances women
have been invited by them to occupy their desks on Sunday to preach
the Gospel to the people. This is a wonderful advance in sentiment
since 1852, when in New York the clergy would not permit women to
speak, even on temperance in a public hall.</p>

<p>In 1876 the society secured the services of Matilda Hindman, of
Pittsburg, Pa., who traveled over the greater part of the State,
lecturing and organizing societies, and was everywhere spoken of as
an eloquent and logical speaker. She was followed by Margaret W.
Campbell, and those who know her feel that the State gained in her
a valuable friend in everything pertaining to the interests of
woman. What is said of Miss Hindman as a speaker may also be said
of Mrs. Campbell.</p>

<p>The first governor of Iowa to officially recognize woman's right to
the ballot was the Hon. C. C. Carpenter, who in his message to the
General Assembly of 1876, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The proposed amendment to the constitution, adopted by your
predecessors, and which requires your sanction before being
submitted to the voters of the State, will come before you. I
venture to suggest, that the uniform expression in Wyoming
Territory, where woman suffrage is a fact, is favorable to its
continuance, and that wherever in Europe and America women have
voted for school or minor officers the influence of their
suffrage has been beneficent; and in view of the peculiar
appropriateness of submitting this question in this year, 1876,
when all America is celebrating achievements which were inspired
by the doctrine that taxation and representation are of right
inseparable, it is recommended that you give the people of Iowa
an opportunity to express their judgment upon the proposed
amendment at the ballot-box. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the request of the State Association, Miss Matilda Hindman was
granted a hearing before the legislature, and most respectful
attention was accorded to her able address. Miss Anthony was also
invited, and, at the suggestion of Mrs. Savery, she engaged the
opera-house. The seats reserved for the members were all filled,
and every part of the house occupied. The day following, the vote
in the House was taken, and carried by 54 to 40. After a careful
canvass of the Senate, it was found that there were ten votes to
spare; but alas! when the day for final action came the amendment
was lost by one vote.<a name="FNanchor_410_410" id="FNanchor_410_410"></a><a href="#Footnote_410_410" class="fnanchor">[410]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_623" id="Page_623">[Pg 623]</a></span></a></p>

<p>In 1880 Senator Gaylord of Floyd county made a speech, giving
twenty-one reasons why he voted against the submission of the
proposition for the enfranchisement of women, which was published
in full in the Des Moines <i>Register</i>, and thus sent broadcast over
the State. Mrs. Bloomer replied to Mr. Floyd through the same
paper, meeting and refuting every objection, thus in a measure
antidoting the poisonous influence of the senator's pronunciamento.</p>

<p>In the spring of this year Dr. Harriette Bottsford and Mrs. Jane C.
McKinney were appointed by a caucus of Republican women, to the
Powesheik county convention, to choose delegates to the State
convention. They presented their credentials to the committee, and
the chairman reported them as delegates. On motion, they were
accepted&mdash;but some men soon bethought them that this was
establishing a bad precedent, and began maneuvering to get rid of
them. This was finally done by declaring the delegation full
without them&mdash;two men having been quietly appointed to fill
vacancies after the ladies had presented their credentials. Mrs.
McKinney made a spicy speech, saying they did not expect to be
received as delegates, but wished to remind the men that women were
citizens, tax-payers and Republicans, but unrepresented.</p>

<p>At the Greenback State convention of 1881, Mrs. Mary E. Nash was
nominated as the candidate of that party for State superintendent
of schools. Mrs. Nash declined the honor intended, and said that
her political flag, if it were to float at all, would be found in
another camp. She would not desert her colors for office. In 1884
Mrs. H. J. Bellangee and Mrs. A. M. Swain were regularly accredited
delegates to the National Greenback convention, held at
Indianapolis, Ind., to nominate a candidate for the presidency,
where they were received with the greatest courtesy.</p>

<p>The annual meeting of 1882, at Des Moines, was remarkable for the
number of clergymen, representing nearly all the different
denominations, who took part in its proceedings, each of the nine
seeming to vie with the others in expressing his belief that the
ballot for woman, as for man, was a right, not a privilege. Bishop
Hurst of the M. E. Church, made an able speech. The executive
committee sent a memorial to the Republican convention, held in
June for the nomination of State officers, asking a plank in their
platform favoring the submission of the woman suffrage amendment.
The request was not granted. Leading politicians who professed to
believe in equality of rights for women feared that to do so would
make too heavy a weight for the party to carry, it having already
incorporated a prohibition plank in its platform. The committee
also interviewed 500 editors, asking them to open the columns of
their papers to the advocacy of woman suffrage. One hundred and
twenty replied favorably, while many were courteous and others
brusque in their refusals.</p>

<p>A committee on legislation (Mrs. Narcissa T. Bemis, chairman) did
good<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_624" id="Page_624">[Pg 624]</a></span> work during this session of the legislature, and also
published a tract composed of contributions from twelve leading
ministers of the State, called "The Clergymen's Tract." This was
sent broadcast. Nine hundred of the clergy were favored with a
copy. The Ministerial Association, held in Des Moines, passed the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That we are heartily in favor of woman suffrage as
advocated by your association, and regard the same as a proper
subject for pulpit-teaching, and, as opportunity offers of
furthering said cause in our pulpit ministry, we will avail
ourselves of the same. </p></blockquote>

<p>During this year the State Society contributed liberally to the
Nebraska campaign. Mrs. Nancy R. Allen and Mrs. Mary B. Lee each
left a small legacy to the association.</p>

<p>Of the annual meeting of 1883,<a name="FNanchor_411_411" id="FNanchor_411_411"></a><a href="#Footnote_411_411" class="fnanchor">[411]</a> held at Ottumwa, the local
papers gave full and fair reports; while 200 papers of the State
published a condensed statement prepared by the secretary. Miss
Hindman and Mrs. Campbell were again invited to the State. No
grander work than theirs was ever done in Iowa. There is scarcely a
county which they have not canvassed; holding meetings, forming
associations, circulating petitions, distributing tracts, preaching
on Sundays in the churches, traveling, often for months at a time,
without a pledge of pecuniary aid, depending for their expenses
wholly on funds contributed at their meetings.</p>

<p>The State convention of 1884 met at the Christian Church at Des
Moines; Mrs. Nacissa T. Bemis presided. Mrs. Helen M. Gougar of
Indiana was one of the speakers. A committee, of which Mrs. Martha
C. Callanan was chairman, interviewed the governor, asking a
recognition of woman's right of suffrage, and were told it should
receive consideration. Accordingly, in his message to the
legislature, Governor Sherman said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Your attention is respectfully directed to the question of
impartial suffrage, in respect to which the nineteenth General
Assembly proposed an amendment to the constitution. Should this
meet your approval, as preliminary to taking the judgment of the
voters, I recommend that it be submitted at a special election,
in order that it may be freed from the influence of partisan
politics, and thus receive an unprejudiced vote of our citizens.
Not caring to here express an opinion upon the question itself,
it is sufficient to say that now, as heretofore, I am in favor of
the submission of any question which is of importance and general
interest. </p></blockquote>

<p>Governor Sherman also gave it as his opinion that a good woman
should be placed on the board of trustees of every public
institution. This was the second time that an Iowa governor had
referred to this great political question in his message to the
General Assembly, Governor Carpenter having heartily indorsed the
measure in 1876. It is said, however, that Governor Newbold had
written a clause on the subject in his message in 1878, but that it
was suppressed by the careful counsel of some guardian angel of his
party.</p>

<p>Previous to the assembling of this legislature, petitions had been
widely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_625" id="Page_625">[Pg 625]</a></span> circulated,<a name="FNanchor_412_412" id="FNanchor_412_412"></a><a href="#Footnote_412_412" class="fnanchor">[412]</a> praying for the submission of the
amendment. Over 6,000 signatures were obtained. Each petition was
placed in the hands of a senator or member from the county in which
the names were gathered, for presentation in the respective Houses.</p>

<p>For fifteen consecutive years the State Society has met annually,
made reports, passed resolutions, elected officers, listened to
speeches and transacted what other business has come before it.
Though its anniversaries have usually been held at Des Moines, its
influence through the press has pervaded the whole State. Since
1875, the annual meetings have been held in different cities<a name="FNanchor_413_413" id="FNanchor_413_413"></a><a href="#Footnote_413_413" class="fnanchor">[413]</a>
outside the capital, thus giving the people of all sections of the
State an opportunity to participate in the deliberations. Petitions
to the legislature and to congress have been circulated by the
society, delegates sent to the conventions of the National and
American Suffrage Associations,<a name="FNanchor_414_414" id="FNanchor_414_414"></a><a href="#Footnote_414_414" class="fnanchor">[414]</a> and letters addressed to the
delegates of the State and National nominating conventions of the
political parties, asking for a recognition of woman's right to the
ballot in their platforms.</p>

<p>A brief recital of the proceedings of the Iowa legislature will
show that a large majority of the Representatives have been in
favor of submitting the question of woman suffrage to a direct vote
of the men of the State. The proposition was first presented in the
House by Hon. John P. Irish, in 1870. The resolution passed both
Houses with very little debate, was approved by the governor, and
submitted to the next General Assembly. In the session of 1872 it
was discussed in both Houses at considerable length, and again
passed in the Lower House by the strong vote of 58 ayes to 39 nays;
while in the Senate it was lost by only two majority. The House has
never failed at any session since that time, until 1884, to give a
majority in its favor; but the Senate has not made for itself so
good a record. In 1872 the vote in the Senate stood: ayes, 22;
nays, 24. In 1876 it was lost by one vote; and in 1880 lost on
engrossment. In 1884 the tables were turned; when the amendment
came up in the twentieth General Assembly for ratification, the
Senate passed the bill, while the House, for the first time,
defeated it by a small majority.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_626" id="Page_626">[Pg 626]</a></span></p>

<p>By the constitution of Iowa an amendment must be approved by two
consecutive legislatures, convened in regular session. When so
approved it is then submitted to the popular vote of the electors.
As in this State the legislature meets but once in two years, the
reader can see how easily a bill passed at one session may, two
years later, be defeated by the election of new members who are
opposed to it. And thus through all these years those who claim the
ballot for woman in this State have been elated or depressed by the
action of each succeeding legislature.</p>

<p>The thirteenth General Assembly not only earned a good name for
enlightened statesmanship by passing the constitutional amendment
in favor of woman suffrage, but it also, by chapter 21, approved
March 8, 1870, passed an act admitting women to the practice of
law. It was under this that Judith Ellen Foster&mdash;so widely known as
an eloquent lecturer and able lawyer&mdash;Annie C. Savery, Mrs. Emma
Haddock, Louisa H. Albert, Jessie M. Johnson, and several others
have passed the necessary examination and been admitted to practice
as attorneys and counselors in all the courts of the State. Mrs.
Arabella Mansfield was admitted to the bar in 1869, just a year
previous to the enactment of the law.</p>

<p>Miss Linda M. Ramsey, now Mrs. Hartzell, was employed as a clerk by
Adjutant-General Baker in 1864, and held the office for some time
after the war closed. The <i>Record</i> says she was the first woman
regularly employed and paid by the State for clerical services.
Miss Augusta Matthews served as military secretary for Governor
Stone during the war under pay of the State.</p>

<p>It was the thirteenth General Assembly, 1870, that first elected a
woman, Miss Mary E. Spencer, to the office of engrossing clerk; and
upon her it devolved to convey the message from the House to the
Senate, announcing the passage of the woman suffrage amendment. In
1872 each House elected one woman among its officers; and each
succeeding General Assembly since that time has elected from three
to six women. The office of postmaster has been filled by women for
the last ten years, and is now held by the venerable widow of
General N. A. Baker, for many years the popular adjutant-general of
the State. The office of State librarian was filled by Mrs. Ada
North for seven years, and is now held by Mrs. S. B. Maxwell. Mrs.
North is (1885) librarian of the State University at Iowa City.</p>

<p>The State insane hospitals are inspected by a visiting commission,
one of whom is a woman. Several of the city hospitals are managed
by women of the Catholic orders. The reform schools have a woman on
their board of trustees, of whom Governor Sherman was graciously
pleased to say that "she discovered more of the true inwardness of
the institution in three days than her honorable colleague had done
in three years."</p>

<p>In 1876 Governor Kirkwood appointed Mrs. Nancy R. Allen notary
public. He also appointed Mrs. Merrill as teacher and chaplain at
the State penitentiary, Miss McCowen as physician of the State
insane asylum, and Dr. Sara A. Pangborn, one of the staff of
physicians of the insane hospital at Independence.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_627" id="Page_627">[Pg 627]</a></span></p>

<p>In 1874 Governor Carpenter appointed Mrs. Deborah Cattell a
commissioner to investigate the alleged cruelty in the State Reform
School at Eldora; and for this service she was paid the same as men
who served on the same commission. Governor Gear appointed Dr.
Abbie M. Cleaves delegate from Iowa to the National Conference of
Charities and Correction, and to the National Association for the
Protection of the Insane and the Prevention of Insanity, which was
held in Cleveland, Ohio, July, 1880. Mrs. Mary Wright and Dr. Abbie
Cleaves were commissioned to the conference of the same
associations at Louisville, Ky., in 1883. The legislature of 1880
appointed Jane C. McKinney one of the trustees of the Hospital for
the Insane, at Independence.</p>

<p>The eighteenth General Assembly, 1880, passed an act to extend to
women the right to hold the office of county recorder. A bill
giving them the right to hold the office of county auditor passed
the House, but was lost in the Senate. Under the above law Miss
Addie Hayden was elected recorder of Warren county by a majority of
397 votes. She ran on an independent ticket. Mrs. C. J. Hill was
chosen recorder of Osceola county at the same election.</p>

<p>The instruction of the youth of Iowa has fallen largely into the
hands of women. During the year 1879 the number of women employed
as teachers was 13,579, while the number of men was 7,573. In the
larger towns and cities women are almost exclusively engaged as
teachers. Miss Phebe Ludlow, after having for several years
acceptably discharged the duties of city superintendent of schools
at Davenport, was elected professor of English language and
literature in the State University at Iowa City. The chair is still
occupied by a woman, as is that of instructor of mathematics and
several other branches in that institution, which, to the honor of
Iowa be it said, always opened its doors to both sexes alike.</p>

<p>The question of the eligibility of women to the office of county
superintendent of public schools having arisen by the election of
Miss Julia C. Addington in the autumn of 1869, the matter was
referred to the attorney-general by the State superintendent of
public instruction, and the following was his reply:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Hon. A. S. Kissell, Superintendent of Public Instruction:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>: Rights and privileges of persons (citizens) are
frequently extended but never abridged by implication. The
soundness and wisdom of this rule of construction is, I believe,
universally conceded. Two clauses of the constitution, only,
contain express provisions excluding women from the rights and
privileges in said provisions. Section 1, of Article I., as to
the right of suffrage, and Section 4, of Article III., which
provides that members of the legislature must be free white male
citizens. "Free" and "white" have lost their meaning (if the
words in that use ever had any suitable or good meaning), but the
word "male" still retains its full force and effect. If this
express restriction exists in the constitution as to any other
office, it has escaped my notice. It is true that the words
"person" and "citizen" frequently occur in other parts of the
constitution in connection with eligibility and qualification for
office, and I fully admit that by usage&mdash;"time-honored usage," if
you will&mdash;these phrases have in common acceptation been taken to
mean man in the masculine gender only, and to exclude woman. But
a recent decision in the Court Exchequer, England, holding that
the generic term "man" includes woman also, indicates our
progress from a crude barbarism to a better civilization.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_628" id="Page_628">[Pg 628]</a></span></p>

<p>The office of county superintendent was created by chapter 52 of
the acts of the seventh General Assembly, laws of 1868, pages
52-72. Neither in that act, nor in any subsequent legislation on
the subject, have I been able to find any express provisions
making male citizenship a test of eligibility for the place, or
excluding women; and when I look over the duties to be performed
by that officer&mdash;as I have with some care, and, I trust, not
without interest&mdash;I deem it exceedingly fortunate for the cause
of education in Iowa that there is no provision in the law
preventing women from holding the office of county superintendent
of common schools. I know that the pronoun "he" is frequently
used in different sections of the act, and referring to the
officer; but, as stated above, this privilege of the citizen
cannot be taken away or denied by intendment or implication; and
women are citizens as well and as much as men.</p>

<p>I need scarcely add that, in my opinion, Miss Addington is
eligible to the office to which she has been elected; that she
will be entitled to her pay when she qualifies and discharges the
duties of the office, and that her decisions on appeal, as well
as all her official acts, will be legal and binding. It is
perhaps proper to state that an opinion on this question,
substantially in agreement with the present one, was sent from
this office to a gentleman writing from Osage, in Mitchell
county, several weeks ago, which for some reason unknown to me,
seems not to have been made public in the county. I have the
honor to be, etc.,</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Henry O'Connor</span>, <i>Attorney-General</i>.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Miss Addington, in her short letter of inquiry to the
superintendent, has the following modest conclusion: "The position
is not one I should have chosen for myself, but since my friends
have shown so much confidence in me, and many of them are desirous
that I should accept the office, I feel inclined to gratify them,
if it be found there is nothing incompatible in my doing so."</p>

<p>The question of the eligibility of women to hold school offices was
again raised at the October election of 1875. Miss Elizabeth S.
Cooke was elected to the office of superintendent of common schools
in Warren county. The question of her right to hold the office was
carried by her opponent, Mr. Huff, to the District Court of that
county, by appeal; and that court decided that the defendant, Miss
Cooke, "being a woman, was ineligible to the office." It was then
carried to the Supreme Court of the State, which held that "there
is no constitutional inhibition upon the rights of women to hold
the office of county superintendent." In the meantime, however, and
immediately following the decision of the Warren county judge, the
General Assembly, March 2, 1876, promptly came to the rescue and
passed the following act, almost unanimously:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> No person shall be deemed ineligible, by reason of
sex, to any school office in the State of Iowa.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec. 2.</span> No person who may have been, or shall be, elected or
appointed to the office of county superintendent of common
schools, or director, in the State of Iowa, shall be deprived of
office by reason of sex. </p></blockquote>

<p>Under the provisions of this law, and the above-cited decision of
the Supreme Court, Miss Cooke was allowed to serve out her term of
office without hindrance. Since that time women have been elected,
and discharged the duties of county superintendent with great
credit to themselves and advantage to the public. Women have also
been elected to other school offices in different parts of the
State. Mrs. Mary A. Work was unanimously elected sub-director in
district No. 6, Delaware township, Polk county, in the spring of
1880; and soon after was made president<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_629" id="Page_629">[Pg 629]</a></span> of the board&mdash;the first
woman, so far as known, to fill the position of president of a
school board.</p>

<p>In 1877, in Frederica, Bremer county, Mrs. Mary Fisher attended the
school meeting, and was elected as one of the three directors. The
two others were men, one of whom immediately resigned, saying he
would not hold office with a woman. His resignation was at once
accepted. He further remarked that "woman's place was <i>to hum</i>; she
was out of her <i>spear</i> to school <i>meetin's</i>, <i>holdin'</i> office,"
etc. Mrs. Fisher had been a teacher for six years. Mrs. Shirley,
another successful teacher, accompanied Mrs. Fisher to the next
school meeting, and both ladies voted on all questions that came up
for action, and nothing was said against their doing so.</p>

<p>This year (1885) the school board of Des Moines elected Mrs. Lou.
M. Wilson to the office of city superintendent of public schools,
with a salary of $1,800 a year. She has in charge eighty teachers,
among whom are two men in the position of principals. At the
woman's congress, held at Des Moines in October, 1885, Dr. Jennie
McCowen, in her report for this State, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>An increasing number of women have been elected on school-boards,
and are serving as officers and county superintendents of
schools. Last year six women served as presidents, thirty-five as
secretaries, and fifty as treasurers of school-boards. Of the
superintendents and principals of graded schools about one in
five is a woman; of county superintendents, one in nine; of
teachers in normal institutes, one in three; of principals of
secondary institutions of learning, one in three; of tutors and
instructors in colleges, one in two; and in the twenty-three
higher institutions of learning, thirteen young women are
officiating as professors, and in three of these colleges the
secretary of the faculty is a woman. The State board of examiners
has one woman&mdash;Miss Ella A. Hamilton of Des Moines&mdash;and the State
superintendent of public instruction has for a number of years
availed himself of the valued services of a woman for private
secretary. The <i>Northwestern Educational Journal</i> is edited by a
woman. At the last meeting of the State Teachers' Association a
committee was appointed to prepare a regular course of reading
for teachers. This course is mainly professional and literary,
with a leaning toward the latter. A large number of these reading
circles have already been organized, and much interest, and even
enthusiasm, is being manifested by teachers in all parts of the
State. The school of Domestic Economy, in connection with the
Agricultural College, is in charge of a woman as dean, and,
although but a year old, has made an auspicious beginning. A
number of young ladies, graduates of the State University and
other literary schools, have gone to the School of Domestic
Economy to finish their education. </p></blockquote>

<p>Iowa has many women engaged as journalists. Prominent among these
is Miss Maggie VanPelt, city editor of the Dubuque <i>Times</i>. She
conducts her department very ably, and acceptably to her readers.
Whether an advocate for suffrage or not, she is certainly a
practical woman's rights woman. Independent and fearless, she goes
about day and night where she pleases, and wherever her business
calls her. A revolver, which she is known to carry, makes it safe
for her to walk the street at all hours. Mrs. Will Hollingsworth,
of the Sigourney <i>Review</i>, does a large part of the writing for
that paper, and assists in the management of the establishment.
<i>Woman's Hour</i>, edited by Mary J. Coggeshall, was published by
women at Des Moines two seasons, during the exposition. Ten
thousand copies were printed for free distribution, and a
handsomely<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_630" id="Page_630">[Pg 630]</a></span> decorated department granted the society in the
exposition for their work. Mrs. E. H. Hunter and Mrs. Woods
represented the society. Mrs. Pauline Swaim is noted for her
journalistic ability. Besides working on her husband's paper, the
Oskaloosa <i>Herald</i>, she has done much for the <i>State Register</i>,
reporting for it the proceedings of the Senate. In October, 1875,
Nettie Sanford started a paper at Marshalltown, called <i>The Woman's
Bureau</i>, which she published for two years. During 1878 she
published the <i>San Gabriel Valley News</i>, in California. Mrs. L. M.
Latham for many years conducted a suffrage column in the Cedar
Rapids <i>Times</i>; since 1884 she has been associated with Mrs. J. L.
Wilson on the <i>Transcript</i>, an eight column paper devoted to
general news, temperance and woman suffrage. The paper is owned by
Mrs. Wilson. Mrs. Nettie P. Fox edits the <i>Spiritual Offering</i> at
Ottumwa; Mrs. Hattie Campbell, a suffrage department in <i>The
Advance</i>, at Des Moines; Mary Osborne edits the <i>Osceola Sentinel</i>,
and is superintendent of the public schools of Clark county; Mrs.
Lafayette Young is engaged on the <i>Atlantic Telegraph</i>. Very many
papers in the State have women in charge of one or more columns.</p>

<p>In the humbler walks of literature Iowa can boast quite a number of
women who have made successful attempts at authorship.<a name="FNanchor_415_415" id="FNanchor_415_415"></a><a href="#Footnote_415_415" class="fnanchor">[415]</a> In
sculpture Mrs. Harriet A. Ketcham, of Mt. Pleasant, deserves
mention. She has the exclusive contract to model the prominent men
of Iowa for the new capitol. Mrs. Estelle E. Vore, Mrs. Cora R.
Fracker, and Miss Emma G. Holt, are known as musical composers.</p>

<p>Among the lecturers of Iowa, Mrs. Matilda Fletcher is worthy of
mention. Though she has never made woman suffrage a specialty, she
is sound on that question, and frequently introduces it
incidentally in her lectures. In 1869 she was living in obscurity
in Council Bluffs, her husband being employed as a teacher in one
of the suburban schools. Young, girlish-looking, no one seeing her
would have dreamed of her possessing the capabilities she has since
displayed. She started out under many discouragements, but has
shown a perseverance, a self-reliance, and an indomitable will that
few women manifest in the same direction. Mrs. Fletcher has been
employed by the Republican party during some of the most important
and exciting campaigns, speaking throughout the State, in halls,
tents, and in the open air. Every such effort on the part of woman
is an advantage to the cause we advocate, bringing it nearer to
final success. But it is to Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, Anna
Dickinson, Mrs. Livermore, and other lyceum lecturers<a name="FNanchor_416_416" id="FNanchor_416_416"></a><a href="#Footnote_416_416" class="fnanchor">[416]</a> that our
State is especially indebted for a knowledge of the true principles
upon which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_631" id="Page_631">[Pg 631]</a></span> woman founds her claim to equal civil and political
rights with man. In all sections of our land their voices have been
heard by interested and delighted audiences.</p>

<p>There are about one hundred and fifty women in the medical
profession in the different cities of the State. Mrs. Yeomans, of
Clinton, is a successful practitioner. Mrs. King, allopathist, and
Mrs. Hortz, homeopathist, are regular graduates in good practice at
Des Moines. Dr. Harding, electrician, and Dr. Hilton, allopathist,
also graduates, have all the practice they can attend to in Council
Bluffs. In 1883, Dr. Jennie McCowen was elected president of the
Scott County Medical Society. This was the first time a woman was
ever elected to that office in this State, if not in the United
States.</p>

<p>It is quite sure that Iowa may justly claim the first woman in the
profession of dentistry&mdash;Mrs. Lucy B. Hobbs, as early as 1863.<a name="FNanchor_417_417" id="FNanchor_417_417"></a><a href="#Footnote_417_417" class="fnanchor">[417]</a>
At Cresco there is the firm of Dr. L. F. &amp; Mrs. M. E. Abbott,
dental surgeons. At Mt. Pleasant, Mrs. M. E. Hildreth is a licensed
dentist in successful practice.</p>

<p>Rev. Augusta Chapin was, I think, the first woman to enter the
sacred office in this State. Miss Safford, Algona; Mrs. Gillette,
Knoxville; Mrs. M. A. Folsom, Marshalltown; Florence E. Kollock,
Waverly; Mrs. M. J. Janes, Spencer; Mrs. Hartsough, Ft. Dodge, are
regularly ordained preachers of the Universalist and Unitarian
faiths. There are several licensed preachers of the M. E. Church,
but none have received regular ordination.</p>

<p>Iowa furnished the following women who went to the front as nurses
during the war: Mrs. Harlan, wife of Senator Harlan; Mrs. Almira
Fales, Mrs. Anne Wittenmeyer, Miss Phebe Allen, Mrs. Jerusha R.
Small, Miss Melcena Elliott, Mrs. Arabella Tannehill. These all did
good service in hospital and on the field, and some of them laid
down their lives as a sacrifice. We copy the following as one of
the many facts of the war:</p>

<blockquote><p>Some years ago Adjutant-General Baker of Des Moines received a
letter of inquiry asking about a certain soldier in the
Twenty-fourth Iowa infantry. The tone of the letter was so
peculiar as to attract considerable attention and create much
comment in the office. In reply the general stated that the
records of the regiment and the record of the soldier (whom, for
the sake of convenience, we will call Smith, although that is far
from the real name) were in his office. A few days afterwards a
gentleman from Northern Iowa appeared, inquired for General
Baker, and was closeted with him long enough to divulge the
following singular tale:</p>

<p>When the war broke out Miss Mary Smith, daughter of the general's
visitor, was residing in Ohio, working for a farmer. Her father's
family had moved to Iowa the fall preceding the attack on Sumter,
leaving Mary behind to follow in the spring. Various causes
conspired to delay her departure for her Iowa home until autumn,
and it was September before she landed at Muscatine, from which
place she expected to travel by land to her father's house. She
was a large-sized, hearty-looking girl, eighteen years of age.
Arriving at Muscatine, some strange freak induced her to assume
man's apparel and enlist in the Twenty-fourth infantry, then in
rendezvous at that city. She did this without exciting any
suspicion, burned all her feminine garments and papers, neglected
to inform her friends of her arrival, and became a soldier. Some
comment was elicited by her beardless face and girlish
appearance, but as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_632" id="Page_632">[Pg 632]</a></span> she did her duty promptly and was
particularly handy in cooking and taking care of the sick, the
young warrior speedily became a general favorite alike with
officers and men.</p>

<p>She passed through all the campaigns in which the regiment was
engaged without a scratch, except a close call from a minie ball
at Sabine's Cross Roads, which took the skin off the back of her
left hand, voted with the other members of the regiment for
president in 1864, and was finally mustered out with her comrades
at the close of the war. When she was discharged she procured
female apparel&mdash;although in doing so she was obliged to make a
confidant of one of her own sex&mdash;and procured work in Illinois,
not far from Rock Island. Six months elapsed before the tan of
five summers wore off, and when she had again become "white," and
had re-learned the almost forgotten customs of womanhood, she
presented herself at her father's house, where she was received
with open arms.</p>

<p>To all the questions which were asked by the various members of
the family she replied that she had been honestly employed, and
had never forsaken the right way. She had been economical in the
army, and invested several hundred dollars in land in Northern
Iowa, which rapidly appreciated in value, and to-day she is well
off. With the remainder of her money she attended school. Last
January a worthy man, who had been in the same regiment, but in a
different company, made her an offer of marriage. Like a true
woman she was unwilling to bestow her hand when any part of her
former life was unknown, and before accepting the offer she made
to him a full revelation of her soldier-days. At first he could
not believe it, but when she proceeded to narrate events and
incidents which could be known only to active participants in
them, told of marches, camps, skirmishes, battles, and the
thousand and one things which never appear in print, but which
ever remain living pictures with "old soldiers," he was obliged
to accept the strange tale as true. The story, however, did not
lessen his regard for her, and about the first of February they
were married.</p>

<p>The lady's father, after hearing the tale of her life, was still
incredulous, and only satisfied himself of its truth by a visit
to the adjutant-general's office and an inspection of the
records. By comparing dates furnished him by his daughter with
the original rolls there on file he became fully convinced that
it was all true. </p></blockquote>

<p>A few of the inventions patented by women of Iowa are the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Fly-screen door-attachment, by Ph&oelig;be R. Lamborne, West
Liberty; photograph-album, Viola J. Angie, Spencer; step-ladder,
Mrs. Mary J. Gartrell, Des Moines; baking-powder can with measure
combined, Mrs. Lillie Raymond, Osceola; egg-stand, Mrs. M. E.
Tisdale, Cedar Rapids; egg-beater, and self-feeding
griddle-greaser, Mrs. Eugenia Kilborn, Cedar Rapids; tooth-pick
holder, Mrs. Ayers, Clinton; thermometer to regulate oven heat,
Mrs. F. Grace, Perry; the excelsior ironing-table, Mrs. S. L.
Avery, Marion; neck-yoke and pole-attachment, by which horses can
be instantly detached from the vehicle, Maria Dunham, Dunlap;
invalid bed, Mrs. Anna P. Forbes, Dubuque. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the various business avocations I find the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. T. Nodles is the largest fancy grocer in the State, doing a
yearly business of $80,000. Mrs. C. F. Barron, Cedar Rapids,
designs and manufactures perforated embroidery patterns.
Statistics show there are nine hundred and fifty-five Iowa women
who own and direct farms; eighteen manage farms; six own and
direct stock-farms; twenty manage dairy-farms; five own
green-houses; nine manage market-gardens; thirty-seven manage
high institutions of learning; one hundred and twenty-five are
physicians; five attorneys-at-law; ten ministers; three dentists;
one hundred and ten professional nurses, and one civil engineer. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the summer of 1884, the Fort Dodge <i>Messenger</i> had this
paragraph about a Des Moines family:</p>

<blockquote><p>Miss Kate Tupper, of Des Moines, has been in town, visiting at
Mr. Bassett's for a few days. Kate comes of a family which is
remarkable for intelligent womanly effort and success. Her mother
is Mrs. Ellen S. Tupper, the Bee-queen of Iowa,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_633" id="Page_633">[Pg 633]</a></span> whose work on
bee-culture is a recognized authority everywhere; her eldest
sister is a very eloquent preacher at Colorado Springs; Miss Kate
is studying medicine, having taken herself through a full course
at the Agricultural College by her own work; and Miss Madge, who
is only sixteen, is a famous poultry raiser, and an officer of
the State Poultry Association, who has made money enough in this
business to defray her entire expenses through a full collegiate
course. Mrs. Tupper's family is a sufficient answer to the
question of woman's work, if there were no other. Let any mother
in Iowa show three boys who can beat this. </p></blockquote>

<p>In this year Mrs. Louisa B. Stevens was elected president of the
First National Bank at Marion, Linn county. The important position
women are taking in the business world is illustrated by the
presence of two delegates at the meeting of the American Street
Railway Association held in St. Louis in the autumn of 1885&mdash;Mrs.
L. V. Gredenburg, proprietor and treasurer of the New Albany Street
Railway of New Albany, Ind., and Mrs. M. A. Turner, secretary and
treasurer of the Des Moines Railway, Des Moines, Ia. One of the
gentlemen expressed the belief that fully $25,000,000 of
street-railway stock in this country is owned by women.</p>

<p>As to the distribution of the cardinal virtues between men and
women it is generally claimed that the former possess courage, the
latter fortitude. Although the pages of history are gilded with
innumerable instances of the remarkable courage of women of all
ages and conditions, and oftimes dimmed with the records of
cowardice in men of all classes, yet what has been said for
generations will probably be repeated, even in the face of so
remarkable a fact as the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>On March 1, 1882, the Iowa House of Representatives, on motion of
Hon. A. J. Holmes, suspended the rules and passed a bill
introduced by that gentleman providing for the presentation of a
gold medal and the thanks of the General Assembly of the State of
Iowa to Miss Kate Shelly, to which was added a money
appropriation of two hundred dollars, which passed both Houses
and became a law.</p>

<p>In support of the bill, Mr. Holmes spoke as follows:</p>

<p>Mr. Speaker: No apology is required for the introduction of this
bill, and I shall make no explanation in regard to it, save a
brief <i>résumé</i> of the facts upon which the bill is based. Miss
Kate Shelly, with her widowed mother and little sisters and
brother, lives in a humble home on the hill-side, in a rugged
country skirting the Des Moines River. Her father had died years
ago in the service of the great railway company whose line for
some distance is overlooked by her home, while her mother, by
economy, severe toil, and the assistance of Kate, was able to
support her little family.</p>

<p>On the night of July 6, 1881, about 8 o'clock, there commenced
one of the most memorable storms that ever visited Central Iowa;
nothing like it had ever been witnessed by the oldest
inhabitants. The Des Moines river rose over six feet in one
hour&mdash;little rills that were dry almost the year round, suddenly
developed into miniature rivers&mdash;massive railway bridges and
lines of track were swept away as if they had been cobwebs. It
was while looking out of her window toward the high railroad
bridge over Honey Creek, that Kate Shelley saw the advancing
head-light of a locomotive descend into an abyss and become
extinguished, carrying with it the light of two lives. It was
then she realized in all its force that a terrible catastrophe
had occurred, and another more terrible, if not averted, would
soon follow to the east-bound express train, heavily laden with
passengers from the Pacific. She announced to her mother, sisters
and brother, that she must go to the scene of the accident, and
render assistance if possible, and also warn the oncoming
passenger train.</p>

<p>It was in vain they tried to dissuade her. Although she was
obliged to almost improvise a lantern in many of its parts, it
was but a few minutes before she was ready to set out. Realizing
then that her mission was one of peril, and that she might not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_634" id="Page_634">[Pg 634]</a></span>
again look upon those dear faces, she kissed each of them
affectionately, and amid their sobs, hurried out into the gloom,
into the descending floods, toward the rushing torrents&mdash;drenched
to the skin, on she passed toward the railroad to the well
remembered foot-log, only to find the waters rushing along high
above and beyond the place where it had been. Then she thought of
the great bluff rising to the west of her home and extending
southward toward the railroad track, and she determined to ascend
it and reach the bridge over this barrier to the waters. Need I
recount how she struggled on and up through the thick oak
undergrowth, that, being storm-laden drooped and made more
difficult her passage; how with clothing torn, and hands and face
bleeding she arrived at the end of the bridge, and standing out
upon the last tie she peered down into the abyss of waters with
her dim light, and called to know if any one was there alive. In
answer to her repeated calls came the answer of the engineer, who
had caught hold of and made a lodgment in a tree-top, and around
whom the waters were still rapidly rising, sending floating logs,
trees, and driftwood against his frail support, and threatening
momentarily to dislodge and engulf him.</p>

<p>It took but a moment to be assured that he was the survivor of
four men who went down with the engine, and after a moment's
hurried consultation, she started for Moingona, a mile distant,
to secure assistance and to warn the eastward-bound passenger
train then nearly due. As she passed along the high grade it
seemed as if she must be blown over the embankment, and still the
heavens seemed to give not rain but a deluge. As she approached
the railway bridge over the Des Moines river the light in her
lantern, her only guide and protection, went out. It was then
that the heroic soul of this child of only sixteen years became
most fully apparent; facing the storm which almost took away her
breath, and enveloped in darkness that rendered every object in
nature invisible, she felt her way to the railroad bridge. Here
she must pass for a distance of four or five hundred feet over
the rushing river beneath on the naked ties. As the wind swept
the bridge she felt how unsafe it would be to attempt walking
over it, and getting down upon her hands and knees, clutching the
timbers with an almost despairing energy, she painfully and at
length successfully made the passage. She reached the station,
and having told of the catastrophe at the bridge, and requested
the stoppage of the passenger train then about due, she fainted
and fell upon the platform. This very briefly, wanting in much
that is meritorious in it, is the story of Kate Shelly and the
6th of July. Her parents were countrymen of Sarsfield, of Emmett,
and O'Connell&mdash;of the land that has given heroes to every other
and dishonored none. It was an act well worthy to rank her with
that other heroine, who, launching her frail craft from the long
stone pier, braved the terrible seas on that Northumberland coast
to save the lives of others at the risk of her own.</p>

<p>Mr. Holmes then produced a copy of the <i>State Register</i>, and
requested the clerk to read the article therein contained, giving
the details of the heroic girl's action, written at the time of
its occurrence, and after the clerk had read the article,
concluded by saying: "I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this bill may
pass, believing that it is right, and further believing that the
State of Iowa will do itself as much honor as the young lady
named in the bill, in thus recognizing the greatest debt in our
power to pay&mdash;that to humanity." Mr. Pickler moved to amend by
instructing the gentleman from Boone (Mr. Holmes) to make the
presentation. Carried, and the bill was amended accordingly, as
above. On motion of Mr. Holmes, the rules were suspended, and the
bill passed by a vote of 90 to 1. The governor of the State, Hon.
A. J. Holmes, and Hon. J. D. Gillett were authorized to procure a
medal of design and inscription to be approved by them, and
present the same to the donee with the thanks of the General
Assembly of the State of Iowa.</p>

<p>The medal, which is of elegant design and workmanship, was
executed by Messrs Tiffany &amp; Co., of New York, and was presented
to Miss Shelly during the holidays of 1883. It is round in form,
about three inches in diameter and weighs four ounces five and a
half pennyweights. On both sides it is sunken below the circular
edges and the figures and decorations are then displayed in bold
relief. On the face is a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_635" id="Page_635">[Pg 635]</a></span> figure emblematic of Kate Shelly's
daring exploit. It represents a young girl with a lantern in her
left hand and her right thrown far out in warning, her hair
streaming in the wind and her wet drapery clinging to her form,
making her way over the ties of a high railroad bridge, in storm
and tempest, with the lightning playing about her. In a
semi-circle over the figure are the words: "Heroism, Youth,
Humanity." On the reverse is the following inscription:</p>

<p>"Presented by the State of Iowa to Kate Shelly, with the thanks
of the General Assembly, in recognition of the courage and
devotion of a child of fifteen years, whom neither the terror of
the elements nor the fear of death could appal in her efforts to
save human life during the terrible storm and flood in the Des
Moines valley on the night of July 6, 1881."</p>

<p>Surrounding the inscription is a wreath of leaves and beneath it
the great seal of Iowa.</p>

<p>The presentation was made at Ogden in the presence of 3,000
people. It was given in the name of the State of Iowa by Mr.
Welker Given, secretary to Governor Sherman, July 4, 1884, who
represented the governor in his necessary absence. Hon. J. A. T.
Hull, Secretary of State, introduced Miss Shelly and recounted
her heroic deed of that fearful night, after which Mr. Given made
the presentation speech. The response on behalf of Miss Shelly
was made by Professor J. D. Curran, an old friend and teacher. </p></blockquote>

<p>All very well, but how much better to have placed Kate Shelly
(bearing the name of one of England's great poets) in the
University at Des Moines, and given her a thorough education, from
the primary through the whole collegiate course, and the school for
law, medicine, or theology. A girl capable of such heroism and
self-sacrifice must possess capacities and powers worthy the
highest opportunities for development. Kate Shelly, with the
scientific training of a civil engineer, might shed far more honor
on her native State than sitting in ignorance and poverty on the
banks of the Des Moines river with a gold medal round her neck.</p>

<p>The Patrons of Husbandry, having at one time as many as 1,998
Granges in the State, admit women to equal membership and equal
rights. They have the same privileges in debate as men, and an
equal vote in all matters concerning the Grange. The Grangers do
not seem to fear that the children will suffer, or home interests
be neglected, on account of this liberty given to women. Miss
Garretson is State agent and lecturer for this order, and has
accomplished much good by her labors among the people of the rural
districts. She claims equal rights for woman even to the ballot.
The Independent Order of Good Templars passed resolutions
unqualifiedly committing the grand lodge of the State in favor of
granting suffrage to woman, and pledging themselves to labor for
the furtherance of that object. Temperance women who have
heretofore opposed the enfranchisement of their sex, and objected
to mixing the two questions, are coming to see that a powerless,
disfranchised class can do little toward removing the great evil
that is filling the land with pauperism and crime, and sending
sixty thousand victims annually to a drunkard's grave. They have
prayed and plead with the liquor-seller; they have petitioned
electors and law-makers, but all in vain; and now they begin to see
that work must accompany prayer, and that if they would save their
sons from destruction they must strike a blow in their defense that
will be felt by the enemy. Hence the Christian Temperance Union,
which at the outset declared itself opposed to woman suffrage, has
now<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_636" id="Page_636">[Pg 636]</a></span> resolved in favor of that measure as a necessity for the
furtherance of their cause.</p>

<p>On March 31, 1880, Judith Ellen Foster, of Clinton, made an able
and eloquent argument before the Senate Committee on Education and
Labor, at Washington, on Senator Logan's proposition to constitute
the revenue on alcoholic liquors a national educational fund. At a
meeting of the State Union held in 1883, resolutions were passed,
declaring woman's efforts in temperance of no avail, until with
ballots in their own hands, they could coin their ideas and
sympathies into law, and that henceforward they would labor to
secure that power, that would speedily make their prayers and tears
of some avail. This action gave a new impetus to the suffrage
movement. At the State convention, Mrs. Jane Amy M'Kinney was
appointed Superintendent of Franchise. Circulars were issued
advising the Unions to make suffrage a part of their local work,
and the advice was promptly followed in many sections of the State.
At the election on the prohibitory amendment, June 29, 1882, women
rallied at the polls, and furnished tickets to all whom they could
persuade to take them, and this helped to roll up a large vote in
favor of the amendment.</p>

<p>The laws of Iowa have been comparatively liberal to woman, and with
each successive codification have been somewhat improved. By the
code of 1857, the old right of dower, or life interest in one-third
of the real estate of a deceased husband, was made an absolute
interest; and this is the law at the present time. Of the personal
property, the wife takes one-third if there are children, and
one-half if there are no children to inherit. The same rule applies
to the husband of a deceased wife. The codes of 1857 and 1860 each
provided that the husband could not remove the wife, nor their
children, from their homestead without the consent of the wife; and
the code of 1875, now in force, changed this only so as to provide
that neither shall the wife remove the husband without his consent.
Deeds of real estate must be signed by both husband and wife, but
no private examination of either has ever been required in Iowa. A
husband and wife may deed property directly to each other.</p>

<p>By the code of 1851 the personal property of the wife did not vest
at once in the husband, but if left within his control it became
liable for his debts, unless she filed a notice with the recorder
of deeds, setting forth her claim to the property, with an exact
description. And the same rule applied to specific articles of
personal property. Married women abandoned by their husbands could
be authorized, on proper application to the District Court, to
transact business in their own name. The same provisions were
substantially reënacted in the code of 1860. Under both codes the
husband was entitled to the wages and earnings of his wife, and
could sue for them in the courts.</p>

<p>But the code of 1873 made a great advance in recognizing the rights
of married women; and it is said the revisers sought, as far as
possible, to place the husband and wife on an entire equality as to
property rights. By its provisions, a married woman may own, in her
own right, real and personal property acquired by descent, gift or
purchase; and she may manage, sell, convey, and devise the same by
will to the same extent,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_637" id="Page_637">[Pg 637]</a></span> and in the same manner, that the husband
can property belonging to him. And this provision is followed by
others which fully confer on the married woman the control of her
own property. Among other things it is enacted, that a wife may
receive the wages of her personal labor, and maintain an action
therefor in her own name, and hold the same in her own right; and
she may prosecute and defend all actions at law, or in equity, for
the preservation and protection of her rights and property.
Contracts may be made by a wife, and liabilities incurred, and the
same may be enforced by, or against her, to the same extent as
though she were unmarried. The property of both husband and wife is
equally liable for the expenses of the family and the education of
their children, and neither is liable for the debts of the other
contracted before marriage. By the code of 1873, now in force, it
is declared that the parents are the natural guardians of their
children, and are equally entitled to their care and custody; and
either parent dying before the other, the survivor becomes the
guardian.</p>

<p>But notwithstanding the seemingly equal provisions of our code,
there is still a great disparity in the laws relating to the joint
property of husband and wife&mdash;or property accumulated during
marriage by their joint earnings and savings. Such property,
whether real or personal, is generally held in the name of the
husband&mdash;no matter how much his wife may have helped to accumulate
it. If the wife dies, the husband still holds it all, and neither
law nor lawyers can molest him, or question his right to it. But if
the husband dies, the case is very different. Instead of being left
in quiet possession of what is rightfully her own, to use and guard
with all a mother's care and watchfulness for the benefit of her
children, the law comes in and claims the right to appoint
administrators and guardians&mdash;to require bonds and a strict
accountability from her, and to set off to her a certain share of
what should be as wholly hers as it is the husband's when the wife
dies.</p>

<p>This is the old common law, that has come down to us from barbarous
times, and the light of the nineteenth century has not yet been
sufficient to so illumine the minds of Iowa legislators as to
enable them to render exact justice to woman. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_395_395" id="Footnote_395_395"></a><a href="#FNanchor_395_395"><span class="label">[395]</span></a> In 1849 her husband was, appointed post-master, she
became his deputy, was duly sworn in, and during the administration
of Taylor and Fillmore served in that capacity. When she assumed
her duties the improvement in the appearance and conduct of the
office was generally acknowledged. A neat little room adjoining
became a kind of ladies' exchange where those coming from different
parts of the town could meet to talk over the contents of the last
<i>Lily</i> and the progress of the woman suffrage movement in general.
Those who enjoyed the brief interregnum of a woman in the
post-office, can readily testify to the loss to the ladies of the
village and the void felt by all when Mrs. Bloomer and the <i>Lily</i>
left for the West and men again reigned supreme.
</p><p>
Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer removed to Mt. Vernon, Ohio, in 1853, and the
publication of the <i>Lily</i> was continued; she was also the associate
editor of the <i>Western Home Visitor</i>. Mrs. Bloomer lectured in the
principal cities of Ohio and throughout the north-west, and was one
of a committee of five appointed to memorialize the legislature of
Ohio for a prohibitory law, and assisted in the formation of
several lodges of Good Templars.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_396_396" id="Footnote_396_396"></a><a href="#FNanchor_396_396"><span class="label">[396]</span></a> The officers were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. D. S. Wilson;
<i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs. W. P. Sage; <i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. J. S.
McCreery; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Mary N. Adams.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_397_397" id="Footnote_397_397"></a><a href="#FNanchor_397_397"><span class="label">[397]</span></a> Frank Allen.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_398_398" id="Footnote_398_398"></a><a href="#FNanchor_398_398"><span class="label">[398]</span></a> Lucy Stone, Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Cutler,
Mrs. Livermore, Anna Dickinson, Ph&oelig;be Couzins, Mrs. Swisshelm,
Miss Hindman and Mrs. Campbell, from abroad; Mesdames Savery,
Callanan, Gray, Pittman, Boynton, Harbert, Brown, and Messrs.
Fuller, Pomeroy, Rutkay, Cole, and Maxwell, of the city, have each
in turn come to the aid and encouragement of the society's work.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_399_399" id="Footnote_399_399"></a><a href="#FNanchor_399_399"><span class="label">[399]</span></a> For information regarding Des Moines I am indebted
to Mary A. Work, one of the most able advocates of woman suffrage
in the State.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_400_400" id="Footnote_400_400"></a><a href="#FNanchor_400_400"><span class="label">[400]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Porte Welch; <i>Secretary</i>, Mattie
Griffith Davenport.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_401_401" id="Footnote_401_401"></a><a href="#FNanchor_401_401"><span class="label">[401]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Amelia Bloomer; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, C.
Munger and Mary McPherson; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Ada McPherson;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Will Shoemaker; <i>Treasurer</i>, E. S.
Barnett.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_402_402" id="Footnote_402_402"></a><a href="#FNanchor_402_402"><span class="label">[402]</span></a> Its officers were: <i>President</i>, Nettie Sanford;
<i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. Fred. Baum; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Dr. Whealen.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_403_403" id="Footnote_403_403"></a><a href="#FNanchor_403_403"><span class="label">[403]</span></a> <i>President</i>, M. W. Stough; <i>Secretary</i>, Lizzie B.
Read. Mrs. Read was president of the State society in 1873, and
Mrs. C. A. Ingham in 1881.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_404_404" id="Footnote_404_404"></a><a href="#FNanchor_404_404"><span class="label">[404]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Hon. John E. Goodenow;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Nancy R. Allen, Mrs. M. J. Stephens, Mrs. A. B.
Wilbur; <i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. E. D. Stewart; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>,
Mrs. Julia Dunham; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. T. P. Connell; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Mrs. S. Stephens, Mrs. Julia Doe, Mrs. Polly Hamley,
Dr. J. H. Allen, W. S. Belden.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_405_405" id="Footnote_405_405"></a><a href="#FNanchor_405_405"><span class="label">[405]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Henry O'Connor; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>,
Amelia Bloomer, Nettie Sanford, Mrs. Frank Palmer, Joseph Dugdale,
John P. Irish; <i>Secretary</i>, Belle Mansfield; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Annie C. Savery; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mary A. P.
Darwin, Mattie Griffith Davenport, Mrs. J.L. McCreery, Rev. Augusta
Chapin, Hon. Charles Beardsley.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_406_406" id="Footnote_406_406"></a><a href="#FNanchor_406_406"><span class="label">[406]</span></a> Assistant postmaster-general under President
Arthur.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_407_407" id="Footnote_407_407"></a><a href="#FNanchor_407_407"><span class="label">[407]</span></a> Mary A.P. Darwin, professor of the college, and Hon.
Charles Beardsley, editor of the <i>Hawkeye</i>, Burlington; Hon. Henry
O'Connor, Muscatine; Mary N. Adams, Dubuque; Annie C. Savery, Des
Moines; Amelia Bloomer, Council Bluffs; A.P. Lowrie, Marshalltown;
Mrs. Beavers, Valisca. Hannah Tracy Cutler of Illinois, was the
leading speaker; Edwin A. Studwell of New York representing <i>The
Revolution</i>, Col. George Corkhill, Joseph Dugdale, Rev. Mr. Cooper,
Mt. Pleasant, were also in attendance.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_408_408" id="Footnote_408_408"></a><a href="#FNanchor_408_408"><span class="label">[408]</span></a> The speakers were Mr. Rutkay, Mrs. Sanford, Mrs.
Bloomer, Mrs. Spaulding, Mrs. Savery. Encouraging letters were read
from Joseph A. Dugdale, and Hon. Henry O'Connor, president of the
association. The officers for 1871 were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Amelia
Bloomer; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. Belle Mansfield;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Annie Savery; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. M.
Callanan.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_409_409" id="Footnote_409_409"></a><a href="#FNanchor_409_409"><span class="label">[409]</span></a> <i>Yeas</i>, Senators Beardsley, Bemis, Burke, Campbell,
Chambers, Converse, Dague, Dashiell, Dysart, Howland, Hurley,
Kephart, Maxwell, McCold, McKean, McNutt, Read, Shane, Smith, Vale,
West, Young&mdash;22. <i>Nays</i>, Senators Allen, Boomer, Claussen, Crary,
Fairall, Fitch, Gault, Havens, Ireland, Ketcham, Kinne, Larrabee,
Leavitt, Lowry, McCollough, Merrill, Miles, Murray, Russell, Stone,
Stewart, Taylor, Willett, Wonn&mdash;24. Senator Murray had voted in the
affirmative in the first instance, but changed his vote in order to
be able to move a reconsideration of the vote, by which the
resolution was lost.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_410_410" id="Footnote_410_410"></a><a href="#FNanchor_410_410"><span class="label">[410]</span></a> The names of the representatives voting on the Woman
Suffrage amendment are as follows (Republicans in Roman, Democrats
in Italics): <span class="smcap">Yeas</span>&mdash;Allen, <i>Baker</i>, <i>Bolter</i>, Brooks, Brush, Calvin,
Campbell, Case, Chapman, Clark of Johnson, Cleveland, Colvin,
Craver, Deweese, Giltner, Given, Glendenning, Glover, Hall, Hoag,
Homer, Horton, <i>Hotchkiss</i>, <i>Hunt</i>, Irwin of Warren, Jaqua, Jordan,
Johnson of Benton, Kauffman, Lane, Lathrop, <i>Lynch</i>, McCartney,
McHugh, McNeill, Madden of Polk, <i>Madison</i>, Maris, Mills, Moffit,
Morse of Wright, Norris, Palmer, Proudfoot, Rae, Reed of Howard,
Robinson, Said, Scott, Smith, Tice, Underwood, Ure, Wilson&mdash;54.
<span class="smcap">Nays</span>&mdash;Auld, Benton, <i>Birchard</i>, <i>Brown</i>, Bush, <i>Christy</i>, <i>Clark</i>
of Marion, <i>Crawford</i> of Dubuque, Danforth, <i>Dixon</i>, <i>Elliot</i>,
Evans, Fuller, <i>Gibbons</i>, Gilliland, <i>Gray</i>, <i>Harned</i>, Hemenway,
<i>Hobbs</i>, <i>Horstman</i>, <i>Johnston</i> of Dubuque, Johnson of Winneshiek,
McCune, <i>Madden</i> of Taylor, Manning, <i>Mentzel</i>, Morse of Adams,
<i>Mueller</i>, Reed of Jackson, Rees, Shaw, Simmons, Stone, Stuart,
<i>Stuckey</i>, <i>Thayer</i>, <i>White</i>, Williams, <i>Young</i>, Mr. Speaker (John
W. Gear)&mdash;40. Absent&mdash;Shepardson, Graves, Irwin of Lee, Seevers,
McElderry, <i>Crawford</i> of Scott.
</p><p>
The vote in the Senate was: <span class="smcap">Yeas</span>&mdash;Arnold, Bailey, Campbell,
Conaway, Dashiell, Dwelle, Gallup, Gilmore, Graham, Harmon, Hersey,
Jessup, McCoid, Miller of Appanoose, Miller of Blackhawk, Mitchell,
Newton, Nichols, Perkins, Thornburg, Wood, Woolson&mdash;22.
<span class="smcap">Nays</span>&mdash;Bestow, Carr, Clark, Cooley, Dows, Hartshorn, Hebard,
<i>Kinne</i>, Larrabee, Lovell, <i>McCormack</i>, <i>Maginnis</i>, <i>Merrell</i> of
Clinton, Merrill of Wapello, <i>Pease</i>, Rothert, Rumple, Teale,
Willett, Williams, <i>Wilson</i>, <i>Wonn</i>, Wright&mdash;23. <span class="smcap">Absent</span>&mdash;Hitchcock
(who was sick and died in a few days), yea; <i>Murphy</i>, nay; Shane
(resigned on account of being appointed district judge), yea;
<i>Stoneham</i>, nay; Young, nay.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_411_411" id="Footnote_411_411"></a><a href="#FNanchor_411_411"><span class="label">[411]</span></a> Narcissa T. Bemis of Independence was reëlected
president, and Mary A. Work chairman of the executive committee,
with headquarters at Des Moines; Mrs. Margaret W. Campbell was made
State lecturer and organizer, and Mariana T. Folsom financial
secretary of the association.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_412_412" id="Footnote_412_412"></a><a href="#FNanchor_412_412"><span class="label">[412]</span></a> Mrs. M. A. Darwin, Mrs. Martha Callanan, Mrs. Judith
Ellen Foster, superintendents of the franchise department of the W.
C. T. U. of the State, rolled up petitions in their respective
districts; and Mrs. Campbell and Miss Hindman aided largely in
gathering the signatures.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_413_413" id="Footnote_413_413"></a><a href="#FNanchor_413_413"><span class="label">[413]</span></a> In August, 1875, at Oskaloosa; October, 1880, Fort
Dodge; 1881, Marshalltown; 1883, Ottumwa; 1885, Cedar Rapids; all
of the intervening anniversaries have been held at Des Moines. The
presidents of the State society since its organization have been
Attorney-General Henry O'Connor, Amelia Bloomer, Lizzie B. Read,
Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Mrs. Dr. Porter, James Callanan, Martha
C. Callanan, Mrs. Caroline A. Ingham, Narcissa T. Bemis, Margaret
W. Campbell. When the society was organized, in 1870, it declared
itself independent and remained thus until 1879, when, by a small
vote, it was made auxiliary to the American Association. The
officers for 1885 are: <i>President</i>, Mrs. M. W. Campbell, Des
Moines; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Eliza H. Hunter, Des Moines; <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Mrs. Jennie Wilson, Cedar Rapids; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Mrs. Martha C. Callanan, Des Moines; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Mary J. Coggeshall, <i>Chairman</i>; R. Amanda Stewart,
Harriet G. Bellanger, Des Moines; Orilla M. James, Knoxville;
Florence English, Grinnell; Ellen Armstrong, Ottumwa; Narcissa T.
Bemis, Independence; Angeline Allison, Cedar Rapids; Elizabeth P.
Gue, Des Moines.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_414_414" id="Footnote_414_414"></a><a href="#FNanchor_414_414"><span class="label">[414]</span></a> At the State Fair held September, 1885, at Des
Moines, the women had a very handsomely decorated booth where they
received many hundred calls, distributed an immense amount of
suffrage literature, obtained a thousand signatures to a petition
to the legislature and wrote notes of the fair for various
newspapers, in all of which woman suffrage was freely discussed.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_415_415" id="Footnote_415_415"></a><a href="#FNanchor_415_415"><span class="label">[415]</span></a> In literature there is "Europe through a Woman's
Eye," by Mrs. Cutler of Burlington; "The Waverly Dictionary," by
Miss May Rogers, Dubuque; "Common-School Compendium," by Mrs.
Lamphere, Des Moines; "Hospital Life," by Mrs. Sarah Young, Des
Moines; "Wee Folks of No Man's Land," by Mrs. Wetmore, Dubuque;
"Two of Us," by Calista Patchin, Des Moines; "For Girls," by Mrs.
E. R. Shepherd, Marshalltown; "Autumn Leaves," by Mrs. Scott,
Greencastle; "Phonetic Pronunciation," by Mrs. Henderson, Salem;
"Her Lovers," by Miss Claggett, Keokuk; "Practical Ethics," by
Matilda Fletcher. There are several writers of cook-books, of
medical and sanitary papers, of poems, of legal papers and of
musical compositions. Miss Adeline M. Payne of Nevada has compiled
catalogues of stock.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_416_416" id="Footnote_416_416"></a><a href="#FNanchor_416_416"><span class="label">[416]</span></a> Miss Anthony has given her lecture, entitled "Woman
Wants Bread, not the Ballot," in over one hundred of the cities and
villages of the State; and Mrs. Stanton and the others have
doubtless lectured in fully as many places.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_417_417" id="Footnote_417_417"></a><a href="#FNanchor_417_417"><span class="label">[417]</span></a> See New York chapter, page <a href="#Page_401">401</a>.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_638" id="Page_638">[Pg 638]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLVI" id="CHAPTER_XLVI"></a>CHAPTER XLVI.</h2>

<h3>WISCONSIN.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Progressive Legislation&mdash;The Rights of Married Women&mdash;The
Constitution Shows Four Classes Having the Right to Vote&mdash;Woman
Suffrage Agitation&mdash;C. L. Sholes' Minority Report, 1856&mdash;Judge
David Noggle and J. T. Mills' Minority Report, 1859&mdash;State
Association Formed, 1869&mdash;Milwaukee Convention&mdash;Dr. Laura
Ross&mdash;Hearing Before the Legislature&mdash;Convention in Janesville,
1870&mdash;State University&mdash;Elizabeth R. Wentworth&mdash;Suffrage
Amendment, 1880, '81, '82&mdash;Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine,
1877&mdash;Madame Anneke&mdash;Judge Ryan&mdash;Three Days' Convention at
Racine, 1883&mdash;Eveleen L. Mason&mdash;Dr. Sarah Munro&mdash;Rev. Dr.
Corwin&mdash;Lavinia Goodell, Lawyer&mdash;Angie King&mdash;Kate Kane. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">For</span> this digest of facts in regard to the progress of woman in
Wisconsin we are indebted to Dr. Laura Ross Wolcott,<a name="FNanchor_418_418" id="FNanchor_418_418"></a><a href="#Footnote_418_418" class="fnanchor">[418]</a> who was
probably the first woman to practice medicine in a Western State.
She was in Philadelphia during all the contest about the admission
of women to hospitals and mixed classes, maintained her dignity and
self-respect in the midst of most aggravating persecutions, and was
graduated with high honors in 1856 from the Woman's Medical College
of Pennsylvania, of which Ann Preston,<a name="FNanchor_419_419" id="FNanchor_419_419"></a><a href="#Footnote_419_419" class="fnanchor">[419]</a> M. D., was professor
for nineteen years, six years dean of the faculty, and four years
member of the board of incorporators. After graduation Laura Ross
spent two years in study abroad, and, returning, commenced practice
in Milwaukee, where she has been ever since.</p>

<blockquote><p>By an act of Congress approved May 29, 1848, Wisconsin was
admitted to the Union. Its diversity of soil and timber, the
healthfulness of its climate and the purity of its waters,
attracted people from the New England and Middle States, who
brought with them fixed notions as to moral conduct and political
action, and no little repugnance to many of the features of the
old common law. Hence in Wisconsin's territorial conventions and
legislative assemblies many of the progressive ideas of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_639" id="Page_639">[Pg 639]</a></span> East
were incorporated into her statutes. Failing to lift married
women into any solid position of independence, the laws yet gave
them certain protective rights concerning the redemption of lands
sold for taxes, and the right to dispose of any estate less than
a fee without the husband's consent. In case of divorce the wife
was entitled to her personal estate, dower and alimony, and with
the consent of her husband she could devise her real estate. She
was entitled to dower in any lands of which the husband was
seized during marriage. Gen. A. W. Randall was active in making
the first digest and compilation of the laws of Wisconsin.</p>

<p>The legislature of 1850 was composed of notably intelligent men.
Nelson Dewey was governor, Moses M. Strong, a leading lawyer,
speaker of the Assembly, and the late Col. Samuel W. Beal,
lieutenant-governor. Early in the session a bill was introduced,
entitled "An act to provide for the protection of married women
in the enjoyment of their own property," which provoked a stormy
debate. Some saw the dissolution of marriage ties in the
destruction of the old common-law doctrine that "husband and wife
are one, and that one the husband"; while arguments were made in
its favor by Hon. David Noggle, George Crasey, and others.
Conservative judges held that the right to own property did not
entitle married women to convey it; therefore in 1858 the law was
amended, giving further security to the wife to transact business
in her own name, if her husband was profligate and failed to
support her; but not until 1872 did the law protect a married
woman in her right to transact business, make contracts, possess
her separate earnings, and sue and be sued in her own name. The
legislature of 1878 reënacted all the former laws; and married
women may now hold, convey and devise real estate; make contracts
and transact business in their own names; and join with their
husbands in a deed, without being personally liable in the
covenants. In the matter of homesteads, the husband cannot convey
or encumber without the signature of the wife, and thus a liberal
provision is always secure for her and the children.</p>

<p>By the law of 1878, if the husband dies leaving no children and
no will, his entire estate descends to his widow.<a name="FNanchor_420_420" id="FNanchor_420_420"></a><a href="#Footnote_420_420" class="fnanchor">[420]</a> If the
owner of a homestead dies intestate and without children, the
homestead descends, free of judgments and claims&mdash;except
mortgages and mechanics' liens&mdash;to his widow; if he leaves
children, the widow retains a life interest in the homestead,
continuing until her marriage or death.</p>

<p>Thus from the organization of the State, Wisconsin has steadily
advanced in relieving married women from the disabilities of the
old common law. The same liberal spirit which has animated her
legislators has admitted women to equality of opportunities in
the State University at Madison; elected them as county
superintendents of public schools; appointed them on the State
board of charities, and as State commissioners<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_640" id="Page_640">[Pg 640]</a></span> to a foreign
exposition;<a name="FNanchor_421_421" id="FNanchor_421_421"></a><a href="#Footnote_421_421" class="fnanchor">[421]</a> and welcomed them to the professions of
medicine, law and the ministry.</p>

<p>By the constitution of Wisconsin the right of suffrage was
awarded to four classes of citizens, twenty-one years and over,
who have resided in the State for one year next preceding an
election.</p>

<p><i>First</i>&mdash;Citizens of the United States.</p>

<p><i>Second</i>&mdash;Persons of foreign birth who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States.</p>

<p><i>Third</i>&mdash;Persons of Indian blood who have already been declared
by act of congress citizens of the United States.</p>

<p><i>Fourth</i>&mdash;Civilized persons of Indian descent who are not members
of any tribe.</p>

<p>While thus careful to provide for all males, savage and
civilized, down to one thousand Indians outside their tribe, the
constitution in no way recognizes the women of the State,
one-half its civilized citizens. However, the question of woman
suffrage was early agitated in this State, and its advocates were
able men. In 1856 there was an able minority report published,
from C. L. Sholes, of the Committee on Expiration and Reënactment
of Laws, to whom were referred sundry petitions praying that
steps might be taken to confer upon women the right of suffrage.
In 1857, there was another favorable minority report by Judge
David Noggle, and J. T. Mills. It has been twice considered by
the legislatures of 1868-69, and 1880-81, failing each time by a
small majority. A constitutional amendment is supposed by some to
be necessary to effect this needed reform, but the legislature is
competent to pass a bill declaring women possessed of the right
to vote, without any constitutional amendment. The legislature of
New York all through the century has extended the right of
suffrage to certain classes and deprived others of its exercise,
without changing the constitution. The power of the legislature
which represents the people is anterior to the constitution, as
the people through their representatives make the constitution.</p>

<p>The women, both German and American, awoke to action and
organized a local suffrage society at Janesville in 1868. <i>The
Revolution</i> said:</p>

<blockquote><p>From the report of a recent convention held in Janesville, we
find the leading men and women of that city have formed an
Impartial Suffrage organization, and are resolved to make all
their citizens equal before the law. Able addresses were made by
the Rev. S. Farrington, Rev. Sumner Ellis, and a stirring appeal
issued to the people of the State, signed by Hon. J. T. Dow, G.
B. Hickox, Mrs. J. H. Stillman, Joseph Baker and Mrs. F. Harris
Reed. Mrs. Paulina J. Roberts of Racine, a practical farmer in a
very large sense, delivered an address which was justly
complimented. </p></blockquote>

<p>The first popular convention held in Wisconsin, with national
speakers, convened in Milwaukee February 15, 16, 1869.<a name="FNanchor_422_422" id="FNanchor_422_422"></a><a href="#Footnote_422_422" class="fnanchor">[422]</a> The
bill then pending in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_641" id="Page_641">[Pg 641]</a></span> the legislature to submit the question of
woman suffrage to the electors of the State added interest to this
occasion. Parker Pillsbury, in <i>The Revolution</i>, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Wisconsin convention seems to have been quite equal in all
respects to its predecessors at Chicago and other places. Mrs.
Stanton and Miss Anthony were accompanied to Milwaukee by Mrs.
Livermore, a new Western star of "bright particular effulgence,"
and the proceedings throughout were characterized by argument,
eloquence and interest beyond anything of the kind ever witnessed
there before. The Milwaukee papers teem with accounts of it, most
of them of very friendly tone and spirit, even if opposed to the
objects under consideration. The <i>Evening Wisconsin</i> said, if any
one supposed for an instant that the call for a Woman's Suffrage
convention would draw out only that class known as strong-minded,
such a one was never more deceived in his or her life. At the
opening of the convention<a name="FNanchor_423_423" id="FNanchor_423_423"></a><a href="#Footnote_423_423" class="fnanchor">[423]</a> yesterday, the City Hall was
crowded with as highly intelligent an audience of ladies and
gentlemen as ever gathered there before. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Stanton spoke at the evening session to an immense audience on
the following resolutions:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That a man's government is worse than a white man's
government, because in proportion as you increase the rulers you
make the condition of the ostracised more hopeless and degraded.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That, as the cry of a "white man's government"
created an antagonism between the Irish and the negro,
culminating in the New York riots of '63, so the Republican cry
of "Manhood Suffrage" creates an antagonism between the black man
and all women, and will culminate in fearful outrages on
womanhood, especially in the Southern States.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That by the establishment of an aristocracy of sex in
the District of Columbia, by the introduction of the word "male"
into the Federal Constitution in Article 14, Section 2, and by
the proposition now pending to enforce manhood suffrage in all
the States of the Union, the Republican party has been guilty of
three excessively arbitrary acts, three retrogressive steps in
legislation, alike invidious and insulting to woman, and suicidal
to the nation. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Anthony followed showing that every advance step in manhood
suffrage added to woman's degradation. Quite a number of ladies and
gentlemen<a name="FNanchor_424_424" id="FNanchor_424_424"></a><a href="#Footnote_424_424" class="fnanchor">[424]</a> of Wisconsin spoke well of the various sessions of
the convention. Altogether it was a most enthusiastic meeting, and
the press and the pulpit did their part to keep up the discussion
for many weeks after.</p>

<p>These resolutions, readily passed in the Milwaukee convention, had
been rejected at all others held in the West during this campaign,
although Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony had earnestly advocated them
everywhere. They early foresaw exactly what has come to pass, and
did their uttermost to rouse women to the danger of having their
enfranchisement indefinitely postponed. They warned them that the
debate once closed on negro suffrage, and the amendments passed,
the question would not be opened again for a generation. But their
warnings were unheeded. The fair promises of Republicans and
Abolitionists that, the negro question settled, they would devote
themselves to woman's enfranchisement,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_642" id="Page_642">[Pg 642]</a></span> deceived and silenced the
majority. How well they have kept their promises is fully shown in
the fact that although twenty years have passed, the political
status of woman remains unchanged. The Abolitionists have drifted
into other reforms, and the Republicans devote themselves to more
conservative measures. The Milwaukee convention was adjourned to
Madison, where Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony
addressed the legislature, Gov. Fairchild presiding.</p>

<p>In 1870, March 16, 17, a large and enthusiastic convention was held
at Janesville, in Lappin's Hall. Rev. Dr. Maxon, Lilia Peckham and
Mrs. Stanton were among the speakers. After this, the latter being
on a lyceum trip, spoke in many of the chief cities of the State
and drew general attention to the question.</p>

<p>The following clear statement of the petty ways in which girls can
be defrauded of their rights to a thorough education by narrow,
bigoted men entrusted with a little brief authority, is from the
pen of Lilia Peckham, a young girl of great promise, who devoted
her rare talents to the suffrage movement. Her early death was an
irreparable loss to the women of Wisconsin:<a name="FNanchor_425_425" id="FNanchor_425_425"></a><a href="#Footnote_425_425" class="fnanchor">[425]</a></p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Ed. News</span>:&mdash;We find proofs at every step that one class cannot
legislate for another, the rich for the poor, nor men for women.</p>

<p>The State University, supported by the taxes of the people and
for the benefit of the people, should offer equal advantages to
men and women. By amendment of the Constitution in 1867, it was
declared that the University shall be open to female as well as
male students, under such regulations and restrictions as the
board of regents may deem proper. At first the students recited
together, but Mr. Chadbourne made it a condition of accepting the
presidency that they should be separated. I do not speak of the
separation of the sexes to find fault. I conceive that if equal
advantages be given women by the State, whether in connection
with or apart from men, they have no ground for complaint. My
object is to compare the advantages given to the sexes and see
the practical effect of legislation by men alone in this
department. From all the facts that are now pressed upon us,
confused, contradictory and obscure, we begin to obtain a glimpse
of the general law that informs them. The University has a
college of arts (including the department of agriculture, of
engraving and military tactics), a college of letters,
preparatory department, law department, post-graduate course,
last and certainly least, a female college. The faculty and board
of instructors number twenty-one. The college of arts has nine
professors, one of natural philosophy, one each of mental
philosophy, modern languages, rhetoric, chemistry, mathematics,
agriculture,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_643" id="Page_643">[Pg 643]</a></span> and comparative anatomy, and a tutor. In the
department of engineering is an officer of the United States
Army. In the college of letters is the same faculty, with the
addition of William F. Allen, professor of ancient languages and
history, one coming from a family of scholarly teachers and
thoroughly fitted for his post. In the law department are such
names as L. S. Dixon and Byron Paine.</p>

<p>Read now the names composing the faculty of the female college,
Paul A. Chadbourne, M. D., president; T. N. Haskell, professor of
rhetoric and English literature; Miss Elizabeth Earle,
preceptress; Miss Brown, teacher of music; Miss Eliza Brewster,
teacher of drawing and painting. Compare these faculties and note
what provision is made here for the sciences and languages. Look
at the course of instruction in the college of arts. During the
first year the men study higher algebra, conic sections, plane
trigonometry, German (Otto's) botany, Gibbon's Rome. In the
college of letters the course is similar, but more attention is
given to classical studies; to Livy, Xenophon and Horace. During
the same years in the female college, they are studying higher
arithmetic, elementary algebra, United States history, grammar,
geography and map drawing. Truly a high standard! The studies in
the first term of the preparatory department (to which none can
be admitted under twelve years of age) are identical with those
in the female college at the same time, except the Latin. Indeed,
I cannot see why it would not be an advantage to the students of
the female college to go into the preparatory department during
their first college year, since they can get their own course
with geometry added, and if they stay three years a proportional
amount of Latin and Greek. I could compare the whole course in
the same way, but my time and the reader's patience would fail.
There is no hint either of any thorough prescribed course in any
of the languages. In the first and fourth year no foreign
language is put down. In each term of the second year French and
Latin are written as elective, the same for Latin or German in
the third. This is a wretched course at the best. I have no faith
in a course set down so loosely as "Latin" instead of being
defined as to what course of Latin, and what authors are read. In
that case we know exactly how much is required and expected, and
what the standard of scholarship. In the college of letters we
know that they go from Livy to Cicero on Old Age, then to Horace
and Tacitus. Similar definiteness would be encouraging in the
female catalogue. Its absence gives us every reason to believe
that the course does not amount to enough to add any reputation
to the college by being known. Under the head of special
information we are told that in addition to this prescribed
course of "thorough education young ladies will be instructed in
any optional study taught in the college of letters or arts, for
which they are prepared." By optional I understand any of the
studies marked elective, since they are the only optional
studies. In the college of letters there is but one, and that is
the calculus. In the college of arts the optional studies are
generally, not always, those that they could not be prepared for
in the course prescribed by their own college. Under the head of
degrees we find a long account of the A. B., A. M., P. B., S. B.,
S. M., L. B., Ph. D., to which the fortunate gentlemen are
entitled after so much study. Lastly, the students of the female
college may receive "such appropriate degrees as the regents may
determine." I wonder how often that solemn body deliberates as to
whether a girl shall be A. B., P. B., or A. M., or whether they
ever give them any degree at all. It makes little difference.
With such a college course a degree means nothing, and only
serves to cheapen what may be well earned by the young men of the
college. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1870, the stockholders of the Milwaukee Female College elected
three women on their board of trustees: Mrs. Wm. P. Lynde, Mrs. Wm.
Delos Love and Mrs. John Nazro. This is the first time in the
history of the institution that women have been represented in the
board of trustees.</p>

<p>Elizabeth R. Wentworth was an earnest and excellent writer and kept
up a healthy agitation through the columns of her husband's paper
at Racine. <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_644" id="Page_644">[Pg 644]</a></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Racine</span>, August 4, 1875.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony</span>: Would it not be well for us women to accept
the hint afforded by these Englishmen, and bind ourselves
together by a constitution and by-laws. By so doing we might
sooner be enabled to secure the rights which men seem so
persistently determined to withhold from us.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF sc">E. R. Wentworth.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully yours,</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The growing strength of woman suffrage in England has caused
considerable commotion in that country, among officials and others.
Its growth has led the men to form a club in opposition to it,
composed of such men as Mr. Bouverie, a noted member of Parliament;
Sir Henry James, late attorney-general; Mr. Childers, late first
lord of the admiralty.</p>

<p>The formation of this club calls out a few words from Mrs. Stanton,
who sarcastically says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Is not this the first organized resistance in the history of the
race, against the encroachment of women; the first manly
confession by those high in authority&mdash;by lords,
attorney-generals, sirs, and gentlemen&mdash;of fear at the
progressive steps of the daughters of men? These conservative
gentlemen had no doubt found Lady Amberly, Lydia Becker, and Mrs.
Fawcett too much for them in debate; they had probably winced
under the satire of Frances Power Cobbe, and trembled before the
annually swelling lists of suffrage petitions. Single-handed they
saw they were helpless against this incoming tide of feminine
persuasiveness, and so it seems they called a meeting of
faint-hearted men, and bound themselves together by a
constitution and by-laws to protect the franchise from the
encroachment of women. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the legislature of 1880, the proposition to submit an amendment
for woman suffrage to a vote of the people, passed both Houses. In
1881 it passed one branch and was lost in the other. Senator
Simpson introduced another bill in 1882<a name="FNanchor_426_426" id="FNanchor_426_426"></a><a href="#Footnote_426_426" class="fnanchor">[426]</a> which was lost. These
successive defeats discouraged the women and they instructed their
friends in the legislature to make no further attempts for a
constitutional amendment, because they had not the slightest hope
of its passage.</p>

<p>The growing interest in the temperance question at this time
produced some divisions in the suffrage ranks. Some thought it had
been one of the greatest obstacles to the success of the suffrage
cause, rousing the opposition of a very large and influential
class. Millions of dollars are invested in this State in breweries
and distilleries, and members are elected to the legislature to
watch these interests. Knowing the terrible sufferings of women and
children through intemperance, they naturally infer that the ballot
in the hands of women would be inimical to their interests, hence
the opposition of this wealthy and powerful class to the suffrage
movement. Others thought the agitation was an advantage, especially
in bringing the women in the temperance movement to a sense of
their helplessness to effect any reform without a voice in the
laws. They thought, too, that the power behind the liquor interests
was readily outweighed by the moral influence of the best men<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_645" id="Page_645">[Pg 645]</a></span> and
women in the State, especially as the church began to feel some
responsibility in the question. The Milwaukee <i>Wisconsin</i> of June
4, 1883, gives this interesting item:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Rev. Father Mahoney, of St. John's Cathedral, preached a
temperance sermon to a large concourse of people yesterday
morning, in which he heartily indorsed the action of Mayor
Stowell in his war against the ordinary saloon, and declared that
he should be reëlected. He also said that the men who opposed him
were covering themselves with infamy, and that he could not
conscientiously administer the sacraments to any saloon-keeper
who refused to obey the commands of the Church or the laws of the
State concerning the good order and welfare of the city. The
sermon caused quite a stir, and was much discussed in secular as
well as religious circles. </p></blockquote>

<p>The State Association<a name="FNanchor_427_427" id="FNanchor_427_427"></a><a href="#Footnote_427_427" class="fnanchor">[427]</a> has maintained an unswerving course,
between fanatacism and ultra-conservatism. Since 1869 it has stood
as on the watch-tower, quick to see opportunities, and ever ready
to coöperate with the legislative bodies in the State, and well may
we be proud of our achievements when we remember that by the census
of 1870 Wisconsin is the first foreign and the second Roman
Catholic State in the Union, and that at our centennial exposition
in 1876 our public schools stood number one.</p>

<p>Rev. Olympia Brown Willis moved into the State of Wisconsin in
1877, and became pastor of the church of the Good Shepherd, in
Racine, and exerted a wide influence, not only as a liberal
theologian, but as an earnest advocate of suffrage for woman. As a
result of her efforts a most successful Woman's Council was held in
Racine, March 26, 1883, alternating in the church of the Good
Shepherd and Blake's Opera House. One of the chief speakers<a name="FNanchor_428_428" id="FNanchor_428_428"></a><a href="#Footnote_428_428" class="fnanchor">[428]</a>
was Dr. Corwin, pastor of the First Presbyterian Church, who was
also on the managing committee. The cordiality of many of the
western clergy, in strong contrast with those in the east, makes
their favorable action worthy of comment, though the liberality of
the few is of little avail until in their ecclesiastical
assemblies, as organizations, they declare the equality of woman
not only before the law, but in all the offices of the church. Mrs.
Katharine R. Doud was chosen president of the convention; Mrs. Olin
gave the address of welcome, to which Mrs. Sewall responded. Mrs.
Doud, in the <i>Advocate</i>, thus sums up the three days' meetings:</p>

<blockquote><p>During the past week a woman's council has been held in Racine,
the success of which has been most noticeable. The different
sessions have been attended by large audiences of intelligent men
and women, who have very thoughtfully and carefully weighed and
discussed the various questions under consideration.</p>

<p>From the beginning to the end there has never been a hitch or
jar; the myriad wheels of the machinery required to make smooth
the workings of such large assemblies have moved so quietly, and
have been so well oiled and in such perfect order<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_646" id="Page_646">[Pg 646]</a></span> as to be
absolutely unnoticed; really, one might have been tempted to feel
that the machine had no master, no controlling hand.</p>

<p>But now that the council is over; now that we can pause and begin
to estimate the good that has been done; now that the seed is
sown, from which, please God, a grand harvest shall be
reaped&mdash;now we can look back and see how one brain has planned it
all. One clear-eyed, far-seeing will gathered together these
women of genius, who have been with us; one practical,
mathematical brain made all estimates of expense, and accepted
all risks of failure; one hospitable heart received a house full
of guests, and induced others to be hospitable likewise; and one
earnest, prayerful soul&mdash;and this the best of all&mdash;besought and
entreated God's blessing upon the work. Need we tell you where to
find this master-hand which has planned so wisely? the strong
will, the clear brain, the warm heart, the pure soul? We all know
her; she is indeed a noble woman, and her name&mdash;let us whisper
lest she hear&mdash;is Olympia Brown Willis. </p></blockquote>

<p>The following sketch of the leading events of her life, shows how
active and useful she has been in all her public and private
relations:</p>

<blockquote><p>Olympia Brown was born in Kalamazoo county, Michigan, January 5,
1835. At the age of fifteen she began to teach school during the
winter months, attending school herself in the summer. At
eighteen she entered Holyoke seminary, but finding the advantages
there inadequate for a thorough education, her parents removed,
for her benefit, to Yellow Springs, Ohio, where she entered
Antioch college, Horace Mann, one of the best educators of his
day, being president. There her ambition was thoroughly
satisfied, and she was graduated with honor in 1860. She then
entered Canton Theological school, was graduated in 1863, and,
duly ordained as a Universalist minister, commenced preaching in
Marshfield and Montpelier, Vermont, often walking fifteen miles
to fill her appointments. In 1864 she was regularly installed
over her first parish at Weymouth, Massachusetts. Her energy and
fidelity soon raised that feeble society into one of numbers and
influence.</p>

<p>In 1869, she accepted a call to Bridgeport, Connecticut, where
she remained seven years. In 1878, with her husband, John Henry
Willis, and two children she removed to Racine, Wisconsin, where
she became pastor of the church of the Good Shepherd, without the
promise of a dollar. The church had been given up as hopeless by
several men in succession, because of the influence of the
Orthodox theological seminary. But she soon gathered large
audiences and earnest members about her; established a Sunday
school, had courses of lectures in her church during the winter,
which she made quite profitable financially for the church,
beside educating the people. Outside her profession she has also
done a grand work, in temperance and woman suffrage.<a name="FNanchor_429_429" id="FNanchor_429_429"></a><a href="#Footnote_429_429" class="fnanchor">[429]</a> She is
rarely out of her own pulpit; has generally been superintendent
of her own Sunday school, and head of the young ladies' club,
doing at all times more varied duties than any man would deem
possible, and with all this she is a pattern wife, mother and
housekeeper, and her noble husband, while carrying on a
successful business of his own, stands ever ready to second her
endeavors with generous aid and wise counsel, another instance of
the happy homes among the "strong minded." </p></blockquote>

<p>Among the estimable women who have been identified with the cause
of woman suffrage in this country, Mathilde Franziska Anneke, a
German lady, is worthy of mention:</p>

<blockquote><p>She was born in Westphalia, April 3, 1817. Her childhood was
passed in happy conditions in a home of luxury, where she
received a liberal education, yet her married life was
encompassed with trials and disappointments. From her own
experiences she learned the injustice of the laws for married
women and early devoted her pen to the redress of their wrongs.
Her articles appeared in leading journals of Germany and awoke
many minds to the consideration of the social and civil condition
of woman.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_647" id="Page_647">[Pg 647]</a></span></p>

<p>She was identified with the liberal movement of '48, her home
being the resort for many of the leaders of the revolution. She
published a liberal paper which freely discussed all the abuses
of the government, a whole edition of which was destroyed. At
length denounced by the government, she secretly made here escape
from Cologne, and joined her husband at the head of his command
in active preparation for a struggle against the Prussians.</p>

<p>She immediately declared her determination to share the toils of
the expedition. Accordingly Col. Anneke appointed her
<i>Tolpfofsort</i>, the duties of which she continued to discharge to
the end of the campaign. In one of her works published in 1853,
she has given a graphic description of the disastrous termination
of the revolution, of their flight into France, of their
expulsion from France and Switzerland, and of their final
determination to come to the United States.</p>

<p>They reached New York in the fall of 1849. Madame Anneke lectured
in most of the Eastern cities on the social and civil condition
of women, claiming for them the right of suffrage and more
liberal education. She also published a woman's journal in New
York, and was soon recognized as one of the earnest
representative women in America. For many years she made her home
in Milwaukee, where she taught a successful school for young
ladies. Madame Anneke, a widow with one son and two daughters,
lived quietly the closing years of her life, and in death found
the peace and rest she had never known in her busy life on earth. </p></blockquote>

<p>Prof. G. S. Albee, president of the State Normal School at Oshkosh,
is a firm friend and outspoken advocate of equal right of the sexes
to all the privileges of education, not excepting the education of
the ballot-box. John Bascom, president of the Wisconsin University,
has been an advocate of suffrage for women many years. While
connected with Williams College he worked to secure the admission
of women thereto. As one of a committee of five to whom the matter
was referred, he, together with David Dudley Field, presented a
minority report favoring their admission. Since he has been at the
head of our State University he has been in perfect sympathy with
its liberal coëducational policy, and has insured to the young
women equal advantages in every respect with the young men. To his
wise management may be attributed the success of higher coëducation
in Wisconsin. He gave an able and scholarly address before our
convention at Madison in '82, and is always found ready to speak
for woman suffrage, both in public and private. His influence has
done much for the advancement of the cause in our State. A cordial
letter was received from Mrs. Bascom at the last Washington
convention, which was listened to with interest and prized by the
officers of the National Association:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Madison</span>, Wis., January 16, 1885.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Miss Anthony</span>: I am sorry I cannot be present and meet the
many wise and great women who will respond to your call for the
Seventeenth Annual Convention.</p>

<p>What a glorious record these words reveal of unwavering faith in
the right, and heroic persistency in its pursuit on one side, and
what blindness of prejudice and selfishness of power on the
other. The struggle has indeed been a long one, and yet no other
moral movement involving so many and so great social changes ever
made more rapid progress. You and your fellow-laborers are truly
to be congratulated on the full and abundant harvest your
faithful seed-sowing has brought to humanity. The irrational
sentiment, based upon the methods and customs of barbarous times,
is rapidly yielding to reason. The world is learning&mdash;women are
learning&mdash;that character, even womanly character, does not suffer
from too much breadth of thought, or from too active a sympathy
in human interests and human affairs, but is ever enriched by a
larger circle of ideas, larger experience, and more extended
activities.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_648" id="Page_648">[Pg 648]</a></span></p>

<p>The advance of women in position and influence has been
especially great during the past year, and in directions
especially cheering and hopeful to the heart of every woman. In
national political conventions, as your call so justly says, she
has "actively participated in the discussion of candidates,
platforms and principles." The last mile-stone before the goal
has been reached and passed!</p>

<p>Your convention will offer the final opportunity to the
Republican party. Will it be wise enough to seize it for self
preservation, if not from principle? Will there be found in this
party enough of spiritual life to lay hold of the help now
proffered it, and once more renew its strength thereby? Or will
it, as so repeatedly in the past, turn a deaf ear to reason, and
still continue to deny the rights of half the human family? If
so, if it continue deaf, dumb and blind, then the Republican
party has no longer any function, and the power of government
will pass forever from its hands. The sixteenth amendment to the
national constitution is coming, but it will be the crown of
blessing and of fame of another party that will inaugurate this
era in social life! I take the liberty to send loving greetings
to you and the convention in the name of our Wisconsin Equal
Suffrage society. I hope our bright, eloquent Rev. Olympia Brown
will be with you. Of Wisconsin's eleven representatives in
congress, I am happy to make honorable mention, as broad-minded
advocates of our cause, of three, Cameron, Price and Stephenson.
In earnest sympathy with the object and method of the convention,
and with high regard for yourself, I remain yours truly,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Emma C. Bascom.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In this, as in many other States there was a prolonged struggle
over the equal rights of women in the courts. The first woman to
practice law in Wisconsin was Lavinia Goodell. She was admitted in
the First Judicial Circuit Court, June 17, 1874, Judge H. S.
Conger, presiding. She commenced practicing in Janesville. The
following year she had a case which was appealed to the Supreme
Court. When the appeal was made, Miss Goodell applied to the
Supreme Court for the right to go with her case. She argued her own
case and based her claim upon a statute which provides, "That words
of the masculine gender may be applied to females; unless such
construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intention of
the legislature." After she had shown clearly that she had an equal
right in the courts in an able and unanswerable argument, Judge
Ryan considered her application for two months and rendered an
adverse decision. As a result of the agitation induced by this
case, the legislature of 1877 passed a law that "no person shall be
refused admission to the bar of this State on account of sex," thus
showing the power of the legislative branch of the government to
over-ride all judicial decisions. Miss Goodell immediately
commenced practice in the Supreme Court. She reviewed the judicial
decision with keen satire,<a name="FNanchor_430_430" id="FNanchor_430_430"></a><a href="#Footnote_430_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a> and ably illustrated the
comparative capacity of an educated man and woman to reason
logically on American jurisprudence and constitutional law.</p>

<p>In the early part of 1879 Kate Kane and Angie J. King were admitted
to the bar. Miss Kane studied in a law office and in the law school
of Michigan University. She practiced in Milwaukee until 1883, when
she located in Chicago. Miss King practices in Janesville and was
at first associated with Miss Goodell, under the name of Goodell &amp;
King. Cora Hurtz, Oshkosh, was admitted and began practice in 1882. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_418_418" id="Footnote_418_418"></a><a href="#FNanchor_418_418"><span class="label">[418]</span></a> Mrs. Wolcott is a remarkable woman, of rare
intelligence, keen moral perceptions and most imposing presence.
Much of her success in life is due no doubt to her gracious
manners. Her graceful figure, classic face, rich voice and choice
language make her attractive in the best social circles, as well as
in the laboratory and lecture-room. She is a perfect housekeeper
and a most hospitable hostess. Having enjoyed many visits at her
beautiful home I can speak alike of her public and domestic
virtues.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_419_419" id="Footnote_419_419"></a><a href="#FNanchor_419_419"><span class="label">[419]</span></a> See <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_389">Vol. I., page 389</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_420_420" id="Footnote_420_420"></a><a href="#FNanchor_420_420"><span class="label">[420]</span></a> During a visit with my school-friend, Mrs. Elizabeth
Ford Proudfit, at Madison, in 1879, I heard a great deal said of
the injustice of this law as illustrated in two notable cases of
widows in the enjoyment of their husbands' entire estates, while
the dead men's relatives, many of them, were living in poverty.
This was most shocking! though widowers, from time immemorial, have
possessed the life-earnings and inheritance of their wives, while
the dead women's mothers and sisters were starving and freezing
within sight of the luxurious homes that rightfully belonged to
them! It makes a mighty odds whose ox is gored&mdash;the widower's or
the widow's!&mdash;[S. B. A.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_421_421" id="Footnote_421_421"></a><a href="#FNanchor_421_421"><span class="label">[421]</span></a> In 1867 the governor, General Lucius Fairchild,
appointed Laura J. Ross, M. D., as commissioner to the World's
Exposition in Paris. In 1871 Mrs. Mary E. Lynde was appointed on
the State Board of Charities and Corrections by Governor
Fairchild.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_422_422" id="Footnote_422_422"></a><a href="#FNanchor_422_422"><span class="label">[422]</span></a> The committee on resolutions were: Dr. Laura J.
Ross, N. S. Murphey, Mrs. Livermore, Madame Annecke, Geo. W Peckham
and Rev. Mr. Gannett. The officers of the convention were:
<i>President</i>, Rev. Miss Augusta J. Chapin; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, O. P.
Wolcott, M. D., Laura J. Ross, M. D., and Madame Matilde F.
Annecke; <i>Secretary</i>, Miss Lilia Peckham.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_423_423" id="Footnote_423_423"></a><a href="#FNanchor_423_423"><span class="label">[423]</span></a> For a further description of this convention see
Mrs. Stanton's letters from <i>The Revolution</i>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_873">Vol. I., page 873</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_424_424" id="Footnote_424_424"></a><a href="#FNanchor_424_424"><span class="label">[424]</span></a> Miss Lilia Peckham, G. W. Peckham, esq., Mrs. Mary
A. Livermore, Madam Matilde Annecke, Rev. Augusta J. Chapin, Rev.
Mr. Eddy, Rev. Mr. English, Rev. Mr. Fallows.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_425_425" id="Footnote_425_425"></a><a href="#FNanchor_425_425"><span class="label">[425]</span></a> Miss Lilia Peckham died in Milwaukee, the city of
her residence. She had been ill but a few weeks, her physicians
considering her recovery certain up to within an hour of her death;
but a sudden and unlooked-for change took place. One of the truest,
purest and best spirits we have ever met has thus passed from earth
to heaven. All who met her soon came to appreciate her gifted
nature, her rare talent and spiritual insight. But only those who
knew her well can bear witness to her wonderful unselfishness, her
remorseless honesty of speech and deed, the loftiness of her ideal
and the beauty of her womanly soul. The Milwaukee <i>Sentinel</i> closes
a brief obituary notice of our friend and co-worker as follows:
</p><p>
"This talented young woman is well known throughout the country as
an earnest advocate of the woman's rights movement. Only a few
weeks since she made a successful tour through the West, speaking
in various city pulpits. Fearlessly she spoke all that she had come
to feel was truth, though it shook the very foundations of old
creeds and ideas. Many efforts from her scholarly pen attest to her
devotion to every onward movement of the hour. She was to have
entered the Cambridge Divinity School early in the present autumn,
having chosen the ministry for her life-work. That a life so full
of promise of usefulness should be so suddenly stopped is
irreconcilable with our finite judgment. It is hard to say, 'it is
well,' though God's fact may be that this young life, with its
beauty of character, its sisterly affection, its still larger
sisterly sympathy with a suffering humanity, its longings and
aspirations, its zealous strivings after the true and good, is full
and complete <i>now</i>; still we shall mourn her loss, her brief though
beautiful career."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_426_426" id="Footnote_426_426"></a><a href="#FNanchor_426_426"><span class="label">[426]</span></a> The members of the Wisconsin Senate who voted
against the woman suffrage amendment were: Ackley, Adams, Burrows,
Chase, Coleman, Delaney, Flinkelberg, Flint, Kusel, Palmetier,
Pingel, Rankin, Ryland, Smith and Van Schaick&mdash;15. No better work
can be done by Wisconsin suffragists than to try to defeat every
one of them at the next election. The following voted for the
measure: Bennett, Crosby, Ellis, Hamilton, Hill, Hudd, Kingston,
Meffert, Phillipps, Scott, Simpson, Wiley, Randall&mdash;13. Senators
Wing and McKeeby were paired, and Senators Erwin and Richardson
were absent.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_427_427" id="Footnote_427_427"></a><a href="#FNanchor_427_427"><span class="label">[427]</span></a> The officers of the Wisconsin State society for 1885
were: <i>President</i>, Harriet T. Griswold, Columbus;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Laura Ross Wolcott, Milwaukee; Rev. Olympia
Brown, Racine; Emma C. Bascom, Madison; F. A. Delagise, Antigo;
Laura James, Richland Center; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Helen R. Olin,
Madison; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, M. W. Bentley, Schofield;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Dr. Sarah R. Munro, Milwaukee; <i>Chairman Executive
Committee</i>, Amelia B. Gray, Schofield. Among others active in the
movement are Eliza T. Wilson, Menominee; Alura Collins, Muckwonago;
Mrs. S. C. Burnham, Bear Valley; Sarah H. Richards, Milwaukee; Mrs.
W. Trippe, Whitewater.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_428_428" id="Footnote_428_428"></a><a href="#FNanchor_428_428"><span class="label">[428]</span></a> Eveleen Mason, May Wright Sewall, Mary A. Livermore,
Dr. Sarah Munro, Mrs. Haggart, Mrs. K. R. Doud, Miss Comstock, the
Grand Worthy Vice-Templar from Milwaukee, Mrs. Le Page, and Mrs.
Amy Talbot Dunn, as Zekel's wife, made a deep impression.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_429_429" id="Footnote_429_429"></a><a href="#FNanchor_429_429"><span class="label">[429]</span></a> See vol. II. page <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_259">259</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_430_430" id="Footnote_430_430"></a><a href="#FNanchor_430_430"><span class="label">[430]</span></a> For her argument see <i>Woman's Journal</i>, April,
1876.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_649" id="Page_649">[Pg 649]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLVII" id="CHAPTER_XLVII"></a>CHAPTER XLVII.</h2>

<h3>MINNESOTA.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Girls in State University&mdash;Sarah Burger Stearns&mdash;Harriet E.
Bishop the First Teacher in St. Paul&mdash;Mary J. Colburn Won the
Prize&mdash;Mrs. Jane Grey Swisshelm, St. Cloud&mdash;Fourth of July
Oration, 1866&mdash;First Legislative Hearing, 1867&mdash;Governor Austin's
Veto&mdash;First Society at Rochester&mdash;Kasson&mdash;Almira W. Anthony&mdash;Mary
P. Wheeler&mdash;Harriet M. White&mdash;The W. C. T. U.&mdash;Harriet A.
Hobart&mdash;Literary and Art Clubs&mdash;School Suffrage, 1876&mdash;Charlotte
O. Van Cleve and Mrs. C. S. Winchell Elected to School
Board&mdash;Mrs. Governor Pillsbury&mdash;Temperance Vote, 1877&mdash;Property
Rights of Married Women&mdash;Women as Officers, Teachers, Editors,
Ministers, Doctors, Lawyers. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">Minnesota</span> was formally admitted to the Union May 11, 1858. Owing to
its high situation and dry atmosphere the State is a great resort
for invalids, and nowhere in the world is the sun so bright, the
sky so blue, or the moon and stars so clearly defined. Its early
settlers were from New England; hence, the church and the
school-house&mdash;monuments of civilization&mdash;were the first objects in
the landscape to adorn those boundless prairies, as the red man was
pushed still westward, and the white man seized his hunting-ground.</p>

<p>This State is also remarkable for its admirable system of free
schools, in which it is said there is a larger proportion of pupils
to the population than in any other of the Western States. All
institutions of learning have from the beginning been open alike to
boys and girls.</p>

<p>Mrs. Sarah Burger Stearns, to whom we are indebted for this
chapter, was one of the first young women to apply for admission to
the Michigan University.<a name="FNanchor_431_431" id="FNanchor_431_431"></a><a href="#Footnote_431_431" class="fnanchor">[431]</a> Being denied, she finished her
studies at the State Normal School, and in 1863 married Mr. O. P.
Stearns, a graduate of the institution that barred its doors to
her. Mr. Stearns, at the call of his country, went to the front,
while his no less patriotic bride remained at home, teaching in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_650" id="Page_650">[Pg 650]</a></span>
the Young Ladies' Seminary at Monroe and lecturing for the benefit
of the Soldiers' Aid Societies.</p>

<p>The war over, they removed to Minnesota in 1866, where by lectures,
newspaper articles, petitions and appeals to the legislature, Mrs.
Stearns has done very much to stir the women of the State to
thought and action upon the question of woman's enfranchisement.
She has been the leading spirit of the State Suffrage Association,
as well as of the local societies of Rochester and Duluth, the two
cities in which she has resided, and also vice-president of the
National Association since 1876. As a member of the school-board,
she has wrought beneficent changes in the schools of Duluth. She is
now at the head of a movement for the establishment of a home for
women needing a place of rest and training for self-help and
self-protection. Mrs. Stearns has the full sympathy of her husband
and family, as she had that of her mother, Mrs. Susan C. Burger,
whose last years were passed in the home of her daughter at Duluth.
Mrs. Stearns writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>The advocates of suffrage in Minnesota were so few in the early
days,<a name="FNanchor_432_432" id="FNanchor_432_432"></a><a href="#Footnote_432_432" class="fnanchor">[432]</a> and their homes so remote from each other, that there
was little chance for coöperation, hence the history of the
movement in this State consists more of personal efforts than of
conventions, legislative hearings and judicial decisions. The
first name worthy of note is that of Harriet E. Bishop. She was
invited by Rev. Thomas Williamson, M. D., a missionary among the
Dakotas, to come to his mission home and share in his labors in
1847, where she was introduced to the leading citizens of St.
Paul. She was the first teacher of a public school in that
settlement. She lectured on temperance, wrote for the daily
papers, and preached as a regular pastor in a Baptist pulpit. She
published several books, was one of the organizers of the State
Suffrage Association in 1881, and in 1883 rested from her labors
on earth.</p>

<p>The first lecture in the State on the "Rights and Wrongs of
Woman," was by Mrs. Mary J. Colburn, in the village of Champlin,
in 1858, the same year that Minnesota was admitted to the Union.
In 1864, the State officers promised two prizes for the first and
second best essays on "Minnesota as a Home for Emigrants,"
reserving to the examining committee the right to reject all
manuscripts offered if found unworthy. The first prize was
accorded to Mrs. Colburn. Most of the other competitors were men,
some of them members of the learned professions. Mrs. Colburn
says, in writing to a friend, "I am doing but little now on the
suffrage question, for I will not stoop longer to ask of any
congress or legislature for that which I know to be mine by the
divine law of nature."</p>

<p>In 1857, Mrs. Jane Grey Swisshelm settled at St. Cloud, where she
lived until 1863, editing the St. Cloud <i>Democrat</i>, the organ of
the Republican party, and making a heroic fight for freedom and
equality. In 1860 she<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_651" id="Page_651">[Pg 651]</a></span> spoke in the Hall of Representatives, on
Anti-slavery; in 1862 she was invited to speak before the Senate
on woman's rights, and was listened to with great respect.<a name="FNanchor_433_433" id="FNanchor_433_433"></a><a href="#Footnote_433_433" class="fnanchor">[433]</a></p>

<p>In 1866, at a Fourth of July celebration, Mrs. Stearns accepted
an invitation to respond to the sentiment, "Our young and growing
State; may she ever be an honor to her citizens." This offered
her an opportunity for an off-hand woman suffrage speech, which
elicited hearty cheers, and gave, as an old gentleman present
said, "something fresh to think of and act upon." About this time
the friends of equality began petitioning the legislature for an
amendment to the constitution, striking out the word "male."
Through the efforts of Mr. A. G. Spaulding&mdash;the editor of the
<i>Anoka Star</i>&mdash;and others, these petitions were referred to a
special committee which granted a hearing to Mrs. Colburn and
Mrs. Stearns in 1867. Mrs. Colburn read a carefully prepared
argument, and Mrs. Stearns sent a letter, both of which were
ordered to be printed. In 1868 a bill was introduced proposing to
submit the desired amendment, but when brought to a vote it was
defeated by a majority of one.</p>

<p>In March, 1869, <i>The Revolution</i> copied from the Martin County
<i>Atlas</i> the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Show us the man who from the bottom of his heart, laying aside
his prejudices and speaking the unbiased truth, will not say that
women should have the same rights that he himself enjoys, and we
will show you a narrow-minded sycophant, a cruel, selfish tyrant,
or one that has not the moral courage to battle for a principle
he knows to be just. Equal rights before the law is justice to
all, and the more education we give our children and ourselves,
as a people, the sooner shall we have equal rights. May the
glorious cause speed on. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1869, a suffrage society was organized in the city of Rochester,
with fifty members, and another at Champlin; the homes of Mrs.
Stearns and Mrs. Colburn. Petitions were again circulated and
presented to the legislature early in the session of 1870. It had
not then been demonstrated by Kansas, Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska
and Oregon, that the votes of the ignorant classes on this question
would greatly outnumber those of the intelligent. The legislature
granted the prayer of the petitioners and passed a bill for the
submission of an amendment, providing that the women of the State,
possessing the requisite qualifications, should also be allowed to
vote upon the proposition, and that their votes should be counted
as legal. The governor, Hon. Horace Austin, vetoed the bill, saying
it was not passed in good faith, and that the submission of the
question at that time would be premature. In a private letter to
Mrs. Stearns, the governor said: "Had the bill provided for the
voting of the women, simply to get an expression of their wishes
upon the question, without requiring their votes to be counted as
legal in the adoption or rejection of it, the act would not have
been vetoed, notwithstanding my second objection that it was
premature."</p>

<p>In 1871, petitions to congress were circulated in Minnesota, asking
a declaratory act to protect the women of the nation in the
exercise of "the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_652" id="Page_652">[Pg 652]</a></span> citizen's right to vote" under the new guarantees
of the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments. During that year the
National Woman Suffrage Association appointed Mrs. Addie Ballou its
vice-president for Minnesota.</p>

<p>In 1872 a suffrage club was formed at Kasson. Its three
originators<a name="FNanchor_434_434" id="FNanchor_434_434"></a><a href="#Footnote_434_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a> entered into a solemn compact with each other that
while they lived in that city there should always be an active
suffrage society until the ballot for women should be obtained.
Their secretary, Mrs. H. M. White, writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>Although our club was at first called a ladies' literary society,
the suspicion that its members wished to vote was soon whispered
about. Our working members were for some years few in number, and
our meetings far between. But our zeal never abating, we tried in
later years many plans for making a weekly meeting interesting.
The most successful was, that every one should bring something
that had come to her notice during the week, which she should
read aloud, thus furnishing topics of conversation in which all
could join. This never failed to make an interesting and
profitable meeting. And still later we invited speakers from
other States. In our various courses of lectures, Kasson
audiences have enjoyed the brave utterances of Anna Dickinson,
Julia Ward Howe, Susan B. Anthony, and others. The pulpit of
Kasson we have found about evenly balanced for and against us;
but those claiming to be friendly generally maintained a
"masterly inactivity." Our editors have always shown us much
kindness by gratuitously advertising our meetings and publishing
our articles. Our members were all at the first meeting after
school suffrage was granted to women, and one lady was elected
director for a term of three years. The next year another lady
was elected. While they were members of the board, a new and
beautiful school house was erected, though some men said,
"nothing in the line of building could be safely done until after
the women's term of office had expired." Our co-workers have
always treated us with great courtesy. In this respect our labors
were as pleasant as in any church work. </p></blockquote>

<p>At a temperance convention in 1874, a woman suffrage resolution was
ably defended by Mrs. Julia Ballard Nelson and Mrs. Harriet A.
Hobart; Mrs. Asa Hutchinson, of beloved memory, also spoke at this
meeting.</p>

<p>As the women in several of the States voted on educational matters,
the legislature of 1875 wished to confer the same privilege upon
the women of Minnesota. But instead of doing so by direct
legislation, as the other States had done, they passed a resolution
submitting a proposition for an amendment to the constitution to
the electors of the State, as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>An amendment to the State constitution giving the legislature
power to provide by law that any woman of the age of twenty-one
years and upwards, may vote at any election held for the purpose
of choosing any officers of schools; or upon any measure relating
to schools; and also that any such woman shall be eligible to
hold any office pertaining solely to the management of schools. </p></blockquote>

<p>No effort was made to agitate the question, lest more should be
effected in rousing the opposition than in educating the masses in
the few months intervening between the passage of the bill and the
election in November. Mrs. Stearns, however, as the day for the
decision of the question approached, wishing to make sure of the
votes of the intelligent men of the State, wrote to the editor of
the <i>Pioneer Press</i>, the leading paper of Minnesota, begging him to
urge his readers to do all in their power to secure<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_653" id="Page_653">[Pg 653]</a></span> the adoption
of the amendment. The request was complied with, and the editor in
a private letter, thanking Mrs. Stearns, said he "had quite
forgotten such an amendment had been proposed."</p>

<p>At this last moment the question was, what could be done to secure
the largest favorable vote. Finding that it would be legal, the
friends throughout the State appealed to the committees of both
political parties to have "For the amendment of Article VII.
relating to electors&mdash;Yes," printed upon all their tickets. This
was very generally done, and thereby the most ignorant men were led
to vote as they should, with the intelligent, in favor of giving
women a voice in the education of the children of the State, while
all who were really opposed could scratch the "yes," and substitute
a "no." When election day came, November 5, 1875, the amendment was
carried by a vote of 24,340 for, to 19,468 against. The following
legislature passed the necessary law, and at the spring election of
1876, the women of Minnesota voted for school officers, and in
several cases women were elected as directors.</p>

<p>I have given these details because the great wonder has been how
the combined forces of ignorance and vice failed to vote down this
amendment, as they always have done every other proposition for the
extension of suffrage to women in this and every other State where
the question has been submitted to a popular vote. I believe our
success was largely, if not wholly, attributable to our studied
failure to agitate the question, and the affirmative wording of all
the tickets of both parties, by which our bitterest opponents
forgot the question was to be voted upon, and the ignorant classes
who could not, or did not read their ballots, voted unthinkingly
for the measure.</p>

<p>In the cities the school officers are elected at the regular
municipal elections usually held in the spring, while in the rural
districts and smaller villages they are chosen at school meetings
in the autumn. In East Minneapolis, Hon. Richard Chute, chairman of
the Republican nominating convention, having, without their
knowledge, secured the nomination of Mrs. Charlotte O.
VanCleve<a name="FNanchor_435_435" id="FNanchor_435_435"></a><a href="#Footnote_435_435" class="fnanchor">[435]</a> and Mrs. Charlotte S. Winchell<a name="FNanchor_436_436" id="FNanchor_436_436"></a><a href="#Footnote_436_436" class="fnanchor">[436]</a> as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_654" id="Page_654">[Pg 654]</a></span> school
directors, called a meeting of the women of the city to aid in
their election. It was a large and enthusiastic gathering. Mrs.
Mary C. Peckham presided, Mrs. Stearns of Duluth, and Mrs.
Pillsbury, wife of the governor, made stirring speeches, after
which the candidates were called upon, and responded most
acceptably. When election day came, the names of Mrs. VanCleve and
Mrs. Winchell received a handsome majority of the votes of their
districts. A correspondent in the <i>Ballot-Box</i> said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The women of Minnesota are rejoicing in the measure of justice
vouchsafed them,&mdash;the right to vote and hold office in school
matters. Two hundred and seventy women voted in Minneapolis, the
governor's wife among others. Although it rained all day they
went to the polls in great numbers. </p></blockquote>

<p>Including both East and West Minneapolis, fully 1,000 women voted;
and while the numbers in other cities and villages were not so
great, they were composed of the more intelligent. In St. Charles,
where Dr. Adaline Williams was elected to the school-board, some of
the gentlemen requested her to resign, on the ground that she had
not been properly elected. Her reply was, "If I have not been
elected, I have no need to resign; and if I have been elected, I do
not choose to resign." But to satisfy those who doubted, she
proposed that another election should be held, which resulted in an
overwhelming majority for the Doctor.</p>

<p>As the law says women are "eligible to any office pertaining solely
to the management of schools," one might be elected as State
superintendent of public instruction. There have been many women
elected to the office of county superintendent, and in several
counties they have been twice reëlected,<a name="FNanchor_437_437" id="FNanchor_437_437"></a><a href="#Footnote_437_437" class="fnanchor">[437]</a> and wherever women
have held school offices, they have been reported as doing
efficient service. Although the law provided that women might "vote
at any election for the purpose of choosing any officers of
schools," the attorney-general gave an opinion that it did not
entitle them to vote for county superintendent; hence "an act to
entitle women to vote for county superintendent of schools," was
passed by the legislature of 1885.</p>

<p>The ladies' city school committee. Miss A. M. Henderson, chairman,
secured the appointment of a committee of seven women in
Minneapolis, to meet with a like number of men from each of the
political parties, to select such members of the school-board as
all could agree upon. Having thus aided in the nominations, women
were interested in their election. In 1881 Mrs. Merrill and Miss
Henderson stood at the polls all day and electioneered for their
candidates. It was said that their efforts not only decided the
choice of school officers, but elected a temperance alderman. In
many cities of the State the temperance women exert a great
influence at the polls in persuading men to vote for the best
town-officers. At the special election held in Duluth for choosing
school officers, one of the judges of election, and the clerks at
each of the polling places have for the last two years been women
who were teachers in our public schools.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_655" id="Page_655">[Pg 655]</a></span></p>

<p>The early homestead law of Minnesota illustrates how easily men
forget to bestow the same rights upon women that they carefully
secure to themselves. In 1869, the "protectors of women" enacted a
law which exempted a homestead from being sold for the payment of
debts so long as the man who held it might live, while it allowed
his widow and children to be turned out penniless and homeless. It
was not until 1875 that this law was so amended that the exemption
extended to the widow and fatherless children.</p>

<p>In 1877, a law was passed which gave the widow an absolute
title&mdash;or the same title her husband had&mdash;to one-third of all the
real estate, exclusive of the homestead, and of that, it gave her
the use, during her lifetime. So that now the widow has the
absolute ownership, instead of the life use of one-third of
whatever she and her husband may have together earned and saved.
That is, should there be any real estate left, over and above the
homestead, after paying all the husband's debts, she now has, not
merely the difference, as heretofore, between the amount of the tax
and the income on one-third, but she may avoid the tax and other
costs of keeping it, by selling her third, if she prefers, and
putting the money at interest. The law still puts whatever may be
left of the other two-thirds, after payment of debts, into the
hands of the probate judge and others, and the interest thereof, or
even the principal, may go to reward them for their services, or,
if falling into honest hands, it may be left for the support and
education of the children.</p>

<p>The legislature of 1877 submitted a constitutional amendment giving
women a vote on the temperance question. This seemed likely to be
carried by default of agitation, as was that of school suffrage,
until within a few weeks of the election, when the liquor interest
combined all its forces of men and money and defeated it by a large
majority. The next year the temperance people made a strong effort
to get the proposition re-submitted, but to no purpose.</p>

<p>In 1879, acting upon the plan proposed to all the States by the
National Association, we petitioned for the adoption of a joint
resolution asking congress to submit to the several State
legislatures an amendment to the National constitution, prohibiting
the disfranchisement of woman. Mrs. Stearns and others followed up
the petitions with letters to the most influential members, in
which they argued that the legislatures of the States, not the rank
and file of the electors, ought to decide this question; and
further, that the same congress that had granted woman the
privilege of pleading a case before the Supreme Court of the United
States would doubtless pass a resolution submitting to the
legislatures the decision of the question of her right to have her
opinion on all questions counted at the ballot-box. The result was
a majority of six in the Senate in favor of the resolution, while
in the House there was a majority of five against it.</p>

<p>Since 1879, our legislature has met biënnially. In 1881 the
temperance women of the State again petitioned for the right to
vote on the question of licensing the sale of liquor. Failing to
get that, or a prohibitory law, they became more than ever
convinced of the necessity of full suffrage.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_656" id="Page_656">[Pg 656]</a></span> The annual meetings
of the State Union<a name="FNanchor_438_438" id="FNanchor_438_438"></a><a href="#Footnote_438_438" class="fnanchor">[438]</a> have ever since been spoken of by the press
as "suffrage conventions," because they always pass resolutions
making the demand.</p>

<p>Mr. L. Bixby, editor of the <i>State Temperance Review</i>, gives
several columns to the temperance and suffrage societies. Mrs.
Helen E. Gallinger, the editor of these departments, is a lady of
great ability and earnestness. Mr. Charles H. Dubois, editor of
<i>The Spectator</i>, gives ample space in his columns to notes of
women. Miss Mary C. Le Duc is connected with <i>The Spectator</i>. Other
journals have aided our cause, though not in so pronounced a way.
Mrs. C. F. Bancroft, editor of the <i>Mantorville Express</i>, and Mrs.
Bella French, of a county paper at Spring Valley, Mrs. Annie
Mitchell, the wife of one editor and the mother of another, for
many years their business associate, have all given valuable
services to our cause, while pecuniarily benefiting themselves. The
necessity of finding a voice when something needed to be said, and
of using a pen when something needed to be written, has developed
considerable talent for public speaking and writing among the women
of this State.<a name="FNanchor_439_439" id="FNanchor_439_439"></a><a href="#Footnote_439_439" class="fnanchor">[439]</a></p>

<p>All our State institutions are favorable to coëducation, and give
equal privileges to all. The Minnesota University has been open to
women since its foundation, and from 1875 to 1885 fifty-six young
women were graduated with high honor to themselves and their
sex.<a name="FNanchor_440_440" id="FNanchor_440_440"></a><a href="#Footnote_440_440" class="fnanchor">[440]</a> Miss Maria L. Sanford has been professor of rhetoric and
elocution for many years. The faculties of the State Normal Schools
are largely composed of women. Hamline University and Carlton
College are conducted on principles of true equality. At Carlton
Miss Margaret Evans is preceptress and teacher of modern languages.
Of the Rochester High School, Miss Josephine Hegeman is principal;
of Wasioga, Miss C. T. Atwood; of Eyota Union School, Miss Adell
M'Kinley.<a name="FNanchor_441_441" id="FNanchor_441_441"></a><a href="#Footnote_441_441" class="fnanchor">[441]</a></p>

<p>For many years Mrs. M. R. Smith was employed as State Librarian.
Mrs. H. J. M'Caine for the past ten years has been librarian at St.
Paul, with Miss Grace A. Spaulding as assistant. Among the
engrossing and enrolling clerks of our legislature, Miss Alice
Weber is the only lady's name we find, though the men holding those
offices usually employ a half dozen women to assist them in
copying, allowing each two-thirds of the price paid by the State,
or ten cents per folio.</p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 381px;">
<a name="v3_656" id="v3_656">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_656.jpg" width="381" height="500" alt="Sarah Burger Stearns" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>In this State the suffrage cause has had the sympathy of not a few
noble women in the successful practice of the healing art; thus
lending their influence for the political emancipation of their
sex, while blessing the community with their medical skill. To
Doctors Hood and Whetstone is due the credit of establishing the
Northwestern Hospital for Women and Children, and training school
for nurses, of which they are now the attending<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_657" id="Page_657">[Pg 657]</a></span> physicians; and
Dr. Hood also attends the Bethany Home, founded by the sisterhood
of Bethany, for the benefit of friendless girls and women. In the
town of Detroit may be seen a drug store neatly fitted up, with
"Ogden's Pharmacy" over the door, and upon it, in gilt letters,
"Emma K. Ogden, M. D." While the doctor practices her profession,
she employs a young woman as prescription clerk. The Minnesota
State Medical Society has admitted nine women to membership.<a name="FNanchor_442_442" id="FNanchor_442_442"></a><a href="#Footnote_442_442" class="fnanchor">[442]</a></p>

<p>Conspicuous among evangelists in this State are Mrs. Mary C. Nind,
Minneapolis, Mrs. Mary A. Shepardson, Wasioga, Mrs. Ruth Cogswell
Rowell, Winona, and Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Rochester.</p>

<p>Thus far this chapter has been given mainly to individuals in the
State, and to the home influences that have aided in creating
sentiment in favor of full suffrage for woman. United with these
have been other influences coming like the rays of the morning sun
directly from the East where so many noble women are at work for
the freedom of their sex. Among them are some of the most popular
lecturers in the country.<a name="FNanchor_443_443" id="FNanchor_443_443"></a><a href="#Footnote_443_443" class="fnanchor">[443]</a></p>

<p>In September, 1881, representative women from various localities
met at Hastings and organized a State Woman Suffrage
Association<a name="FNanchor_444_444" id="FNanchor_444_444"></a><a href="#Footnote_444_444" class="fnanchor">[444]</a> auxiliary to the National. During the first year
one hundred and twenty-four members were enrolled. During the
second the membership more than doubled. In October, 1882, the
association held its first annual meeting. The audiences were
large, and the speakers<a name="FNanchor_445_445" id="FNanchor_445_445"></a><a href="#Footnote_445_445" class="fnanchor">[445]</a> most heartily applauded. Mrs. Nelson
presided. In her letter of greeting to this meeting, from which
ill-health obliged her to be absent, the president urged the
association to firmly adhere to the principles of the National
Association. Let us not ask for an amendment to the State
constitution, and thus put it in the power of ignorance and
prejudice to deny the boon we seek; while we are auxiliary to the
National let us work according to its plans. Mrs. Stearns was
unanimously reëlected president, and her views heartily endorsed.</p>

<p>In the spring of '83, at the request of the State society, and with
the generous consent of Mr. Bixby, the editor of the <i>State
Temperance Review</i>, Mrs. Helen E. Gallinger commenced editing a
woman suffrage column in that paper. This has been a very
convenient medium of communication between the State society and
the local auxiliaries which have since been organized by Mrs. L.
May Wheeler, who was employed as lecturer and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_658" id="Page_658">[Pg 658]</a></span> organizer,<a name="FNanchor_446_446" id="FNanchor_446_446"></a><a href="#Footnote_446_446" class="fnanchor">[446]</a> in
the summer and fall of 1883. Auxiliary societies had previously
been organized by Mrs. Stearns, in St. Paul and Minneapolis. The
Kasson society, formed in 1872, also became auxiliary to the State.</p>

<p>During the Northwestern Industrial Exhibition, held in Minneapolis
August, 1883, a woman suffrage headquarters was fitted up on the
fair-grounds, in a fine large tent, made attractive by flags,
banners and mottoes. The State and local societies were
represented, officers and members being there to receive all who
were in sympathy, to talk suffrage to opposers, to pass out good
leaflets, and to exhibit copies of the Woman Suffrage History. At
the annual convention this year we were honored by the presence of
Julia Ward Howe and Mrs. Marianna Folsom of Iowa, and many of the
clergymen<a name="FNanchor_447_447" id="FNanchor_447_447"></a><a href="#Footnote_447_447" class="fnanchor">[447]</a> of Minneapolis. Rev. E. S. Williams gave the address
of welcome, and paid a beautiful tribute to the self-sacrificing
leaders in this holy crusade. Mrs. Howe not only encouraged us with
her able words of cheer, but she presided at the piano while her
Battle Hymn of the Republic was sung, and seemed to give it new
inspiration. In the course of her remarks the president said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Should congress finally adopt that long-pending amendment in the
winter of 1883-4 enfranchising women, we should still have work
to do in 1885 to secure the ratification of this amendment by our
State legislature. But should congress still refuse, let us be
thankful that the way is opening for women to secure their
freedom by the power of the legislature independent of all
constitutional amendments, as there is nothing in ordinary State
constitutions to prevent legislators from extending suffrage to
women by legislative enactment. The constitution of the State of
Minnesota simply enfranchises men, and does not even mention
women; we have clearly nothing to do but to convince our
legislators that they are free to give educated women full
suffrage. </p></blockquote>

<p>With this view the society adopted the following resolution:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That we accept with joy the argument that comes to us
from the east and from the west declaring suffrage amendments to
State constitutions unnecessary, because the word "male,"
occurring as it does in most State constitutions, in no wise
restrains legislatures from extending full suffrage to women,
should they feel inclined to do so. Be it also</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That it therefore becomes our duty to talk with all
men and women who are friendly to our cause, and ask them to
examine the argument, and if it commends itself to their
judgment, to give us the benefit of their convictions. </p></blockquote>

<p>Though passing the above resolutions at that time, the State
Association of course waits to see what may be done, in view of
this new idea, by older and stronger States whose constitutions are
similar to ours. Although failing health induced Mrs. Stearns, in
the fall of 1883, to resign her suffrage work into other hands, and
ask to be excused from any office whatever, she has, with improving
health lately accepted the presidency of an Equal Rights League in
Duluth. Dr. Ripley was not present<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_659" id="Page_659">[Pg 659]</a></span> herself at the convention<a name="FNanchor_448_448" id="FNanchor_448_448"></a><a href="#Footnote_448_448" class="fnanchor">[448]</a>
which chose her for president for the ensuing year, being then at
the East, but immediately after returning, she entered upon her new
duties with enthusiasm. As there was to be no legislature in 1884,
there could be no petitioning, except to continue the work
commenced as long ago as 1871, of petitioning congress for a
sixteenth amendment. The work was carried on with vigor, and many
hundreds of names obtained in a short time. Early in 1884 Mrs. L.
May Wheeler continued to lecture in the interests of the suffrage
cause. While so engaged she issued her "Collection of Temperance
and Suffrage Melodies."</p>

<p>In 1884 a woman suffrage headquarters was again fitted up in
Newspaper Row, on the grounds of the Northwestern Industrial
Exhibition. The large tent was shared by the State W. C. T. U., and
appropriately decked within and without to represent both of the
State organizations and their auxiliaries. A large amount of
suffrage and temperance literature was distributed among the many
who were attracted by the novelty of the sight and sentiments
displayed on banners and flags.</p>

<p>As Minneapolis had already become headquarters for the suffrage
work of the State, it was thought best to again hold the annual
meeting in that city. This was in October, continuing two days, and
was both interesting and encouraging. Dr. Martha G. Ripley
presided. Many interesting letters were read, and cheering
telegrams received.<a name="FNanchor_449_449" id="FNanchor_449_449"></a><a href="#Footnote_449_449" class="fnanchor">[449]</a> Miss Marion Lowell recited "The Legend,"
by Mary Agnes Ticknor, and "Was he Henpecked?" by Phebe Cary, Mrs.
A. M. Tyng of Austin, made a good speech, also recited a poem
entitled "Jane Conquest." Mr. Lars Oure of Norway, spoke well upon
the "Claims of Woman." Dr. L. W. Denton of Minneapolis, gave a very
good address. Dr. Martha G. Ripley spoke on suffrage as a natural
right, and in support of this view read extracts from a pamphlet
entitled, "Woman Suffrage a Right, and not a Privilege," by Wm. I.
Bowditch; Eliza Burt Gamble of St. Paul, read a very able paper on
"Woman and the Church"; Mrs. Stearns spoke upon the new era to be
inaugurated when women have the ballot. Miss Emma Harriman read a
bright and entertaining paper. The fine address of the occasion was
given by Rev. W. W. Satterlee, showing the nation's need of woman's
vote. Judge and Mrs. Hemiup, of Minneapolis, just returned from a
visit to Wyoming Territory, were present. The judge made several
speeches, and was enthusiastic in his praise of the workings of
woman suffrage there. He and his wife are now active members of the
State and city (Minneapolis) suffrage societies. The judge is also
a member of the State executive committee.</p>

<p>Wishing to give honor to whom honor is due, we would mention the
brave young women who have formed the Christian Temperance Unions,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_660" id="Page_660">[Pg 660]</a></span>
the leading spirits<a name="FNanchor_450_450" id="FNanchor_450_450"></a><a href="#Footnote_450_450" class="fnanchor">[450]</a> in this grand movement in Minneapolis, St.
Paul, Winona and St. Cloud. Their names will be usually found as
delegates to the annual meetings of all the State Unions. The small
army of noble girls who have helped to make the Good Templars'
lodges attractive and worthy resorts for their brothers and
friends, have done an inestimable work in elevating the moral tone
of the community all over the State. They have also done their full
share in petitioning congress for a sixteenth amendment, in which
they have received most untiring help from the young men of the
lodges. In 1884 Miss Frances Willard again visited the State,
advocating the ballot as well as the Bible as an aid to temperance
work. Her eloquent voice here as elsewhere woke many to serious
thought on the danger of this national vice to the safety and
stability of our republican institutions. It was through Miss
Willard's influence, no doubt, that the friends of temperance
established a department of franchise for the State, and made Mrs.
E. L. Crockett its superintendent.</p>

<p>The women of Minnesota seem thus far to have no special calling to
the legal profession. Mrs. Martha Angle Dorsett is the only woman
as yet admitted to the bar. She was graduated from the law school
at Des Moines, and admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of
Iowa in June, 1876. She was refused admission at first in
Minnesota, whereupon she appealed to the legislature, which in 1877
enacted a law securing the right to women by a vote of 63 to 30 in
the House, and 26 to 6 in the Senate.</p>

<p>In some of the larger cities and towns the literary, musical and
dramatic taste of our women<a name="FNanchor_451_451" id="FNanchor_451_451"></a><a href="#Footnote_451_451" class="fnanchor">[451]</a> is evidenced by societies and
clubs for mutual improvement. Many are attending classes for the
study of natural history, classic literature, social science, etc.
There is an art club in Minneapolis, composed wholly of artists,
both ladies and gentlemen, which meets every week, the members
making sketches from life. Miss Julie C. Gauthier had on exhibition
at the New Orleans Exposition, a full-length portrait, true to
life, of a colored man, "Pony," a veteran wood-sawer of St. Paul,
which received very complimentary notices from art critics of that
city, as well as from the press generally.</p>

<p>In the Business Colleges of Mr. Curtis at St. Paul and Minneapolis,
many women are teachers, and many more are educated as shorthand
reporters, telegraphers, and book-keepers. These have no difficulty
in finding places after completing their college course. Nearly
fifty young women are employed in the principal towns of the State
as telegraphers alone. Miss Mary M. Cary has been employed for
seven years as operator and station agent at Wayzata, for the St.
Paul, Minneapolis &amp; Manitoba R. R. Her services are highly valued,
as well they may be, for during her absence from the station two
men are required to do her work. By her talents and industry she
has acquired a thorough education for herself, besides educating
her two younger sisters. Mrs. Anna B. Underwood of Lake City, has
for many years been secretary of a firm conducting a large nursery
of fruit trees, plants and flowers. Her husband being one of the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_661" id="Page_661">[Pg 661]</a></span>
partners, she has taken a large share of the general management.
The orchard yields a profit of over $1,000 a year.</p>

<p>From the list of names to be found in the Appendix, we see that
Minnesota is remarkable for its galaxy of superior women actively
engaged as speakers and writers<a name="FNanchor_452_452" id="FNanchor_452_452"></a><a href="#Footnote_452_452" class="fnanchor">[452]</a> in many reforms, as well as in
the trades and professions, and in varied employments. One of the
great advantages of pioneer life is the necessity to man of woman's
help in all the emergencies of these new conditions in which their
forces and capacities are called into requisition. She thus
acquires a degree of self-reliance, courage and independence, that
would never be called out in older civilizations, and commands a
degree of respect from the men at her side that can only be learned
in their mutual dependence. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_431_431" id="Footnote_431_431"></a><a href="#FNanchor_431_431"><span class="label">[431]</span></a> The names of the young women who applied for
admission to the classical course of the Michigan State University,
in 1858, were Sarah Burger, Clara Norton, Ellen F. Thompson, Ada A.
Alvord, Rose Anderson, Helen White, Amanda Kieff, Lizzie Baker,
Nellie Baker, Anna Lathrop, Carrie Felch, Mary Becker, Adeline Ladd
and Harriet Patton.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_432_432" id="Footnote_432_432"></a><a href="#FNanchor_432_432"><span class="label">[432]</span></a> See <a href="#XLVII_A">Appendix, Chapter XLVII., note A</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_433_433" id="Footnote_433_433"></a><a href="#FNanchor_433_433"><span class="label">[433]</span></a> For further account of Mrs. Swisshelm's patriotic
work in Minnesota see her "Reminiscences of Half a Century":
Janson, McClurg &amp; Co., Chicago, Ill.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_434_434" id="Footnote_434_434"></a><a href="#FNanchor_434_434"><span class="label">[434]</span></a> The three women were, Mrs. Almira W. Anthony (whose
husband was a cousin of Susan B. Anthony), Mrs. Mary Powell Wheeler
and Mrs. Hattie M. White.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_435_435" id="Footnote_435_435"></a><a href="#FNanchor_435_435"><span class="label">[435]</span></a> In a volume of Minnesota biography, Mrs. VanCleve is
reported as a woman of great force of character, strong in her
convictions of what is right, and fearless in following the
dictates of her conscience. She was one of the original founders of
the Sisterhood of Bethany, a society for the reformation of
unfortunate women, and has held the position of president since its
formation. Through the medium of lectures and social influence, she
has enlisted the sympathy of a large number of the community. She
has served faithfully as a member of the East Minneapolis board of
education, and has always improved every opportunity to advocate
the right of suffrage for women. She is a member of the State
Suffrage Society, and has been for many years honorary
vice-president for this State, of the National Suffrage
Association. The following interesting fact is told of her, on the
authority of Major-General R. W. Johnson. It was given in an
address delivered by that gentleman before the old settlers'
association of Hennepin county, at a reunion in the city of
Minneapolis: Many years ago a soldier at Fort Snelling received an
injury to his feet, and mortification ensued. Amputation became
necessary and the case could not be postponed until a surgeon could
be sent for, because there was none nearer than the post-surgeon at
Prairie du Chien. No gentleman in the garrison was willing to
undertake so difficult an operation. Equal to any emergency, Mrs.
VanCleve, on hearing of the case, resolved to make the attempt. She
performed the operation skillfully, and saved the soldier's life.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_436_436" id="Footnote_436_436"></a><a href="#FNanchor_436_436"><span class="label">[436]</span></a> Mrs. Charlotte S. Winchell was a graduate of Albion
College, Michigan, and came to this State in 1873, with her
husband, Prof. Newton H. Winchell, widely known as Minnesota's
State geologist. Mrs. Winchell has always been an advocate of
suffrage for woman, and cheerfully accepted the position on the
school board, serving as clerk. She took an active part in the
nominations and elections of school officers. She was chairman of
the committee for introducing temperance text books into the
schools, secretary of the Woman's Board of Foreign Missions, a
member of the State and City Suffrage Societies, and of the
Association for the Advancement of Women.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_437_437" id="Footnote_437_437"></a><a href="#FNanchor_437_437"><span class="label">[437]</span></a> For names of women elected as school directors and
county superintendents, see <a href="#XLVII_B">Appendix to Minnesota, Chapter XLVII.,
Note B.</a></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_438_438" id="Footnote_438_438"></a><a href="#FNanchor_438_438"><span class="label">[438]</span></a> The officers of the Minnesota State W. C. T. U. are:
<i>President</i>, Mrs. H. A. Hobart; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. Mary A.
Shepardson, Mrs. E. J. Holley, Mrs. R. C. C. Gale, Mrs. H. C. May,
Mrs. L. M. Wylie; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. D. S. Haywood;
<i>Corresponding Secretaries</i>, Mrs. E. S. Wright, Miss M. E.
Mclntyre; <i>Treasurer</i>, Miss A. M. Henderson. Editor W. C. T. U.
department of <i>Temperance Review</i>, Mrs. Helen E. Gallinger.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_439_439" id="Footnote_439_439"></a><a href="#FNanchor_439_439"><span class="label">[439]</span></a> See <a href="#XLVII_C">Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note C</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_440_440" id="Footnote_440_440"></a><a href="#FNanchor_440_440"><span class="label">[440]</span></a> During the same decade 138 young men were graduated
from the different departments of the University.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_441_441" id="Footnote_441_441"></a><a href="#FNanchor_441_441"><span class="label">[441]</span></a> For names of graduates and professors, see <a href="#XLVII_D">Appendix,
Chapter XLVII., Note D.</a></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_442_442" id="Footnote_442_442"></a><a href="#FNanchor_442_442"><span class="label">[442]</span></a> See <a href="#XLVII_F">Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note F</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_443_443" id="Footnote_443_443"></a><a href="#FNanchor_443_443"><span class="label">[443]</span></a> Miss Anna Dickinson, Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Howe, Miss
Alice Fletcher, Miss Frances Willard, Mrs. Wittenmeyer, Mrs. Sarah
B. Chase, M. D. In the years 1875-6, Mrs. Stanton favored our State
with a series of lectures that awakened much interest. In 1878-9,
Miss Anthony came, and spoke in the principal cities. From Iowa
came Mrs. J. Ellen Foster, Matilda Fletcher, and Marianna Folsom,
and from Missouri, Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_444_444" id="Footnote_444_444"></a><a href="#FNanchor_444_444"><span class="label">[444]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Sarah Burger Stearns; <i>Vice-President</i>,
Julia Bullard Nelson; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. C. Smith;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. H. J. Moffit; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mrs. Minnie
Reed, Mrs. L. H. Clark, Mrs. R. Coons; <i>Corresponding Sec'y</i>, Mrs.
Laura Howe Carpenter. The following were the charter members: Mrs.
Harriet E. Bishop, Mrs. Martha Luly, St. Paul; Mrs. A. T. Anderson,
Mrs. H. J. Moffit, Mrs. C. Smith, Minneapolis; Mrs. Harriet A.
Hobart, Julia Bullard Nelson, Mrs. R. Coons, Red Wing; Sarah Burger
Stearns, Duluth; Mrs. L. C. Clarke, Worthington; Mrs. L. G. Finen,
Albert Lea; Mrs. K. E. Webster, Mrs. Minnie Reed, Mrs. M. A.
VanHoesen, Hastings.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_445_445" id="Footnote_445_445"></a><a href="#FNanchor_445_445"><span class="label">[445]</span></a> Mrs. Nelson, Mrs. Hobart, Mr. Satterlee, Mrs.
Charlotte O. Van Cleve, Mrs. Laura Howe Carpenter, Mrs. Viola
Fuller Miner.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_446_446" id="Footnote_446_446"></a><a href="#FNanchor_446_446"><span class="label">[446]</span></a> The societies organized were at Wayzata, Farmington,
Red Wing, Mantorille, Excelsior, Rochford, Lake City, Shakopee, and
Jordan: committees for suffrage work were also formed in the
following places: Anoka, Armstrong, Blakely, Brooklyn Center,
Champlin, Frontenac, Long Prairie, Long Lake, and Wabashaw.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_447_447" id="Footnote_447_447"></a><a href="#FNanchor_447_447"><span class="label">[447]</span></a> Rev. W. W. Satterlee, Rev. H. M. Simmons, Rev. F. J.
Wagner, whose church we occupied, and others. The speakers at this
convention were Mr. and Mrs. Dubois, Mrs. Wheeler, Mrs. Elliott,
Mrs. Hobart, Mrs. Carpenter, Miss Harriman. Letters were received
from Mrs. Devereux Blake, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Rev. J. B. Tuttle,
H. B. Blackwell, Lucy Stone and Col. T. W. Higginson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_448_448" id="Footnote_448_448"></a><a href="#FNanchor_448_448"><span class="label">[448]</span></a> The officers elected at this convention were:
<i>President</i>, Martha G. Ripley, M. D., Minneapolis;
<i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs. Lizzie Manson, Shakopee; <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Mary T. Emery, M. D., St. Paul; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Emma Harriman, Minneapolis; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Helen E.
Gallinger, Minneapolis; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mrs. S. K. Crawford,
Anoka; Mrs. M. A. Warner, Hamline; Mrs. F. G. Gould, Excelsior;
Rev. E. S. Williams, Prof. W. A. Carpenter, Mrs. A. T. Anderson and
Mrs. Laura Howe Carpenter, Minneapolis.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_449_449" id="Footnote_449_449"></a><a href="#FNanchor_449_449"><span class="label">[449]</span></a> From John G. Whittier, Mrs. Julia B. Nelson
(teaching school in Tennessee) and Henry B. Blackwell.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_450_450" id="Footnote_450_450"></a><a href="#FNanchor_450_450"><span class="label">[450]</span></a> Miss Carrie Holbrook, Miss Eva McIntyre, Miss
Harriman.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_451_451" id="Footnote_451_451"></a><a href="#FNanchor_451_451"><span class="label">[451]</span></a> See <a href="#XLVII_F">Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note F</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_452_452" id="Footnote_452_452"></a><a href="#FNanchor_452_452"><span class="label">[452]</span></a> See <a href="#XLVII_G">Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note G</a>.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_662" id="Page_662">[Pg 662]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLVIII" id="CHAPTER_XLVIII"></a>CHAPTER XLVIII.</h2>

<h3>DAKOTA.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Influences of Climate and Scenery&mdash;Legislative Action, 1872&mdash;Mrs.
Marietta Bones&mdash;In February, 1879, School Suffrage Granted
Women&mdash;Constitutional Convention, 1883&mdash;Matilda Joslyn Gage
Addressed a Letter to the Convention and an Appeal to the Women
of the State&mdash;Mrs. Bones Addressed the Convention in Person&mdash;The
Effort to Get the Word "Male" Out of the Constitution
Failed&mdash;Legislature of 1885&mdash;Major Pickler Presents the
Bill&mdash;Carried Through Both Houses&mdash;Governor Pierce's Veto&mdash;Major
Pickler's Letter. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">Philosophers</span> have had much to say of the effect of climate and
scenery upon the human family&mdash;the inspiring influence of the grand
and the boundless in broadening the thought of the people and
stimulating them to generous action. Hence, one might naturally
look for liberal ideas among a people surrounded with such vast
possessions as are in the territory of Dakota. But alas! there
seems to be no correspondence in this republic between areas and
constitutions. Although Dakota comprises 96,595,840 acres, yet
one-half her citizens are defrauded of their rights precisely as
they are in the little States of Delaware and Rhode Island. The
inhabitants denied the right of suffrage by their territorial
constitution are, the Indians not taxed (a hint that those who pay
taxes vote), idiots, convicts and women. But from records sent us
by Mrs. Marietta Bones, to whom we are indebted for this chapter,
there seem to have been some spasmodic climatic influences at work,
though not sufficiently strong as yet to get that odious word
"male" out of the constitution. Our Dakota historian says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The territorial legislature, in the year 1872, came within one
vote of enfranchising women. That vote was cast by Hon. W. W.
Moody, who, let it be said to his credit, most earnestly espoused
the cause in our constitutional convention in 1883, and said in
the course of his remarks: "Are not my wife and daughter as
competent to vote as I am to hold office?" which question caused
prolonged laughter among the most ignorant of the delegates, and
cries of, "You're right, Judge!" Although it is deeply to be
regretted that through one vote twelve years ago our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_663" id="Page_663">[Pg 663]</a></span> women were
deprived of freedom, yet we must forgive Judge Moody on the
ground that "it is never too late to mend."</p>

<p>In February, 1879, the legislature revised the school law, and
provided that women should vote at school meetings. That law was
repealed in March, 1883, by the school township law, which
requires regular polls and a private ballot, so, of course,
excluding women from the small privilege given them in 1879. That
act, however, excepted fifteen counties<a name="FNanchor_453_453" id="FNanchor_453_453"></a><a href="#Footnote_453_453" class="fnanchor">[453]</a>&mdash;the oldest and most
populous&mdash;which had districts fully established, and therein
women still vote at school meetings.</p>

<p>In townships which are large and have many schools under one
board and no districts, the people select which school they
desire their children to attend. The persons who may so select
are parents: first, the father; next, the mother, if there be no
father living; guardians (women or men), and "persons having in
charge children of school age." These persons hold a meeting
annually of their "school," and such women vote there, and one of
them may be chosen moderator for the school, to hold one year.
This office is a sort of responsible agency for the school, and
between it and the township board.</p>

<p>Since the legislation upon the subject of school suffrage there
has not been much work done for the promotion of the cause. The
wide distances between towns and the sparsely settled country
make our people comparative strangers to each other. We lack
organization; the country is too new; in fact, the most and only
work for woman suffrage has been done by Matilda Joslyn Gage and
myself, and, owing to disadvantages mentioned, that has been but
little. Mrs. Gage reached Dakota just at the close of the Huron
convention, held in June, 1883, to discuss the question of
territorial division. The resolutions of the convention declared
that just governments derived their powers from the consent of
the governed; that Dakota possessed a population of 200,000,
women included; that the people of a territory have the right, in
their sovereign capacity, to adopt a constitution and form a
State government. Accordingly, a convention was called for the
purpose of enabling those residing in that part of Dakota south
of the forty-sixth parallel to organize a State. Mrs. Gage at
once addressed a letter to the women of the territory and to the
constitutional convention assembled at Sioux Falls:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>To the Women of Dakota:</i></p>

<p>A convention of men will assemble at Sioux Falls, September 4,
for the purpose of framing a constitution and pressing upon
congress the formation of a State of the southern half of the
territory. This is the moment for women to act; it is the
decisive moment. There can never again come to the women of
Dakota an hour like the present. A constitution is the
fundamental law of the State; upon it all statute laws are based,
and upon the fact whether woman is inside or outside the pale of
the constitution, her rights in the State depend.</p>

<p>The code of Dakota, under the head of "Personal Relations," says:
"The husband is the head of the family. He may choose any
reasonable place, or mode of living, and the wife must conform
thereto." Under this class legislation, which was framed by man
entirely in his own interests, the husband may, and in many cases
does, file a preëmption<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_664" id="Page_664">[Pg 664]</a></span> claim, build a shanty, and place his
wife upon the ground as "a reasonable place and mode of living,"
while he remains in town in pursuit of business or pleasure.</p>

<p>Let us examine this condition of affairs a little closer. If the
wife is not pleased with this "place and mode of living," but
should leave it, she is, under this law of class legislation,
liable to be advertised as having left the husband's bed and
board, wherefore he will pay no debts of her contracting. And how
is it if she remains on this until her continued residence upon
it has enabled her husband to prove up? Does she then share in
its benefits? Is she then half owner of the land? By no means.
Chapter 3, section 83, article V. of the Code, says: "No estate
is allowed the husband or tenant by courtesy upon the death of
his wife, nor is any estate in dower allowed to the wife upon the
death of the husband."</p>

<p>This article carries a specious fairness on its face, but it is a
bundle of wrongs to woman. By the United States law, only "the
head of the family" is allowed to enter lands&mdash;either a
preëmption, homestead or tree claim. In unison with the United
States, the law of Dakota (see chapter 3, section 76) recognizes
the husband as the head of the family, and then declares that no
estate in dower is allowed to the wife upon the death of her
husband. Neither has she any claim upon any portion of this land
the husband, as head of the family, may take, except the
homestead, in which she is recognized as joint owner. The
preëmption claim upon which, in a comfortless claim-shanty, she
may have lived for six months, or longer, if upon unsurveyed
land, as "the reasonable place and mode of living" her husband
has selected for her, does not belong to her at all. She has no
part nor share in it. Upon proving, her husband may at once sell,
or deed it away as a gift, and she has no redress. It was not
hers. The law so declares; but she is her husband's, to the
extent that she can be thus used to secure 160 acres of land for
him, over which she has no right, title, claim or interest. I
have not space to pursue this subject farther, but will assure
the women of Dakota that reading the code, and the session laws
of the territory will be more interesting to them than any novel.
If they wish to still farther know their wrongs, let them look in
the code under the heads of "Parent and Child," "Crimes Defined,"
"Probate Court," etc., etc.</p>

<p>Every woman in Dakota should be immediately at work. Inasmuch as
the constitution is the fundamental law of the State, it should
be the effort of the women of Dakota to prevent the introduction
of the restrictive word "male." The delegates to the Sioux Falls
convention have now largely been elected. Address letters of
protest to them against making the constitution an organ of class
legislation. In as far as possible have personal interviews with
these delegates, and by speech make known your wishes on this
point. These are your only methods of representation. You have in
no way signified your desire for a constitution. You have not
been permitted to help make these laws which rob you of property,
and many other things more valuable. Many women are settling in
Dakota. Unmarried women and widows in large numbers are taking up
claims here, and their property is taxed to help support the
government and the men who make these iniquitous laws.</p>

<p>I have not mentioned a thousandth part of the wrongs done woman
by her being deprived of the right of self-government. Every
injustice under which she suffers, as wife, mother, woman, child,
in property and person, is due to the fact that she is not
recognized as man's political equal&mdash;and her only power is that
of protest. Lose not a moment, then, women of Dakota, in
objecting to the introduction of the word "male" into the
proposed new constitution. Besides seeing and writing to
delegates, make effort to be present at Sioux Falls during the
time of the convention, to labor with delegates from distant
points, and to go before committees, and the convention itself,
with your protests. Above all, remember that <i>now</i> is the
decisive hour.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>,<br />
<i>Vice-President-at-Large, National Woman Suffrage Association</i>.
</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Gage also addressed the following to the constitutional
convention: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_665" id="Page_665">[Pg 665]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><i>Gentlemen of the Convention</i>: The work upon which you are now
engaged is an important one in the interests of liberty, that of
framing a constitution for a proposed new State. As a
constitution is the fundamental law, its provisions should be
general in their character, equally recognizing the rights of all
its citizens by its protective powers. Our National principle,
that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the
governed, is becoming more and more widely recognized.</p>

<p>At an early day suffrage was restricted by qualifications of
property and education in many of the States, and the removal of
such restrictions has been left entirely to the States, except in
the one instance of color. Within the last two decades, by
amendments to the national constitution, all States are forbidden
to exclude citizens from the ballot upon that account.</p>

<p>As "sex" is now the only remaining disqualification, on behalf of
the National Woman Suffrage Association I ask you to omit the
word "male" from your proposed constitution, and leave the women
of Dakota free to exercise the right of suffrage. We simply ask
you to make your State a true republic, in which all your
citizens may stand equal before the law. While foreign men of
every nation are welcomed to your magnificent prairies as equals,
it is humiliating to the women of the territory, who are helping
you to develop its resources, who have endured with you all the
hardships of pioneer life, to be treated as inferiors, outside
the pale of political consideration. It should be the pride of
Dakota to take the initiative step in the legislation of the
period, now steadily growing more liberal, and by one generous
and graceful act accord to the women of this territory all the
rights, privileges and immunities that men claim for themselves.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Matilda Joslyn Gage</span>,<br />
<i>Vice-President-at-Large, N. W. S. A.</i>
</p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Aberdeen, Dakota, Sept. 3, 1883.</i></p>
</blockquote>


<p>It is to be regretted that the argument presented by Mrs. Gage
could not convince that honorable body of the injustice of laws
towards woman. To me was given the privilege of addressing the
convention. I said:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention</i>: The honor
conferred on me, of being allowed to address you on this
important occasion is fully appreciated. I am here in behalf of
the women of our territory, who are opposed to being left in the
State organization with no more authority in the government than
paupers, lunatics and idiots. We are willing to do one-half of
the manual labor in this country, and will promptly pay our
portion of the taxes. As sober and peaceful citizens, we compare
favorably with the other sex. I have the honor to present to you
a petition signed by hundreds of Day county voters, praying your
honorable body not to allow the word "male" to be incorporated
within our State constitution. There is no doubt that this
petition speaks the honest sentiment of the people throughout the
territory. In but a single instance was I refused a name, and in
a second case a man hesitated, saying, "Well, now, if it's as
many rights you're wantin' es I hev got fur meself, you'll be
after signin' my name fur me&mdash;fur I niver do any writin' at all
fur meself." And yet that man whose name I had to write has more
rights in this, his adopted country, than I and all other women
have in this our native land. The right of franchise, which has
heretofore been regarded as a privilege, should more properly be
considered a right&mdash;a right to be exercised by every citizen for
the public good. If there is not another woman in Dakota who
wants to vote, I do! There is no doubt that many women are
indifferent upon this subject, but when once given the ballot you
will see that their progress will equal, if not exceed, that of
the emancipated slaves in the South. Look at Wyoming Territory,
where woman suffrage has a fair test; no one will deny it has
proved a marked success. Elections there now are quiet and more
orderly than they are elsewhere. Before the enfranchisement of
the women of Wyoming, election days were a terror generally,
being both boisterous and riotous. It is really true that Dakota
men are the most<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_666" id="Page_666">[Pg 666]</a></span> energetic and enterprising anywhere to be
found, and in number they largely exceed our women. Gentlemen,
make this the most advantageous State for women, and they will
soon be wending their way hither. Women have been granted select
committees in both Houses of congress, and better still, each of
those committees has given us a majority report in favor of a
sixteenth amendment to the constitution of the United States,
prohibiting the disfranchisement of citizens on account of sex.
Gentlemen, delegates of this State constitutional convention, I
now appeal to your highest sense of honor and justice to give us
the right to vote&mdash;give it to us, not because we possess any
particular merit, but give it to us because it is our right! Then
Dakota will in fact be "a home of the free"&mdash;honored by all
nations, and the Banner State of the Union [applause]. </p></blockquote>

<p>But, after all our work and pleading, they turned a deaf
ear&mdash;infinitely worse, they were dishonest; at least this was true
of the committee on elections. I was present at every meeting of
that committee. At their last, I was with them three hours (the
entire session) to answer objections. One member made the motion,
"that the word 'male' be not incorporated within our State
constitution." The vote on the motion was a tie, when the chairman
cast his vote in the affirmative. After weeks of hard work I had
reached the goal! and with eyes brim full of tears, thanked that
committee. They then adjourned, to report in open convention the
next morning to my utter surprise, that "Women may vote at school
elections and for school officers." No words of mine can express
the disappointment and humiliation this defeat of justice caused
me.</p>

<p>Among the hundreds of questions asked me by that committee were
these: "Do you want a prohibitory plank in our State constitution?"
Answer: "No; prohibition should be settled by the people; it cannot
be with one-half our citizens disfranchised, and that half its most
earnest advocates." "Do you think prohibition prohibits?" "No;
man's prohibitory laws are good enough, but he does not enforce
them; women have not the authority to do so; but if you will give
us the power, we will soon have prohibition that <i>will</i> prohibit."
A voice: "I believe it!" "Do you think the majority of women want
to vote?" "I do not; but is that any reason why you should deprive
the one who does? You do not force men to vote; women, as a rule,
have not given this subject the attention they should; many of them
are as ignorant of the advantages the ballot would secure as were
the negroes when John Brown raised the insurrection at Harper's
Ferry."</p>

<p>There is a trite saying: "The darkest hour is just before the
dawn." The day cannot be far distant when Dakota's women will be
free; for the most intelligent men, and those occupying the most
prominent positions in our territory, are avowed friends of
suffrage. Chief-Justice of the Supreme Court for Dakota, Hon. A. J.
Edgerton, said in his Fourth of July oration here: "How necessary
it is for us to elect only good and honest men to office! To do
this, woman likewise must act her part in the labor of arresting
the advance of crime and corruption, although through timidity the
politician is slow to invest her with the higher duties and
obligations of American citizenship."</p>

<p>This same just judge has appointed a woman (Mrs. Washburn of
Chamberlain) stenographer of his judicial district&mdash;the best
salaried office in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_667" id="Page_667">[Pg 667]</a></span> his gift.<a name="FNanchor_454_454" id="FNanchor_454_454"></a><a href="#Footnote_454_454" class="fnanchor">[454]</a> With the assistance of this
grand man (occupying the highest position in our territory), and
many others equally efficient, it is not to be supposed that our
most intelligent women will be obliged to wait for the education of
the most ignorant men to consent to their enfranchisement.</p>

<p>In the last legislature (1885) Major John A. Pickler introduced a
bill enfranchising the women of the territory, which, after full
discussion, passed the House by 29 to 18,<a name="FNanchor_455_455" id="FNanchor_455_455"></a><a href="#Footnote_455_455" class="fnanchor">[455]</a> and the Council by
14 to 10. The hopes of the friends were soon disappointed by the
governor's veto:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Executive Office, Bismark, D. T.</span>, March 13, 1885.
</p>

<p><i>To the Speaker of the House of Representatives:</i></p>

<p>I herewith return House file No. 71, with my objections to its
becoming a law. A measure of this kind demands careful and candid
consideration, both because of its importance and because of the
acknowledged sincerity and high character of those who favor it.
There are certain reasons, however, why I cannot approve such a
measure at this time, and other reasons why I cannot approve this
particular bill. It is desirable, in my judgment, that we act, so
far as possible, as if we were governed, restrained and guided by
a constitution adopted by ourselves. If we had a constitution
modeled after those of the States, an extraordinary proposition
like this would be submitted to the people. If congress thinks
woman suffrage wise, it has the power to establish it. It is
unfair to shift the responsibility on the territory and then hold
it responsible for alleged imprudent legislation. I am assured
the enactment of this law will delay our claims to statehood, and
in so critical a period it is better that no pretext whatever be
given for such postponement. It is doubted by many if a majority
of the women of Dakota want the franchise. The point is made, and
a very good one, that the fact that one woman does not want a
right is not a justifiable reason for refusing it to another who
does, yet it must not be forgotten that the enfranchisement of
women confers not only a privilege but a grave burden and
responsibility. We condemn the man who neglects to vote as
recreant to his duty. If women are enfranchised, the right
conferred becomes an obligation as imperious to them as to men;
on those opposed as on those who favor the act. I think the women
of Dakota should have a voice in determining whether they should
assume this burden or not. So much for the general proposition.
There are two other features of this bill which I can scarcely
think satisfactory to the advocates of woman suffrage themselves.
I am satisfied that they should appear in a measure claiming to
advance the rights of women. If the vote of a woman is needed
anywhere, it is in our cities. In many existing city charters a
distinct clause appears, providing that males alone shall possess
the qualifications of electors. In this bill the word "male" is
only stricken out of one chapter of the code, leaving the
disability still standing against hundreds of women equally
entitled to recognition. The women of Sioux Falls, the women of
Mitchell, the women of Brookings, the women of Chamberlain, of
Watertown and a great many of the more important cities in
southern Dakota, would be disqualified from voting under these
special enactments, even though this bill became a law at this
very session. Charters have been created with that provision
retained, and they would make this bill abortive and largely
inoperative. A still more objectionable feature, and one
deliberately inserted, is the clause debarring women from the
right to hold office. If the word<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_668" id="Page_668">[Pg 668]</a></span> "male" had been stricken out
of the code, and no other action taken, they would have been
eligible, and I believe there is a wide feeling that many
offices, particularly those connected with penal and benevolent
institutions, could be most appropriately filled with women, but
this clause practically forbids their appointment. If women are
good enough to vote they are good enough to be voted for. If they
are qualified to choose officials, they are qualified to be
chosen. I don't say that I would approve this measure were it
otherwise worded, but I certainly would not indorse a bill which
thus keeps the word of promise to the ear and breaks it to the
hope, which deliberately and avowedly debars and disqualifies
women while assuming to exalt and honor them. These objections
are apart from the abstract right of women to the ballot, but
they show how necessary it is to approach such a subject with
deliberation. If women are to be enfranchised, let it be done,
not as a thirty days' wonder, but as a merited reform resulting
from mature reflection, approved by the public conscience and
sanctioned by the enlightened judgment of the people.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF40"><span class="smcap">Gilbert A. Pierce</span>, <i>Governor</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">[Signed:]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>An effort was promptly made to carry the measure over the
governor's veto, which failed by a vote of 18 to 26.</p>

<p>During the last session of the legislature a large public meeting
was held in Bismarck, at which many of the members spoke strongly
in favor of the woman suffrage amendment, the chief-justice and a
majority of his associates advocating the measure. Mrs. Gage, in a
letter from Dakota, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>An acquaintance of mine, the owner of a green-house, sent each of
the members voting "aye" a buttonhole bouquet, a badge of honor
which marked our friends for a few hours at least. It is a
pertinent fact that, while the opposition insist that women do
not want to vote, in a single county of this sparsely settled
territory 222 women did vote in the midst of a severe storm. In a
series of articles signed "Justice," published in the Bismarck
<i>Tribune</i>, we find the following:</p>

<p>The women of Dakota do desire the power to vote. One year ago a
majority of the commissioners of Kingsbury county signed a
request that at an election to be held March 4, 1884, the women
should, with the men, express their wishes by vote upon a
specified question of local policy. The women immediately
responded, prepared their separate ballot-boxes, placed them in
charge of the election officers by the side of the men's boxes
upon the same table at De Smet and other towns, and voted all day
side by side with the men, casting throughout the county 222
votes. A more orderly election was never known. No self-respect
was lost and no woman was lowered in public esteem. Clergymen,
lawyers, merchants, farmers, all voted with their wives, the
ballots going into different boxes. One thousand men voted in the
county. The day was stormy and snow deep on the ground. If 222
women in one county would without previous experience spring
forward to vote on a week's notice, is it to be supposed they do
not appreciate the right?</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Justice.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Mr. Pickler, who had taken an active part in the discussion on the
amendment, received many letters of thanks from the friends of
woman suffrage throughout the nation, and made his acknowledgments
in the following cordial letter to Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Faulkton</span>, D. T., April 20, 1885.
</p>

<p><i>Matilda Joslyn Gage, Syracuse, N. Y.</i>:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Madam</span>: Your kind letter addressed to me on the Woman
Suffrage bill, at Bismarck, would have been earlier acknowledged
had it not been that I suffered quite a severe illness upon my
return from the legislature. I beg to assure you that words of
encouragement from such able and distinguished personages as
yourself have been highly appreciated in my effort to secure
suffrage for women in Dakota. I am half inclined to think that
your indication as to a coming political party, with woman
suffrage as one plank in its platform, may not be without
foundation.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_669" id="Page_669">[Pg 669]</a></span></p>

<p>I introduced the bill in the Dakota legislature, having
previously supported a like measure in the Iowa legislature,
really without consultation with any one, or without knowledge as
to the sentiment of the members upon the question. I have had my
convictions since my college days that simple justice demands
that woman should have the ballot, and in this opinion I am
warmly seconded by my wife, who desires to vote, as I think all
sensible women should. I was pleased with the favor the bill
received, and after a week or two believed it possible to have it
pass the House, with constant exertion and watchfulness. Those
who at first laughed at the idea, learning I was very much in
earnest, stopped to consider and to discuss, and finally came to
vote for it.</p>

<p>It passed the House, and after considerable difficulty in getting
it out of the hands of an adverse committee in the Council, who
insisted on having it referred to them, it passed with an
amendment "to submit to a vote of the people." I managed to have
the House refuse to concur in this amendment, which resulted in a
conference committee, five out of six of whom reported in favor
of the Council receding from their amendment, which they did, and
yet, after all, and when we thought it safe, it was vetoed. Few,
if any, supposed that Governor Pierce, a governor only appointed
over us less than six months, would place himself a barrier in
the way of the will of the people, and opposed to the advancement
of human rights. I deeply regret that he did not rise to the
grandest opportunity of his life, but he failed to do so.</p>

<p>Your words were particularly encouraging, being personally
interested in Dakota as you are, and I dare say you will bear
witness that we have an intelligent people, and a great many good
women, land-owners and property-holders, who should have a voice
in the taxation of their property, real and personal. We shall
not give it up; we shall continue in the work, not doubting that
success will finally crown our efforts. Our constitution is not
yet formed, and if ever the political parties cease to exercise
their tyranny over us, by allowing us to be admitted as a State,
we shall endeavor at least to secure it so the legislature may
grant or prescribe the qualifications of voters without requiring
a change in the constitution.</p>

<p>Will you visit Dakota again? In another contest we would be much
aided by your presence and assistance, confidently believing that
"Heaven will one day free us from this slavery." If your
children<a name="FNanchor_456_456" id="FNanchor_456_456"></a><a href="#Footnote_456_456" class="fnanchor">[456]</a> reside in this section of the territory, I should
be pleased to form their acquaintance. Again thanking you for
your kind words, I am,</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">J. A. Pickler</span>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours truly,</p>

</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>As Dakota has thus deliberately trampled upon the rights of
one-half her people, it is to be hoped that congress will not admit
her into the Union until that odious word "male" is stricken from
her constitution.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_453_453" id="Footnote_453_453"></a><a href="#FNanchor_453_453"><span class="label">[453]</span></a> These counties are Union, Lincoln, Clay, Minnehaha,
Moody, Deuel, Codington, Cass, Walsh, Grand Forks, Pembina, Barnes,
Lawrence and Hutchinson.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_454_454" id="Footnote_454_454"></a><a href="#FNanchor_454_454"><span class="label">[454]</span></a> Since 1882 Mrs. Bones has held the office of
deputy-clerk of the District Court of Day county; Mrs. Washburn was
appointed to her office in 1884; Miss Elizabeth M. Cochrane,
appointed by Judge Seward Smith, is clerk of the District Court of
Falk county; Mrs. Virginia A. Wilkins is deputy-clerk of the
District Court of Hand county; Mrs. Dutton, deputy county-clerk,
and Mrs. Hanson deputy-sheriff of Day county; and Mrs. Pease is
deputy-receiver of the Watertown Land-office.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_455_455" id="Footnote_455_455"></a><a href="#FNanchor_455_455"><span class="label">[455]</span></a> <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Barnes, Blackmore, Coe, Bayard, Clark,
Dermody, Gregg, Hutson, Johnson, Miller, McCall, Parshall, Pierce,
Roach, Southwick, Smith, Stebbins, J. P. Ward, Huntington,
Hutchinson, Langan, Martin, Morgan, Pickler, Riddell, Steele,
Stevens, Sprague, Stewart&mdash;29. <i>Nays</i>&mdash;Davison, Hobart, Larson,
McCumber, Oliver, Pugh, Ruger, Strong, Eldridge, Helvig, Myron,
McHugh, Runkle, Swanton, Van Osdell, Williams, Mark Ward, Mr.
Speaker&mdash;18.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_456_456" id="Footnote_456_456"></a><a href="#FNanchor_456_456"><span class="label">[456]</span></a> Mrs. Gage has a son and daughter residing in Dakota,
both well educated, superior young people, whose influence will, no
doubt, be felt in every progressive movement in that State. Mrs.
Gage's children sympathize with their mother in her broad, liberal
views on all questions.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_670" id="Page_670">[Pg 670]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_XLIX" id="CHAPTER_XLIX"></a>CHAPTER XLIX.</h2>

<h3>NEBRASKA.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Clara Bewick Colby&mdash;Nebraska Came into the Possession of the
United States, 1803&mdash;The Home of the Dakotas&mdash;Organized as a
Territory, 1854&mdash;Territorial Legislature&mdash;Mrs. Amelia Bloomer
Addresses the House&mdash;Gen. Wm. Larimer, 1856&mdash;A Bill to Confer
Suffrage on Woman&mdash;Passed the House&mdash;Lost in the
Senate&mdash;Constitution Harmonized with the Fourteenth
Amendment&mdash;Admitted as a State March 1, 1867&mdash;Mrs. Stanton, Miss
Anthony Lecture in the State, 1867&mdash;Mrs. Tracy Cutler, 1870&mdash;Mrs.
Esther L. Warner's Letter&mdash;Constitutional Convention, 1871&mdash;Woman
Suffrage Amendment Submitted&mdash;Lost by 12,676 against, 3,502
for&mdash;Prolonged Discussion&mdash;Constitutional Convention,
1875&mdash;Grasshoppers Devastate the Country&mdash;<i>Inter-Ocean</i>, Mrs.
Harbert&mdash;Omaha <i>Republican</i>, 1876&mdash;Woman's Column Edited by Mrs.
Harriet S. Brooks&mdash;"Woman's Kingdom"&mdash;State Society formed,
January 19, 1881, Mrs. Brooks President&mdash;Mrs. Dinsmoore, Mrs.
Colby, Mrs. Brooks, before the Legislature&mdash;Amendment again
Submitted&mdash;Active Canvass of the State, 1882&mdash;First Convention of
the State Association&mdash;Charles F. Manderson&mdash;Unreliable
Petitions&mdash;An Unfair Count of Votes for Woman Suffrage&mdash;Amendment
Defeated&mdash;Conventions in Omaha&mdash;Notable Women in the
State&mdash;Conventions&mdash;<i>Woman's Tribune</i> Established in 1883. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">Clara Bewick Colby</span>, the historian for Nebraska, is of English
parentage, and came to Wisconsin when eight years of age. In her
country home, as one of a large family, she had but scant
opportunities for attending the district school, but her father
encouraged and assisted his children to study in the winter
evenings, and in this way she fitted herself to teach in country
schools. After a few terms she entered, the State University at
Madison, and while there made a constant effort to secure equal
privileges and opportunities for the students of her sex. She was
graduated with honors in 1869, and at once became a teacher of
history and Latin in the institution. She was married to Leonard W.
Colby, a graduate of the same university, and moved to Beatrice,
Nebraska, in 1872. Amidst the hardships of pioneer life in a new
country, the young wife for a season found her family cares
all-absorbing, but her taste for study, her love of literature and
her natural desire to improve the conditions about her, soon led
her to work up an interest in the establishment of a library and
course of lectures. She afterwards edited a department in the
Beatrice <i>Express</i> called "Woman's Work," and in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_671" id="Page_671">[Pg 671]</a></span> 1883 she started
<i>The Woman's Tribune</i>, a paper whose columns show that Mrs. Colby
has the true editorial instinct. For several years she has been
deeply interested in the movement for woman's enfranchisement,
devoting her journal to the advocacy of this great reform. In
addition to her cares as housekeeper<a name="FNanchor_457_457" id="FNanchor_457_457"></a><a href="#Footnote_457_457" class="fnanchor">[457]</a> and editor, Mrs. Colby
has also lectured extensively in many States, east and west, not
only to popular audiences, but before legislative and congressional
committees.</p>

<p>In her description of Nebraska and the steps of progress in woman's
civil and political rights, Mrs. Colby says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Nebraska makes its first appearance in history as part of
Louisiana and belonging to Spain. Seized by France in 1683, ceded
to Spain in 1762; again the property of France in 1800, and sold
to the United States in 1803; the shifting ownership yet left no
trace on that interior and inaccessible portion of Louisiana now
known as Nebraska. It was the home of the Dakotas, who had come
down from the north pushing the earlier Indian races before them.
Every autumn when <i>Heyokah</i>, the Spirit of the North, puffed from
his huge pipe the purpling smoke "enwrapping all the land in
mellow haze," the Dakotas gathered at the Great Red Pipestone
Quarry for their annual feast and council. These yearly
excursions brought them in contact with the fur traders, who in
turn roamed the wild and beautiful country of the Niobrara,
returning thence to Quebec laden with pelts. With the exception
of a few military posts, the first established in 1820 where the
town of Fort Calhoun now stands, Nebraska was uninhabited by
white people until the gold hunters of 1849 passed through what
seemed to them an arid desert, as they sought their Eldorado in
the mountains beyond. Disappointed and homesick, many of the
emigrants retraced their steps, and found their former trail
through Nebraska marked by sunflowers, the luxuriance of which
evidenced the fertility of the soil, and encouraged the travelers
to settle within its borders.</p>

<p>Nebraska became an organized territory by the Kansas-Nebraska
bill in 1854, including at first Dakota, Idaho and Colorado, from
which it was separated in 1863. The early settlers were
courageous, keeping heart amid attacks of savages, and
devastations of the fire-demon and the locust. Published history
is silent concerning the part that women took in this frontier
life, but the tales told by the fireside are full of the
endurance and heroism of wives whose very isolation kept them
hand to hand, shoulder to shoulder, and thought to thought with
their husbands. It is not strange then that the men of those
early days inclined readily to the idea of sharing the rights of
self-government with women who had with them left home and
kindred and the comforts of the older States. But it is
remarkable,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_672" id="Page_672">[Pg 672]</a></span> and proof that the thought belongs to the age, that,
thirty years ago, when the discussion of woman's status was still
new in Massachusetts and New York, and only seven years after the
first woman-suffrage convention ever held, here&mdash;half way across
a continent, in a country almost unheard of, and with but scant
communication with the older parts of the Republic&mdash;this
instinctive justice should have crystalized into legislative
action.</p>

<p>In December, 1855, an invitation was extended by the territorial
legislature to Mrs. Amelia Bloomer of Council Bluffs, to deliver
an address on woman's rights, in the Hall of the House of
Representatives. This invitation was signed by twenty-five
members of the legislature and was accepted by Mrs. Bloomer for
January 8. The following pleasing account of this address and its
reception was written by an Omaha correspondent of the Council
Bluffs <i>Chronotype</i> of that date:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Amelia Bloomer, who had been formally invited by members of
the legislature and others, arrived at the door of the
state-house at 7 o'clock, P. M., and by the gallantry of Gen.
Larimer, a passage was made for her to the platform. The house
had been crowded for some time with eager expectants to see the
lady and listen to the arguments which were to be adduced as the
fruitage of female thought and research. When all had been packed
into the house who could possibly find a place for the sole of
the foot, Mrs. Bloomer arose, amid cheers. We watched her
closely, and saw that she was perfectly self-possessed&mdash;not a
nerve seemed to be moved by excitement, and the voice did not
tremble. She arose in the dignity of a true woman, as if the
importance of her mission so absorbed her thoughts that timidity
or bashfulness were too mean to entangle the mental powers. She
delivered her lecture in a pleasing, able, and I may say,
eloquent manner that enchained the attention of her audience for
an hour and a half. A <i>man</i> could not have beaten it.</p>

<p>In mingling with the people next day, we found that her argument
had met with much favor. As far as property rights are concerned,
all seemed to agree with the lady that the laws of our country
are wrong, and that woman should receive the same protection as
man. All we have time to say now is, that Mrs. Bloomer's
arguments on woman's rights are unanswerable. We may doubt it is
policy for women to vote, but who can draw the line and say that
naturally she has not a right to do so? Mrs. Bloomer, though a
little body, is among the great women of the United States; and
her keen, intellectual eye seems to flash fire from a fountain
that will consume the stubble of old theories until woman is
placed in her true position in the enjoyment of equal rights and
privileges. Her only danger is in asking too much.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Oneida.</p>
</blockquote>


<p>Eight days after Mrs. Bloomer's address, Hon. Jerome Hoover, member
for the counties of Nemaha and Richardson, introduced in the House
a bill to confer suffrage equally upon women. The bill was put upon
its third reading, January 25, and was earnestly championed by
General William Larimer of Douglas county, formerly of Pittsburgh,
Pa. It passed by a vote of 14 to 11.<a name="FNanchor_458_458" id="FNanchor_458_458"></a><a href="#Footnote_458_458" class="fnanchor">[458]</a> The result of the passage
of the bill by the House was graphically described by the
<i>Chronotype</i> of January 30:</p>

<blockquote><p>On Friday afternoon and evening quite an excitement took place,
which resulted in offering an insult to one of the ablest members
of the legislature, but which, while it reflected no dishonor
upon the person against whom it was aimed, should cover the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_673" id="Page_673">[Pg 673]</a></span>
perpetrators with lasting shame. We will state briefly the facts
as we have heard them.</p>

<p>The bill giving woman the right to vote came up at 11 o'clock, by
a special order of the House. A number of ladies entered the hall
to listen to the proceedings. General Larimer spoke eloquently
and ably in favor of the bill, making, perhaps, the best speech
that could be made on that side of the question. On the vote
being taken, it stood&mdash;ayes 14, nays 11. The bill was then sent
to the Council, where it was referred to the Committee on
Elections. Its passage by the House of Representatives created a
great deal of talk, and several members threatened to resign. At
the evening session J. S. Morton, W. E. Moore, A. F. Salisbury
and L. L. Bowen came into the House and proposed to present
General Larimer with a petticoat, which did not tend much to
allay the excitement. The General, of course, was justly
indignant at such treatment, as were also the other members. The
proposal was characteristic of the prime mover in it, and we are
astonished that the other gentlemen named should have been
willing to associate themselves with him in offering this
indignity to the oldest and most respected member of the body&mdash;a
man who was elected to the station he has so ably filled by the
unanimous vote of the people of Douglas county. General Larimer
had a perfect right to advocate or oppose the bill according to
his own sense of duty, and any man, or set of men, who would
attempt to cast insult or ridicule upon him for so doing, is
worthy only of the contempt of decent people. In saying this we,
of course, express no opinion on the merits of the bill itself. </p></blockquote>

<p>The bill was taken up in the Council, read twice, and referred to
the Committee on Elections, whose chairman, Mr. Cowles, reported it
back without amendment, and recommended its passage. This being the
last day of the session, the bill could not come up again. The
<i>Chronotype</i>, after the adjournment, commented as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>The bill granting women the right to vote, which had passed the
House, was read the first and second time in the Council and
referred to the Committee on Elections, where it now remains for
want of time to bring it up again. A gentleman who was opposed to
the passage of a bill to locate the seat of justice of Washington
county, obtained the floor, and delivered a speech of many hours
on some unimportant bill then under consideration, in order to
"kill time" and prevent the Washington county bill from coming
up. The hour for adjournment <i>sine die</i> arrived before he
concluded, and the Woman Suffrage bill, and many others of great
importance, remained upon the clerk's table without being acted
upon. It is admitted by every one that want of time only defeated
the passage of the bill through the Council. The citizens of
Nebraska are ready to make a trial of its provisions, which
speaks volumes for the intelligence of the free and independent
squatters of this beautiful territory. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Bloomer says that assurance was given by members of the
Council that the bill would have passed that body triumphantly had
more time been allowed, or had it been introduced earlier in the
session. The general sentiment was in favor of it, and the
gentlemen who talked the last hours away to kill other bills were
alone responsible for its defeat. Mrs. Bloomer followed up her work
by lectures in Omaha and Nebraska City two years later.</p>

<p>The exigencies attending the settlement of the territory and the
absorbing interests of the civil war occupied the next decade. The
character of the settlers may be inferred from the fact that, with
only about 5,000 voters, Nebraska gave over 3,000 soldiers for the
defense of the Union and of their home borders, where the Indians
had seized the occasion to break out into active hostilities. The
war over, Nebraska sought to be admitted as a State, and a
constitution was prepared on the old<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_674" id="Page_674">[Pg 674]</a></span> basis of white male suffrage.
Congress admitted Nebraska, but provided that the act should not
take effect until the constitution should be changed to harmonize
with the fourteenth amendment. After some discussion the condition
was accepted, and Nebraska was thus the first State to recognize in
its constitution the sovereignty of all male persons. Some of the
debates of this time indicate that the appreciation of human rights
was growing, nor were allusions wanting making a direct application
of the principle to women. The debates and resolutions connected
with the ratification of the fourteenth amendment are historically
and logically connected with the growth of the idea of woman's
political equality. The man who, from regard for justice and civil
liberties, advocates the right of franchise for additional classes
of men, easily extends the thought until it embraces woman. On the
other hand the man who sees men enfranchised whom he deems unworthy
to use the ballot, thinks it a disgrace to withhold it from
intelligent women. Gov. Alvin Saunders,<a name="FNanchor_459_459" id="FNanchor_459_459"></a><a href="#Footnote_459_459" class="fnanchor">[459]</a> in his message urging
the ratification of the fourteenth amendment said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The day, in my opinion, is not far distant when property
qualifications, educational qualifications, and color
qualifications, as precedent to the privilege of voting, will be
known no more by the American people, but that intelligence and
manhood will be the only qualifications necessary to entitle an
American citizen to the privilege of an elector. </p></blockquote>

<p>Later, Acting-governor A. S. Paddock<a name="FNanchor_459a_459a" id="FNanchor_459a_459a"></a><a href="#Footnote_459_459" class="fnanchor">[459]</a> in his message said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I should hail with joy a radical change in the rule of suffrage
which would give the franchise to intelligence and patriotism
wherever found, regardless of the color of the possessor. </p></blockquote>

<p>The majority report of the committee to whom was referred that
portion of the governor's message which related to rights of
suffrage, was as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>We hold that the dogma of partial suffrage is a dangerous
doctrine, and contrary to the laws of nature and the letter and
spirit of the Declaration of Independence.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF60 sc">Isaac Wiles, William Dailey, George Crow.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">[Signed:]</p>


<p class="ltr-clear">A minority report was brought in by S. M. Curran and Aug. F.
Harvey. On its rejection Mr. Harvey introduced this resolution:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we, the members of the House of Representatives,
of the legislature of Nebraska, are in favor of impartial and
universal suffrage, and believe fully in the equality of all
races, colors and sexes at the ballot-box. </p></blockquote>

<p>This was not intended to advance the rights of women, but simply to
slay the advocates of the enlargement of the franchise with their
own weapons. A. B. Fuller moved to amend by striking out the word
"universal," and all after the word "suffrage," which was carried
by a vote of 22 to 9. The Committee on Federal Relations reported:</p>

<blockquote><p>The constitution recognizes all persons born within the United
States, or naturalized in pursuance of the law, to be citizens,
and entitled to the rights of citizenship; and a recent act of
congress amends the organization acts of the several territories
so as to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_675" id="Page_675">[Pg 675]</a></span> confer the rights of suffrage upon all citizens except
such as are disqualified by reason of crime. Consequently, when
congress decrees that we shall not, as a State, deprive citizens
of rights already guaranteed to them, it does not transcend its
powers, or impose upon us conditions from which we are now
exempt. </p></blockquote>

<p>With these discussions of fundamental principles which, although
couched in the most comprehensive terms, strangely enough conserved
the rights of only half the citizens, the fourteenth amendment was
ratified, and Nebraska became a State on March 1, 1867.</p>

<p>The early legislation of Nebraska was favorable to woman, and much
ahead of that passed in the same period by most of the older
States, The records show that a few legislators treated any matter
that referred to the rights of woman as a jest, but the majority
were liberal or respectful, and the honored names of Dailey,
Reavis, Majors, Porter, Kelley, and others, constantly recur in the
records of the earlier sessions as pushing favorable legislation
for women. At almost every session, too, the actual question of the
ballot for woman was broached. The legislature of 1869 bestowed
school suffrage on women;<a name="FNanchor_460_460" id="FNanchor_460_460"></a><a href="#Footnote_460_460" class="fnanchor">[460]</a> and a joint resolution and a
memorial to congress relative to female suffrage were introduced.
The journals show that:</p>

<blockquote><p>Hon. Isham Reavis of Falls City, introduced in the Senate January
30, a memorial and joint resolution to congress, on the subject
of female suffrage. After the second reading, on motion of Mr.
Majors, it was referred to a select committee of bachelors,
consisting of Senators Gere, Majors, Porter, and Goodwill, who
reported it back without recommendation. It was afterwards
considered in committee of the whole, then taken up by the
Senate. Reavis moved it be taken up for third reading on the
following day. The yeas and nays being demanded the motion was
lost by a vote of 6 to 7. On motion of Mr. Stevenson the matter
was referred to the Judiciary Committee, with the usual result of
neglect and oblivion. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the autumn of 1867 Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony lectured in
Omaha and sowed seed which bore fruit in the large number of
petitions sent later from that city. In December 1870, Mrs. Tracy
Cutler gave several addresses in Lincoln. Miss Anthony lectured
January 28, 1871, on "The False Theory," and before leaving the
city looked in on the legislature, which promptly extended to her
the privilege of the floor. A number of ladies met Miss Anthony for
consultation, and took the initiatory steps for forming a State
association. A meeting was appointed for the following Friday, when
it was decided to memorialize the legislature. The memorial was
headed by Mrs. Lydia Butler, wife of the governor of the State, who
spent some days in securing signatures. A lively pen-picture of
those times is furnished by private correspondence of Mrs. Esther
L. Warner of Roca:</p>

<blockquote><p>The first work done for woman suffrage in Lincoln was in
December, 1870. Mrs. Tracy Cutler stopped when on her way to
California, and gave several addresses in Lincoln. Her
womanliness and logic won and convinced her hearers, and had a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_676" id="Page_676">[Pg 676]</a></span>
marked effect upon public sentiment. There are men and women
to-day in Nebraska who date their conversion to the cause of
equal rights from those lectures. Some steps were taken towards
organization, but the matter was dropped in its incipient stages.
During the same winter Miss Susan B. Anthony lectured in Lincoln,
and presented a petition to be signed by women, asking to be
allowed to vote under the fourteenth amendment. She also called a
meeting of ladies in a hotel parlor and aided in organizing a
State suffrage society. Her rare executive ability accomplished
what other hands would have failed to do, for the difficulties in
the way of such a movement at that early day were great. Lydia
Butler, wife of Governor Butler, was elected president, and other
representative women filled the various offices, but after a
short time it was deemed wise to disband, as circumstances made
it impossible to keep up an efficient organization. Time and
money were not plentiful with western women, but we did what we
could, and sent a petition to the legislature that winter asking
a resolution recommending to the coming State convention to omit
the word "male" from the constitution. The petition was signed by
about 1,000 women, and received respectful attention from the
legislature, and speeches were made in its favor by several
members. Among others the speaker of the House, F. M. McDougal,
favored the resolution. Governor Butler sent a special message
with the petition, recommending the passage of the resolution,
for which Nebraska women will always honor him.</p>

<p>Next it was thought best to call a convention in the interest of
woman suffrage, to be held while the constitutional convention
should be in session the coming summer. Two women were
commissioned to prepare the call and present it for the
signatures of members of the legislature who favored the measure.
It was thought this course would give dignity and importance to
the call which would secure attention throughout the State. The
session of the legislature was very exciting. Intrigue
accomplished the impeachment of a high State official, and others
were being dragged down. As it neared its close the political
cauldron boiled and bubbled with redoubled violence. It was more
than any woman dared do to approach it. Were not the political
fortunes and the sacred honor (?) of men in jeopardy? Woman's
rights sunk into insignificance. We subsided. Our hour had not
yet come. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Butler says of the part she took at this time: "I entertained
the speakers because requested to, and found them so pleasant and
persuasive that I soon became a convert to their views. The active
and intelligent leaders at that time were Mesdames Cropsey, Galey,
Warner, Monell, Coda, and many others whose names I cannot recall."
As the result of the effort thus made the legislature of 1871
memorialized the constitutional convention relative to submitting
the question to the electors. The proceedings given in the journals
are as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>February 4, 1871, Mr. J. C. Myers announced that ladies were in
the gallery, and desired to present a petition. A committee was
appointed to wait on them. D. J. Quimby introduced a resolution
asking an opinion of the attorney-general as to whether in
accepting the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments we grant the
right of suffrage to women. It was carried, and the memorial, the
opinion, and the governor's message were referred to the
judiciary committee, which reported through Mr. Galey as follows:</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, The constitution of the State of Nebraska prohibits
the women of said State from exercising the right of the elective
franchise; and</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, Taxation without representation is repugnant to a
republican form of government, and applies to women as well as
all other citizens of this State; and</p>

<p><i>Whereas</i>, All laws which make any distinction between the
political rights and privileges of males and females are
unbecoming to the people of this State in the year 1871 of the
world's progress, and tend only to deprive the latter of the
means necessary for their own protection in the various pursuits
and callings of life. Therefore be it</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, By the House of Representatives of the State of
Nebraska, that the constitutional convention to be begun and
holden on the&mdash;day of May, 1871, for the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_677" id="Page_677">[Pg 677]</a></span> purpose of revising and
amending the constitution of said State, is hereby most
respectfully and earnestly requested to draft such amendment to
the constitution of this State as will allow the women thereof to
exercise the right of the elective franchise and afford to them
such other and further relief as to that honorable body may be
deemed wise, expedient and proper; and be it further</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That said convention is hereby most respectfully and
earnestly requested to make such provision (when said amendment
shall be submitted to a vote of the people of said State) as will
enable the women of Nebraska to vote at said election for the
adoption or rejection of the same.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, Further, that the Secretary of State is hereby
instructed to present a copy of this resolution to said
convention as soon as the same shall be convened.</p>

<p>Mr. Porter moved the adoption of the report, which was carried by
a vote of 19 to 16.<a name="FNanchor_461_461" id="FNanchor_461_461"></a><a href="#Footnote_461_461" class="fnanchor">[461]</a> In the Senate, March 22, E. C.
Cunningham offered the following amendment to the bill providing
for calling a constitutional convention:</p>

<p>That the electors of the State be and are hereby authorized and
recommended to vote for and against female suffrage at the
election for members of the constitutional convention. Provided,
That at such election all women above the age of 21 years,
possessing the qualifications required of male electors are
hereby authorized and requested to vote upon said proposition,
and for the purpose of receiving their votes a separate polling
place shall be provided.</p>

<p>The amendment was lost by a vote of 6 to 6.<a name="FNanchor_462_462" id="FNanchor_462_462"></a><a href="#Footnote_462_462" class="fnanchor">[462]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>In accordance with the memorial of the legislature, the
constitutional convention that met in the following summer by a
vote of 30 to 13<a name="FNanchor_463_463" id="FNanchor_463_463"></a><a href="#Footnote_463_463" class="fnanchor">[463]</a> submitted a clause relative to the right of
suffrage. The constitution itself was rejected by the voters; and
on this clause the ballot stood, for, 3,502; against, 12,676. Had
it been carried at the polls, it would only have conferred upon the
legislature the right to submit amendments, and it was therefore no
special object to the adherents of impartial suffrage to make
efforts for its adoption, while the fact that it was the outgrowth
of the discussion of that principle brought upon it all the
opposition that a clause actually conferring the ballot would have
insured. The right of woman to the elective franchise was
championed by the ablest men in the convention. Night after night
the question was argued <i>pro</i> and <i>con</i>. Petitions from Lincoln and
Omaha were numerously presented. The galleries were filled with
women eagerly watching the result. The proposition finally adopted
did not touch the point at issue, but was accepted as all that
could be obtained on that occasion. As the constitution was not
adopted, the succeeding legislature felt no interest in the
proceedings of the convention, and the journals were not printed;
and the records of this battle for justice and civil liberty were
hidden in the dusty archives of the state-house until brought out
to tell their story for these pages. As this is the only discussion
of the question by Nebraska statesmen which has been officially
preserved, and as the debaters were among the most prominent<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_678" id="Page_678">[Pg 678]</a></span> men
of the State, and many of them retain that position to-day, a few
extracts will be of interest:</p>

<blockquote><p>The discussion began with the motion of Mr. I. S. Hascall to
strike out "men" and insert "persons" in the clause "All men are
by nature free and independent." The motion was lost. General E.
Estabrook moved to add "Every human being of full age, and
resident for a proper length of time on the soil of the Nation
and State, who is required to obey the law, is entitled to a
voice in its enactment; and every such person whose property is
taxed for the support of the government is entitled to a direct
representation in such government." Mr. Hascall moved that "man"
be inserted in place of "human being." Mr. E. S. Towle desired to
put "male" in the place of "man." General Estabrook, on being
asked if his amendment was intended to cover "woman's rights,"
replied:</p>

<p>I take pleasure in making the amendment because it is a step in
the right direction. Justice to woman is the keystone in the arch
of the temple of liberty we are now building. That no citizen
should be taxed without representation is an underlying principle
of a republic and no free government can exist without it.</p>

<p>General Estabrook seems to have stood alone in considering that
the principle of impartial suffrage properly belonged to the Bill
of Rights. The amendments were lost. When the article on
extension of suffrage was under discussion, General Estabrook
opened the subject in a comprehensive speech, lasting all one
evening and part of the next. He proved that women were citizens,
citing the petitions to congress relative to woman's right to
vote under the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments, and the
reports of the committee thereupon&mdash;one in favor and one opposed,
but both agreeing that women are citizens. Then he showed what
rights they were entitled to as citizens, quoting the Federal
Constitution, Bouvier's Institutes and Law Dictionary, James
Madison, Paine's Dissertation on the Principles of Government,
Otis' Rights of the Colonies, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin
Franklin, and others. Commenting upon these, he set forth that
women vote in corporations, administer estates, manage hospitals
and rule empires without harm to themselves and with benefit to
everybody else. He made a special argument to the Democrats,
reviewing the position of some of their leading men, and closed
with saying, "This is the most important measure yet considered,
because it contains a fundamental principle."</p>

<p>General Strickland then introduced a resolution that an article
for woman suffrage should be submitted to the people, that the
women should vote separately, and that if a majority of both men
and women should be in favor, it should become a law. The member
did not move this because he favored the principle, but because
he felt sure the women would not vote for it. He could not
understand what a woman could possibly want more than she had,
having the privileges while man has the drudgery. He closed with
the prophecy that in two years not a woman would vote in Wyoming.</p>

<p>General Charles F. Manderson followed. Taking the ground that the
members were not in convention to look after the rights of the
males only, he said: "Did we recognize the right of all the
people to be represented, we should have to-day on this floor
some persons sent here to represent the women of our State. Men
do not represent women because they are not and cannot be held
responsible by them. We have no more right to represent the women
here than a man in Iowa has to go to congress and presume to
represent Nebraska there." To illustrate the principle General
Manderson instanced that in the New York Constitutional
Conventions of 1801 and 1821, persons voted for delegates who had
not the property qualifications to vote at ordinary elections.
Even the black man was represented by delegates for whom he had
voted. In presenting a petition from Lincoln with seventy names
of women who desired to vote, General Manderson said he had made
inquiries, and these were the names of the respectable,
influential ladies of Lincoln, sixty-three of whom were married.
He then reviewed the history and workings of woman suffrage in
Wyoming, furnishing the highest testimony in its favor, and
closed as follows:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">Mr. Chairman, I envy not the heart or the head of the man, let
him occupy what place he may, let him sit in a legislative body
or wield the editorial pen, who is so<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_679" id="Page_679">[Pg 679]</a></span> base as to denounce the
advocates of this measure as demagogues, and to say that if the
right is extended to woman, the low, the miserable, will
outnumber at the polls the thousands of virtuous wives throughout
this land who advocate this measure; the lie is thrown in his
teeth by that noble woman, Mrs. Livermore, who did more service
in time of war as a soldier battling for the right than did even
my gallant friend, and did far more than myself. She inaugurated
and carried in her mighty hand and guided by her mighty brain
that Western Ladies' Aid Society, and helped by some means the
Western Sanitary Association that did more than 10,000 armed men
to suppress the late rebellion. The lie is hurled in the teeth of
the vile slanderer by this petition from the honest, virtuous
ladies of the city of Lincoln. If we have planted one seed, that
will bring forth good fruit, God be thanked for that result.</p>

<p>Mr. Kenaston spoke in favor of the measure, and Judge Moore
opposed it in a very witty speech, of which the principal points
were that the members were to decide according to expediency, not
right; that women had always consented to the government&mdash;never
trampled the flag in the dust, but always rallied to its support.
Judge O. P. Mason followed in opposition, also J. C. Myers, the
latter claiming that for twenty years the advocates of woman
suffrage have made little, if any, impression on the public mind.
E. F. Gray had begun speaking in favor when Victor Vifquain moved
the previous question. A lively debate followed this, but it did
not prevail. Mr. Mason said: "If we hold the right on this
question let us challenge discussion and meet the opposition. It
is not a wasted time that sows the seed of truth in the brain."
Mr. Manderson urged the number of petitions that had been sent in
as a reason for full discussion. R. F. Stevenson said he was
opposed to it in every form. A. L. Sprague was against submitting
this question at any time, that neither by the laws of God nor of
man were women entitled to vote. Seth Robinson would like to hear
the social aspects of the question discussed. He said: "I would
like, gentlemen, to show whether it would not have a tendency to
regenerate our social system and make women as a class more
efficient than they are." The motion for the previous question
being lost a motion was made to strike out this section. While
this was pending General Estabrook insisted that it should be
re-committed, saying: "It is the only political question that has
essential principle in it. There are not brains enough in this
convention to show the justice of taxation without
representation. Judge George B. Lake warmly seconded Mr.
Estabrook's motion. O. P. Mason wanted the proposition to be
submitted to both sexes separately. J. E. Philpott advocated
woman suffrage in a comprehensive argument. In closing, he said:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">I demand that suffrage shall be extended to females for the
reason that they have not adequate representation in the
electoral department. As evidence of this I cite the undeniable
facts that in this State woman has not fair wages for her
work&mdash;has not a fair field to work in. The law, with all its
freedom, does not place her on the same footing as to property
that it does males. She has no voice as an elector in the making
of the laws which regulate her marital union, no voice in the
laws which sever those ties. The motto of the State is "Equality
Before the Law." This can no more be among us with women
disfranchised than in our nation all men could be free and equal
while there were more than 3,000,000 slaves.</p>

<p>A. J. Weaver spoke in opposition and was followed by Hon. I. S.
Hascall, who based his advocacy of the principle on the rights
that woman has as an individual:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">Because we have started upon the wrong track, because women in
the dark ages were in bondage, is no reason, when we have
advanced to a higher civilization, that we should continue this
barbarous practice. There is a higher point to reach and I want
to see the people reach that point. I think that the American
people are old enough in experience to bring order out of
disorder, and that when the question arises they will meet it in
such a way as will be satisfactory to all.</p>

<p>Mr. Stevenson spoke in opposition basing his argument on man's
superiority to woman and closed with this remarkable prediction
which has probably never been surpassed as a specimen of "spread
eagle":</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">Finally, Mr. President, I really think that if the ballot were
placed in the hands of woman the old American eagle that stands
with one foot upon the Alleghanies and the other upon the
Rockies, whetting his beak upon the ice-capped mountains of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_680" id="Page_680">[Pg 680]</a></span>
Alaska, and covering half the Southern gulf with his tail, will
cease to scream and sink into the pits of blackness of darkness
amidst the shrieks of lost spirits that will forever echo and
reëcho through cavernous depths unknown.</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">S. P. Majors advocated the measure, and in the course of the
discussion, B. I. Hinman offered a burlesque resolution,
proposing to change the duties and functions of the sexes by law,
and John D. Neligh said:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">The gentleman from Otoe (Mr. Mason) will get the commission of
the Christian mothers, not <i>against</i> the right of female
suffrage, but <i>for</i> universal suffrage. That will be a happy
day&mdash;a day when we shall shine out as a nation more brightly than
any other nation under the sun.<a name="FNanchor_464_464" id="FNanchor_464_464"></a><a href="#Footnote_464_464" class="fnanchor">[464]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>The constitution of 1871 not having been adopted, it became
necessary to present another to the people. Accordingly in the
summer of 1875 delegates of the male citizens met in the capital
city. No outside pressure was brought to bear upon them to
influence their consideration of this subject. The grasshoppers had
ravaged the State the previous year, cutting off entirely the
principal crop of the country. Again in the spring of 1875, in some
of the river counties, the young had hatched in myriads, and
devoured the growing crops ere winging their way to their mountain
home. Gloom overspread the people at the prospect of renewed
disaster, and the dismal forebodings were realized even as the
delegates sat in council, for at this time occurred the final
appearance of the locust. As the people gazed into the sky and
watched the silver cloud floating in the sunshine resolve itself
into a miniature army clad in burnished steel, women forgot to be
concerned for their rights, and the delegates thought only of
completing their work with the utmost economy and speed.</p>

<p>The new constitution, however, was formed on a more liberal basis.
Hon. R. B. Harrington, of Beatrice, in the Committee on Bill of
Rights, substituted the word "people" for "men," and it passed
without comment. An article on amendments was embodied in the
constitution, the same in substance as the one defeated in 1871,
under which, as was actually done in 1881, the legislature could
present amendments relating to suffrage.</p>

<p>The question of adopting the article relating to qualifications of
electors being before the convention. Judge Clinton Briggs of Omaha
sat during the reading of the first clause, "every male," etc.,
meditating, as he related to a friend, on how many lives had been
sacrificed and how many millions of money had been spent in getting
rid of the word "white," which had made such an unjust restriction,
and how easy it would be, by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_681" id="Page_681">[Pg 681]</a></span> one dash of the pen, to blot out the
word "male," and thus abolish this other unjust restriction. On the
inspiration of the moment, he moved to strike out the word "male,"
R. B. Harrington relates that the motion of Judge Briggs, who had
not before expressed his sentiments, and who had not consulted with
the known advocates of the measure, so astonished the convention
that it was some time before they could realize that he was in
earnest. The friends rallied to Judge Briggs' support. Gen. Chas.
F. Manderson&mdash;a member of this, as of the preceding
convention&mdash;seconded the motion, and sustained it with a forcible
speech. Mr. Harrington made a speech in its favor, and after a
short and vigorous discussion it came to a vote, which showed
fifteen for the motion and fifty-two against.<a name="FNanchor_465_465" id="FNanchor_465_465"></a><a href="#Footnote_465_465" class="fnanchor">[465]</a></p>

<p>About this time Nebraska was again visited by lecturers on woman
suffrage, who found an intelligent class of people, who, with
growing material prosperity, were kindly disposed toward
progressive ideas. Mrs. Margaret Campbell lectured in Nebraska in
1875, at about fifteen places between Kearney and the Missouri. In
1877-8 and 9, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony lectured at many
points. These, with some local lectures aroused an intelligent
interest in equal rights for women. It was attempted to give this
expression in the legislature of 1879. Resolutions were introduced,
favorable reports made and the subject treated with kindly
consideration, but for lack of time, or some one deeply interested,
nothing was accomplished.</p>

<blockquote><p>The legislation of 1879 on the subject of equal suffrage
originated with Senator McMeans and C. B. Slocumb of Fairbury.
The former offered a petition from Thos. Harbine and 160 others,
asking a constitutional amendment prohibiting the disfranchising
of citizens on account of sex. Referred to a committee of whom a
majority recommended that its consideration be indefinitely
postponed. A minority report was brought in by Orlando Tefft and
Chas. H. Brown recommending that the prayers of petitioners be
granted. In the House, at the same session, C. B. Slocumb
presented the petition of Calvin F. Steele and others, with a
resolution asking that the committee on constitutional amendments
be instructed to provide for the submission of an amendment
conferring the franchise upon woman. The resolution was adopted,
referred, and reported back with draft of an amendment. The
committee were Messrs. True, Windham, Batty, Simonton, Mitchell,
Sparks and Gaylord. On motion of Mr. True the joint resolution
was ordered to first reading; no further mention appears of it. </p></blockquote>

<p>The first suffrage society of the State was formed at Fairbury by
Mrs. H. Tyler Wilcox, and although this organization lived but a
short time, it secured petitions and drew the attention of
legislators elect&mdash;Senator McMeans and C. B. Slocumb&mdash;to the
general interest felt in Jefferson county. The second society was
formed in Thayer county. The sisters, Mrs. Davis and Mrs. Cornell,
of Alexandria, called a meeting, which resulted in organizing the
Alexandria Free Suffrage Association, Sept. 27, 1878. Prof. W. D.
Vermilion and E. M. Correll of Hebron, lectured before this
society, but, most of the members living in the country, the
meetings were given up when the cold weather set in.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_682" id="Page_682">[Pg 682]</a></span></p>

<p>The first working society was that of Hebron, which was organized
by Mrs. Stanton, April 15, 1879. The citizens were prepared for the
undertaking. E. M. Correll, editor of the Hebron <i>Journal</i>, in
editorials, in lectures by himself and others, had urged on women
the dignity and importance of interesting themselves in their own
behalf. The society had been encouraged by lectures from Miss
Couzins and Mrs. H. T. Wilcox, the latter taking the ground then
comparatively new, that woman's ballot is necessary for successful
temperance effort. Meetings were kept up regularly and with
increasing membership, and the Thayer County Woman Suffrage
Association won a deserved triumph in being primarily connected
with the origin and successful passage of the joint resolution of
1881. The legislators elected in 1880 were Senator C. B. Coon, and
Representative E. M. Correll. Both these gentlemen were active
members of the Thayer County Association, and after their election
a committee waited on them, pledging them to special effort during
the coming session.</p>

<p>Meanwhile a general favorable sentiment was growing. In noting this
it would not be right to omit mention of Mrs. Harbert's "Woman's
Kingdom," in the Chicago <i>Inter-Ocean</i>, which circulated largely
among country readers. The Omaha <i>Republican</i> passed, in 1876,
under the editorial management of D. C. Brooks, who, with his wife,
had been prominent in the suffrage work of Michigan and Illinois.
The favorable attitude of this paper, and the articles which Mrs.
Brooks from time to time contributed to it, exerted a wide
influence. In the winter of 1881, Mrs. Brooks established a woman's
department in the <i>Republican</i> which crystallized the growing
interest around the leadership of its editor. Letters were
addressed to her from various sections of the State, urging
immediate action. The following from Mrs. Lucinda Russell will show
the interest felt:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Tecumseh</span>, Neb., December 4, 1880.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Madam</i>: I have been shown a form of
petition for the suffrage which you enclosed to Rev. Mary J.
DeLong, of this place. Will you please inform me if this is to be
the form of petition to be presented during the present session
of the legislature? We wish the exact words in order that we may
have it published in our local paper.</p>

<p>We think it best to call a meeting, even now at this somewhat
late day, and send women to Lincoln who will attend personally to
this matter. We have left these things neglected too long. Will
you call on all women of the State who can do so to assemble at
Lincoln during the session of the legislature, appointing the
day, etc.? I think we would be surprised at the result. This town
contains scarcely a woman who is opposed to woman suffrage. We
know we are a power here; and we do not know but the same hearty
support which Tecumseh would afford may exist in many towns
throughout the State. All we need for good earnest work and
mighty results is organization.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">L. R.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In accordance with these requests a meeting for conference was
called at Lincoln, January 19, 1881, Mrs. Brooks presiding. A
second meeting was held at the M. E. Church, January 22, and a
Lincoln Woman Suffrage Association was formed. A mass convention
was held January 26, and a State Association was formed next
day:<a name="FNanchor_466_466" id="FNanchor_466_466"></a><a href="#Footnote_466_466" class="fnanchor">[466]</a> <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_683" id="Page_683">[Pg 683]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>The meeting of January 26 was held in the opera-house and was
presided over by Mrs. Franc E. Finch. The speakers were John B.
Finch, Rev. Mary J. DeLong, Judge O. P. Mason and Mrs. Esther L.
Warner. Reading and music filled the programme. Mrs. DeLong's
address was in behalf of the prohibitory and suffrage amendments.
Judge Mason's address was afterwards printed for distribution. It
showed how forcible and eloquent the Judge could be when on the
right side. It will be remembered that Judge Mason opposed woman
suffrage in the constitutional convention of 1871. His closing
sentences were:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">The more intelligent and exalted the character of the electors in
a government whose foundation rests upon the franchise, the more
safe and secure are the liberties of the people and the property
of that government. The higher the social and moral standard of
the electors, the better will be the type of manhood that is
chosen to make laws and administer the government. As you elevate
the standard of intelligence, and increase the ability and
intensify the power to recognize the right and a sense of
obligation to follow it, you make sure the foundations of civil
and religious liberty. You do more, you elevate the character of
the laws, and better the administration in every department of
government. It has been wisely said that government is best which
is best administered.</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">Do as we will, however, forget the rights of others, treat them
with contempt, summon to our aid the united efforts of great
political parties, invoke statutory and constitutional law to aid
us in the mad career, yet, let no one forget that God's balances,
watched by his angels, are hung across the sky to weigh the
conduct of individuals and nations, and that in the end divine
wisdom will pronounce the inexorable judgment of compensatory
justice. </p></blockquote>

<p>Previous to all of these meetings Hon. E. M. Correll had introduced
on January 13, H. R. 59, a bill for an amendment to the
constitution striking the word "male" from qualifications of
electors. This had given impetus to the friends of the measure and
inspiration to the meetings. A vote of thanks was tendered Mr.
Correll by both the State and Thayer County Associations. The bill
not being technically correct, Mr. Correll introduced on February
3, a joint resolution of the same purport, H. R. 162. The
committees of Senate and House on constitutional amendments gave a
hearing that evening to the advocates of the measure:</p>

<blockquote><p>Of the fourteen members of the committees, ten were present; the
full number from the House and three from the Senate. Mr. Correll
pressed the claims of the resolution in the first speech, and
then introduced the different speakers representing the State
association. Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks reviewed the progress of
sentiment elsewhere and said that her acquaintance and
correspondence in this State led her to think the time ripe for
action of this kind. Mrs. Orpha Clement Dinsmoor argued the
abstract right of it, saying:</p>

<p>It has now come to the question of absolute right&mdash;whether one
class of people shall say to another: "You can come only thus far
in the direction of liberty." We realize that woman must be
educated to this new privilege, just as man has been educated to
it, and just as this nation is now educating millions of the
newly enfranchised to it. Feeling that in intellectual and moral
capacity woman is the peer of man, I think that her actual steps
forward in needful preparation have given her the right to say
who shall rule over her.</p>

<p>Mrs. Jennie F. Holmes based her remarks on the added influence it
would give women in securing wise legislation in matters of
welfare to the home. Clara B. Colby answered questions of the
committee. It was a most encouraging fact that every member of
the committee, after the speakers had finished presenting the
case,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_684" id="Page_684">[Pg 684]</a></span> spoke in favor of the amendment, except one, a Bohemian,
who was suffering from hoarseness and induced his colleague to
express favorable sentiments for him. These gentlemen all
remained friendly to the bill until its passage. </p></blockquote>

<p>Headquarters were established in Lincoln. Mrs. Brooks remained
during the session, and Mesdames Holmes, Russell, Dinsmoor and
Colby all, or most of the time, until the act was passed,
interviewing the members and securing the promise of their votes
for the measure:</p>

<blockquote><p>The joint resolution went through all the preliminary stages in
the House without opposition on account of the discretion of its
advocates, the watchfulness of its zealous friends among the
members, and the carefulness of Mr. Correll with regard to all
pending measures. The bill was made a special order for February
18, 10:45 A. M., and Mrs. Brooks, Mrs. Dinsmoor and Mrs. Colby
addressed the House by invitation. At the close of their remarks
Mr. Roberts offered the following:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That, as the sense of this House, we extend our
thanks to the ladies who have so ably addressed us in behalf of
female suffrage, and we wish them God-speed in their good work.</p>

<p>On motion of Mr. Howe the resolution was unanimously adopted. Mr.
Correll moved that H. R. 162 be ordered engrossed for third
reading. The motion prevailed. The final vote in the House,
February 21, stood 51 for the amendment; 22 against.<a name="FNanchor_467_467" id="FNanchor_467_467"></a><a href="#Footnote_467_467" class="fnanchor">[467]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>The passage of the bill had its dramatic features. Intense interest
was felt by the crowds which daily gathered in the capitol to watch
its progress, while the officers of the State association were
extended the courtesies of the floor, and came and went, watching
every opportunity and giving counsel and assistance at every step.
On this eventful Monday afternoon but one of these was present, and
she watched with anxiety the rapid passage of the bills preceding,
which made it evident that H. R. 162 would soon be reached. Six
more than the needed number of votes had been promised, but three
of these were absent from the city. There were barely enough
members present to do business, as important bills claimed
attention in committee-rooms and lobbies. The last bill ahead of
this was reached, and the friends hurried out in every direction to
inform the members, who responded quickly to the call. One man
pledged to the amendment went out and did not return, the only one
to betray the measure.</p>

<p>The roll was called amid breathless interest and every one kept the
tally. Church Howe, in voting, said: "I thank God that my life has
been spared to this moment, when I can vote to extend the right of
suffrage to the women of my adopted State." And C. B. Slocumb
responded to his name, "Believing that my wife is entitled to all
the rights that I enjoy, I vote aye." The last name had been
called, and all knew that only fifty votes had been cast for the
amendment, lacking one of the required three-fifths of all members
elect. The chief clerk of the House, B. D. Slaughter, usually so
glib, slowly repeated the names of those who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_685" id="Page_685">[Pg 685]</a></span> had voted and more
slowly footed up the result. Two favorable members were outside; if
only one could be reached! The speaker, who had just voted against
the amendment, but was kindly disposed towards those interested in
it, held the announcement back for a moment which gave Church Howe
time to move the recommitment of the resolution. His motion was
seconded all over the House, but just at this juncture one of the
absent friends, P. O. Heacock, a German member from Richardson
county, came in, and, being told what was going on, called out, "I
desire to vote on this bill." He walked quickly to his place and,
in answer to his name, voted "aye." The speaker asked Mr. Howe if
he wished to withdraw his motion, which he did, and the vote was
announced. The galleries cheered, and the House was in a hubbub,
unrebuked by the speaker, who looked as happy as if he had voted
for the bill. The members gathered around the woman who sat in
their midst, shook hands and extended congratulations, many even
who had voted against the amendment expressing their personal
sympathy with its advocates.</p>

<p>The joint resolution was immediately sent to the Senate, where,
after its second reading, it was referred to the Committee on
Constitutional Amendments, who returned it with two reports:</p>

<blockquote><p>That of the majority, recommended its passage, while the minority
opposed it on the ground that it would be inadvisable to
introduce opposing measures into the House and thus create new
divisions in politics and a new cause of excitement; but
principally upon the claim that in the territory where female
suffrage had obtained "for a period of two years" the experiment
had been disastrous, the "interests of the territory damaged in
emigration," and the administration of justice hindered in the
courts. This report was signed by Senators J. C. Myers and S. B.
Taylor, who had persistently refused to listen to argument or
information on the subject. As soon as the report was made, the
senators were informed of their glaring mistake as to the length
of time the women of Wyoming had voted, and information was laid
before them proving that the results in that territory had been
in every way beneficial,<a name="FNanchor_468_468" id="FNanchor_468_468"></a><a href="#Footnote_468_468" class="fnanchor">[468]</a> but they refused to withdraw or
change their report.</p>

<p>The parliamentary tactics and watchfulness of Senators Doane,
Coon, Smith, White, Dinsmore, Harrington and Tefft carried the
bill through the bluster of the minority to its final vote; by
twenty-two for to eight against.<a name="FNanchor_469_469" id="FNanchor_469_469"></a><a href="#Footnote_469_469" class="fnanchor">[469]</a> When Senator Howe's name
was called he offered the following explanation:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">The question of submitting this proposition to a vote of the
people is not to be regarded as a pleasantry, as some members
seem to think. However mischievously the experiment of giving the
suffrage to women may operate, the power once given cannot be
recalled. I have endeavored to look at the question
conscientiously. I desire to keep abreast of all legitimate
reforms of the day. I would like to see the moral influence of
women at the polls, but I would not like to see the immoral
influence<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_686" id="Page_686">[Pg 686]</a></span> of politics in the home circle. The Almighty has
imposed upon woman the highest office to which human nature is
subject, that of bearing children. Her life is almost necessarily
a home life; it should be largely occupied in rearing and
training her children to be good men and pure electors. Therein
her influence is all-powerful. Again, I incline to the belief
that to strike out the word 'male' in the constitution would not
change its meaning so as to confer the suffrage upon women. I am
not acquainted with half a dozen ladies who would accept the
suffrage if it were offered to them. They are not prepared for so
radical a change. For these reasons, briefly stated, and others,
I vote <i>No</i>.</p>

<p>Mr. Turner explained his vote as follows:</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">Our wives, mothers and sisters having an equal interest with us
in the welfare of our commonwealth, and being equal to ourselves
in intelligence, there appears no good reason why the right to
vote should be withheld from them. The genius of our institutions
is opposed to taxation without representation; opposed to
government without the consent of the governed, and therefore I
vote <i>Aye</i>.</p>

<p>The act was then signed by the president of the Senate and
speaker of the House, and sent to Gov. Nance. The latter, who,
although not personally an advocate of the measure, had given all
courtesy and assistance to its supporters, signed it promptly. To
take a bill like this, which even a minority are anxious to
defeat, through the intricate course of legislation requires
work, watchfulness and the utmost tact and discretion on the part
of its friends in both Houses. </p></blockquote>

<p>The suffrage association immediately arranged to begin a canvass of
the State. The vice-president was appointed State organizer and
entered upon the duties of the office by forming a society at
Beatrice, March 5. The next step was to secure ample and
unimpeachable testimonials from Wyoming, which were printed in
<i>Woman's Work</i>, and then spread broadcast in leaflet form. Lectures
were given, and societies and working committees formed as rapidly
as possible. The <i>Western Woman's Journal</i>, a neat monthly
magazine, was established in May, by Hon. E. M. Correll, and a host
of women suddenly found themselves gifted with the power to speak
and write, which they consecrated to the cause of their civil
liberties.</p>

<p>The Thayer County Association, as the elder sister of the numerous
family now springing up, maintained its prominence as a centre of
activity and intelligence. Barbara J. Thompson, secretary from its
organization, wrote at this time of the enthusiasm felt, and of the
willingness of the women to work, but added, "nearly all our women
are young mothers with from one to five children, and these cannot
do anything more than attend the meetings occasionally when they
can leave the children." This might have been said of any society
in the State, and this fact must be considered in judging from
their achievements of the zeal of the Nebraska women. Few,
comparatively, could take a public part, and all others were
constantly reckoned by opponents as unwilling or indifferent.
Thayer County Association celebrated the Fourth of July in a novel
manner, making every feature an object lesson. <i>Woman's Work</i> gave
an account of it at the time, which is quoted to give a pleasant
glance backward at the enthusiasm and interest that marked the work
of this society:</p>

<blockquote><p>We found to our surprise that the women of Thayer county had in
charge the whole celebration. The Fourth dawned cool and clear,
and with news of the improvement of Garfield, everybody felt
happy. The procession, marshaled by ladies on their handsome
horses, and assisted by Senator C. B. Coon, was formed in due
time, and presented a very imposing appearance. The band wagon
was followed by nearly a hundred others, and among the novelties
of the occasion was the boys' brigade, consisting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_687" id="Page_687">[Pg 687]</a></span> of a score of
little fellows, some with drums and some with cornets, who played
in quite tolerable time. The States were represented to indicate
their progress with regard to equal rights. Young men represented
those wherein no advance had been made; young women those where
school suffrage had been granted to women; and Wyoming Territory
was represented by two, a man and a woman. The little girls were
all dressed in the appropriate colors, the wagons were gaily
decorated, and the procession well managed. After singing and
prayer, the president, Mrs. Ferguson, gave a short address. Mrs.
Vermilion, who is a direct descendant of one of the signers of
the Declaration of Independence, read the Woman's Declaration of
Independence and Bill of Rights, a document couched in such
forcible terms as Hancock, Adams &amp; Co., would use if they were
women in this year of our Lord 1881. Then followed the oration of
the day, delivered by Mrs. Colby, and for the audience it had at
least two points of interest: First, that the woman suffrage
society had acted in defiance of precedent, and had engaged a
woman as their orator; and secondly, that it was given from the
standpoint of a citizen and not of a woman. There being nothing
in the address on the matter of woman suffrage, the society
desired the speaker to address them in the evening on that
subject. Accordingly a meeting was held, and despite the fatigue
of the day, there was a good attendance and considerable
interest. A good dinner was provided on the grounds, and
afterwards they had singing and speaking. Mr. Hendershot
addressed the children. It will be an item of interest to the
readers of the <i>Express</i> that the W. S. A. of Thayer county have
had some songs printed appropriate for their use. Among them is
"Hold the Polls," a song by the editor of the <i>Express</i>, and this
was sung with considerable enthusiasm. It may be said that the
whole affair was a success, and reflected great credit on the
executive ability of the ladies in charge. One item of interest
must not be forgotten&mdash;among the various banners indicative of
the virtues which are worthy of cultivation, was one whose motto
read, "In Mother we Trust." A lady being asked the peculiar
significance of this, said, "It has always been God and father,
now we want the children to learn to trust their mothers, and to
think they are of some account." </p></blockquote>

<p>A successful State convention was held at Omaha July 6, 7, Mrs.
Brooks presiding and making the opening address. The address of
Mrs. Ada M. Bittenbender on "The Legal Disabilities of Married
Women" created quite a discussion among a number of noted lawyers
present. Of this the <i>Republican</i> said:</p>

<blockquote><p>This lady is the well-known recent editor of the Osceola
<i>Record</i>, which she has now relinquished for the study and
practice of law, in partnership with her husband. Her address,
although learned, elaborate, comprehensive, and dealing with
principles and technicalities, was delivered extemporaneously,
with great animation and effect, and in a manner at once womanly,
captivating and strong. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Ida Edson read a paper on "Might and Right." Mrs. Bloomer,
whose presence was an interesting feature of the convention, gave
reminiscences of her own work for woman's ballot in Nebraska. The
convention was enlivened by the dramatic readings of Mrs. H. P.
Mathewson, and the inspiring ballads of the poet-singer, James G.
Clark, who had come from Colorado to attend the meeting. A glimpse
at the convention through the friendly eyes of the editor of the
<i>Republican</i> will indicate the interest and ability shown by the
women of the State:</p>

<blockquote><p>The first general convention of the Woman's State Suffrage
Association commenced its session last evening at Masonic hall,
the president, Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks, in the chair, assisted by
the first vice-president, Mrs. Clara B. Colby of Beatrice; the
secretary, Mrs. A. M. Bittenbender of Osceola; and the treasurer,
Mrs. Russell of Tecumseh. A majority of the members of the
executive committee and of the vice-presidents were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_688" id="Page_688">[Pg 688]</a></span> also
present, with several friends of the cause from abroad, including
Hon. E. M. Correll, editor of the <i>Western Woman's Journal</i>, who
was the "leader of the House" on the bill for submitting the
suffrage amendment to the people. The evening was sultry and
threatening, and Masonic hall was not so full as it would
otherwise have been, considering both "promise and performance."
The local attendance was representative, including quite a number
of our leading citizens, with their wives, and the editors of our
contemporaries the <i>Herald</i> and the <i>Bee</i>. The meeting was a very
interesting one, more especially the "conversational" portion, in
which free discussion was solicited. This was opened by Hon. E.
Rosewater, who spoke in response to a very general call. His
address of half an hour in length was marked by apparent
sincerity, and was a calm and argumentative presentation of
objections, theoretical and practical, which occurred to him
against the extension of the franchise to women. It was replied
to by Mrs. Colby, in a running comment, which abounded in womanly
wisdom and wit, and incessantly brought down the house. Our
restricted space will compel us to forego a report of the
discussion at present. On the conclusion of Mrs. Colby's very
bright and convincing remarks, Dr. McNamara addressed the
convention in a brief speech of great earnestness, depth and
power.</p>

<p>The last session was most interesting. The hall was nearly
filled, and among the audience were representatives of many of
our leading families. There was rather too much crowded into this
session, but the convention "cleaned up" its work thoroughly, and
the audience displayed a patient interest to the very end.
Besides the address of Professor Clark, there was a masterly
constitutional argument by Mrs. Clara B. Colby, which
demonstrated that woman can argue logically, and can support her
postulates with the requisite legal learning, embracing a
knowledge of the common and statute law authorities from
Blackstone down. The address abounded in historical and literary
allusions which show its author to be a person of broad culture
as well as an adept in "book learning." Following came another
address from Mrs. Bloomer, in which she disposed&mdash;as he
expressed, to Dr. McNamara's entire satisfaction&mdash;of the stock
biblical argument down from Moses to Paul against "woman's
rights" to act in the same spheres, and speak from the same
platform with men. This address was given at the special request
of several leading ladies of this city, and though the hour was
late, it was received with unbroken interest, and was
complimented with a special vote of thanks, moved by Mrs. Colby.
Most interesting reports of district and local work were made by
Mrs. Holmes, of Tecumseh, Mrs. Chapin of Riverton, and Mrs.
Slaughter of Osceola. Dr. McNamara closed the convention with a
few stirring words of exhortation to the ladies to go right to
work from now on to November, 1882. He excused himself from a set
speech with the promise that, if "let off" now, he would, at some
future time, present a full expression of his views on the reform
to which he has so earnestly pledged himself. The closing word in
which the <i>Republican</i> would sum up the varied proceedings of the
first State suffrage convention is the magic word success. </p></blockquote>

<p>A second very successful convention was held at Kearney, October
19, 20. A score or more societies were represented by delegates and
their reports were very encouraging.</p>

<blockquote><p>The principal features of the programme were: Address of
president, Harriet S. Brooks; welcome, Mrs. H. S. Sydenham;
response, Mrs. A. P. Nicholas; addresses by Mrs. Esther L.
Warner, Gen. S. H. Connor (whose name appeared among the votes of
the opponents in 1875); Mrs. Orpha C. Dinsmoor, on "Inherent
Rights"; L. B. Fifield, regent of the State University, on
"Woman's Influence for Women"; and Rev. Crissman, resident
Presbyterian minister, on "Expediency." Among the letters
received was the following, addressed to Mrs. Dinsmoor, by Gen.
Manderson, whose name has been mentioned as voting for woman's
ballot in the constitutional conventions of 1871 and 1875:</p>

<p class="ltr-date ltr-closelines">
<span class="smcap">Omaha</span>, October, 17.
</p>

<p class="ltr-closelines">Your esteemed favor inviting me to speak before the convention at
Kearney, October 18, 19, upon the subject of the extension of
suffrage to women, was duly received. I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_689" id="Page_689">[Pg 689]</a></span> have delayed replying to
it until to day in the hope that my professional engagements
would permit me to meet with you at Kearney. The continuing
session of our District Court prevents my absence at this time. I
would like very much to be with you at the meeting of your
association. My desire, however, would be to hear rather than to
speak. Ten years have passed since, with other members of the
constitutional convention of 1871, I met in argument those who
opposed striking the word "male" from the constitution of
Nebraska. In those days "the truth was mighty and prevailed,"
almost to the extent of full success, for, as the result of our
effort, we saw the little band of thirteen increase to thirty. I
feel that there must be much of new thought and rich argument
growing from the agitation of the last ten years, and to listen
to those who, like yourself and many other members of your
association, have been in the forefront of the battle for the
right, would be most interesting. But I must, for the present,
forego the pleasure of hearing you. I write merely to keep myself
"on the record" in the good fight. Now, as ever, I favor the
enfranchisement of women, the disfranchisement of ignorance. I
would both extend and contract the right to vote in our republic;
extend it so that intelligence without regard to color or sex
should rule, and contract it so that ignorance should be ruled.
If this be not the cure for the political ills that threaten the
permanency of American institutions, then there is no cure. May
Nebraska be the first of the States to apply the remedy.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF sc">Charles F. Manderson.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully yours,</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 375px;">
<a name="v3_689" id="v3_689">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_689.jpg" width="375" height="500" alt="Clara Bewick Colby" title="" /></a>
</div>

<blockquote><p>The association sent out its scouts, and as a result a convention
was held in quite the northern part of the State, at Norfolk,
November 30 and December 1. This was much appreciated by the
citizens, whose locality was at that time not much frequented by
speakers on any topic.<a name="FNanchor_470_470" id="FNanchor_470_470"></a><a href="#Footnote_470_470" class="fnanchor">[470]</a> The first annual meeting, held at
Lincoln in February, 1882, found a large number of delegates,
each with reports of kindred local work, ready to receive the
record of this year of preparation. Everything indicated a
favorable termination to the effort, as it became evident that
all sections of the State were being aroused to active interest.</p>

<blockquote><p>The address of the president, Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks, was
entitled, "Work, Wages and the Ballot." It was a review of a
lecture given earlier in the season by Chancellor Fairchild of
the University, in which he had taken the ground that the work of
women should not receive the same wages as that of men. Rev. Dr.
McNamara and others spoke briefly and earnestly. Miss Lydia Bell,
at the closing evening session, gave an address which, to use the
words of the reporter, "for felicity of composition, strength of
argument, and beauty of delivery, fully merited the special
resolution of thanks unanimously given by the society."<a name="FNanchor_471_471" id="FNanchor_471_471"></a><a href="#Footnote_471_471" class="fnanchor">[471]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>The work of organizing and lecturing was continued with as much
zeal and efficiency as the busy days and limited resources of the
women would permit. Many of the counties held conventions, took
count of their friends, and prepared for a vigorous campaign. As
the summer advanced, at picnics, old settlers' gatherings,
soldiers' reünions, fairs, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_690" id="Page_690">[Pg 690]</a></span> political conventions,&mdash;wherever a
company of people had assembled, there interested women claimed an
opportunity to present the subject to audiences it would otherwise
have been impossible to reach. With but few exceptions, officials
extended the courtesies asked.</p>

<p>During the summer of 1882, the work was greatly aided by the
lectures of Margaret Campbell and Matilda Hindman; and during the
month of September by Helen M. Gougar. The American Suffrage
Association, at its annual meeting in 1881, elected Hon. E. M.
Correll president, as a recognition of his services to the cause in
Nebraska, and in 1882, it held its annual meeting in Omaha,
September 12 and 13. Lucy Stone, H. B. Blackwell, and Hannah Tracy
Cutler remained for some weeks, lecturing in the State, and were
warmly received by the local committees. Ex-Governor John W. Hoyt,
and Judge Kingman, of Wyoming, gave a few addresses. The National
Association also held its annual meeting at Omaha, Sept. 26, 27,
28. A reception was given at the Paxton Hotel on the close of the
last session. Following this, a two days' convention was held at
Lincoln, from which point the speakers diverged to take part in the
campaign.<a name="FNanchor_472_472" id="FNanchor_472_472"></a><a href="#Footnote_472_472" class="fnanchor">[472]</a></p>

<p>While those friendly to the amendment were laboring thus earnestly,
the politicians held themselves aloof and attended strictly to
"mending their own fences." After the act had passed the
legislature, it was found that almost every prominent man in the
State was friendly to the amendment. The bench and bar were
especially favorable, while three-fourths of the press and a large
majority of the clergy warmly espoused the cause. Leading
politicians told the women to go ahead and organize, and they would
assist in the latter part of the canvass. Thayer and Clay county
Republicans endorsed woman suffrage in their platform, while
Franklin county delegates were instructed to vote for no one who
was not in favor of the amendment.</p>

<p>Previous to the session of the Republican State Convention, great
hopes were entertained that this body would put an endorsement of
the amendment in its platform, as a majority of the delegates were
personally pledged to vote for such a measure. But the committee on
resolutions was managed by a man who feared that such endorsement
would hurt the party, and the suffrage resolution which was handed
in, was not reported with the rest. On the plea of time being
precious, the convention was maneuvered to pass a resolution that
the report of the committee should not be discussed. The report was
brought in at the last moment of the convention, and adopted as
previously arranged, and the convention was adjourned, everybody
wondering why a resolution relative to the amendment had not been
presented. The Republican leaders feared that their party was
endangered by the passage of the bill by the legislature, for it
was very largely carried by Republican votes, and while
individually friendly, they almost to a man avoided the subject.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_691" id="Page_691">[Pg 691]</a></span></p>

<p>As the canvass progressed, it was comical to note how shy the
politicians fought of the women to whom they had promised
assistance. Judge O. P. Mason, who had agreed to give ten lectures
for the amendment, and whose advocacy would have had immense
weight, engaged to speak for the Republican party, and at every
place but one, the managers stipulated that he should be silent on
the amendment. Of the vast array of Republican speakers, had even
those who had expressed themselves in favor of the amendment
advocated it intelligently and earnestly, the result would have
been different.</p>

<p>Due credit must be given to ex-United States Senator Tipton, Judge
W. H. Morris, and a few others who lectured outside of their own
counties, as well as at home, while David Butler, candidate for
senator from Pawnee county, E. M. Correll of Hebron, C. C. Chapin
of Riverton, Judge A. P. Yocum of Hastings, and doubtless a few
others, regardless of their political prospects, advocated the
cause of woman along with their own. The women of Nebraska will
always cherish the memory of the enthusiastic young student from
Ann Arbor, Michigan, who spent some months of the campaign in
Nebraska, giving lavishly of his means and talents to aid the
cause. Wilder M. Wooster was a bright, logical speaker, and his
death, which occurred in 1885, cost the world a promising and
conscientious journalist.</p>

<p>Towards the close of the campaign it became evident that the saloon
element was determined to defeat the amendment. The organ of the
Brewers' Association sent out its orders to every saloon, bills
posted in conspicuous places by friends of the amendment
mysteriously disappeared, or were covered by others of an opposite
character, and the greatest pains was taken to excite the
antagonism of foreigners by representing to them that woman
suffrage meant prohibition. On the other hand, the temperance
advocates were by no means a unit for its support.</p>

<p>The morning dawned bright and clear on November 5, 1882. The most
casual observer would have seen that some unusual interest was
commanding attention. Everything wore a holiday appearance. Polling
places were gaily decorated; banners floated to the breeze, bearing
suggestive mottoes: "Are Women Citizens?" "Taxation Without
Representation is Tyranny!" "Governments Derive their Just Powers
from the Consent of the Governed." "Equality before the Law," etc.,
etc. Under pavilions, or in adjoining rooms, or in the very shadow
of the ballot-box, women presided at well-filled tables, serving
refreshments to the voters, and handing to those who would take
them, tickets bearing the words: "For Constitutional Amendment
Relating to Right of Suffrage," while the national colors floated
alike over governing and governed; alike over women working and
pleading for their rights as citizens, and men who were selling
woman's birth-right for a glass of beer or a vote. It looked like a
holiday picnic&mdash;the well-dressed people, the flowers, the badges,
and the flags; but the tragic events of that day would fill a
volume.</p>

<p>The conservative joined hands with the vicious, the egotist with
the ignorant, the demagogue with the venial, and when the sun set,
Nebraska's opportunity to do the act of simple justice was
gone&mdash;lost by a vote of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_692" id="Page_692">[Pg 692]</a></span> 50,693 to 25,756&mdash;so the record gives it.
But it must not be forgotten that many tickets were fraudulently
printed, and that tickets which contained no mention of the
amendment were counted against it, as also were tickets having any
technical defect or omission; for instance, tickets having the
abbreviated form, "For the Amendment," were counted against it. It
will always remain an open question whether the amendment did not,
after all, receive an actual majority of all votes cast upon that
question. In this new State, burdened with the duties incident to
the development of a new country, the women had done what women
might do to secure their rights, but their hour had not yet struck.</p>

<p>On the following evening, the speakers of the National Association,
who still remained in the State held a meeting<a name="FNanchor_473_473" id="FNanchor_473_473"></a><a href="#Footnote_473_473" class="fnanchor">[473]</a> at the
opera-house in Omaha, at which the addresses were in the main
congratulatory for the large vote, making proportionally the
largest ever cast for woman's ballot.</p>

<p>While history must perforce be silent concerning the efforts and
sacrifices of the many, a word will be expected in regard to some
of the principal actors. Looking back on these two eventful years,
not a woman who took part in that struggle would wish to have been
inactive in that heroic hour. It is an inspiration and an ennobling
of all the faculties that they have once been lifted above all
personal aims and transient interests; and for all who caught the
true meaning of the moment, life can never again touch the low
level of indifference. The officers of the State Association who
were most active in the canvass are here mentioned with a word as
to their subsequent efforts:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks, whose services have so often been
referred to, after working in three States for the privileges of
citizenship, is devoting herself to the congenial study of
sociology, and her able pen still does service.</p>

<p>Ada M. Bittenbender was admitted to the bar May 17, 1882, and
from that time until the election gave undivided attention to the
duties of her office as president of the State Association. The
campaign song-book, the supplement folded in the county papers,
the columns of notes and news prepared for many journals in the
State, the headquarters in Lincoln from which, with the
assistance of E. M. Correll and Mrs. Russell, she sent forth
documents, posters, blanks and other campaign accessories,
sufficiently attest her energy and ability. She is now a
practicing lawyer of Lincoln, and was successful during the
session of the legislature of 1885 in securing the passage of a
law making mothers joint and equal guardians of their children.</p>

<p>Mrs. Belle G. Bigelow of Geneva was an active and reliable
officer during the canvass of 1882, and is now prominent in the
temperance work of Nebraska.</p>

<p>Mrs. Lucinda Russell of Tecumseh, for two years the treasurer of
the State Association, edited a department in the local paper in
the interest of the amendment, was one of the campaign committee,
and spared no effort to push the work in her own county. Her
sister, Mrs. Jennie F. Holmes, was one of the most efficient
members of the executive committee. She drove all over her own
county, holding meetings in the school-houses. The efforts of
these two women would have carried Johnson county for the
amendment had not the election officials taken advantage of a
technical defect in the tickets used in some of the precincts.
Mrs. Holmes sustained the suffrage work in Nebraska through the
two following years as chairman of the executive committee, was
elected in 1884 to the office of president of the State Woman's
Christian Temperance Union, and reëlected in 1885 to the same
position.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_693" id="Page_693">[Pg 693]</a></span></p>

<p>Mrs. Orpha C. Dinsmoor of Omaha, as chairman of the executive
committee during the first year (Mrs. De Long having resigned),
contributed largely to the most successful conventions of the
campaign. One of the most notable lectures given in the State was
hers in reply to Chancellor Fairfield of the Nebraska University,
on "Work and Wages." As it was known that the chancellor held the
ground that woman should not be paid equally with man, even for
the same work and the same skill, the Lincoln Woman Suffrage
Association invited him to give his lecture on that subject, and
Mrs. Dinsmoor to answer him on the following evening. Mrs.
Dinsmoor is well known for her interest in education and
scientific charity, and has, by appointment of the governor of
the State, represented Nebraska at the National Conference of
Charities and Corrections at its last two annual meetings. She is
now the president of the Nebraska Woman's Board of Associated
Charities.</p>

<p>Mrs. Barbara J. Thompson, of English birth, was one of the
leading spirits of the Thayer County Society, and was active in
holding meetings and organizing committees. Her principal service
was by her ready pen, which furnished articles for a large number
of papers. It is pleasant to reflect that one woman who worked so
earnestly for the rights of citizenship in Nebraska has obtained
them in her new home at Tacoma, Washington Territory.</p>

<p>Mrs. Gertrude McDowell of Fairbury lent her wit and wisdom to
many conventions, was ready with her pen, and secured a thorough
canvass in Jefferson county. She was the third president of the
State Association.</p>

<p>Mrs. Mollie K. Maule of Fairmont laid by her law studies to serve
on the executive board of the State Association. In company with
Mrs. Susie Fifield and others, she held meetings in all the
precincts of Fillmore county, securing a good vote. Mrs. Maule
was elected president of the State Association in 1885.</p>

<p>Mrs. Jennie G. Ford of Kearney, for some time member of the
executive committee, was one of the leading advocates in Buffalo
county. Always aiding and inspiring others to effort, she was an
incessant worker in the causes dear to her heart. She was
president of the Nebraska Woman's Christian Temperance Union from
1882 to 1884. She died June 18, 1885, leaving in the hearts of
all who had known her, tender memories of her beautiful life.</p>

<p>Miss Lydia Bell, a talented elocutionist of Lincoln, devoted some
months to lecturing. Her great intellectual and rhetorical gifts
made her a very effective speaker.</p>

<p>Dr. Hetty K. Painter was a graduate of the Pennsylvania Medical
College in 1860. She was a physician in the army during the civil
war, and her proudest possession is the badge which proves her
membership in the Fifth Army Corps. Her practice and her
infirmary at Lincoln did not prevent her helping largely the
cause in which she felt so great an interest.</p>

<p>Mrs. Esther L. Warner of Roca was the only person actively
engaged in the last canvass who had been connected with the
effort of 1871. As vice-president of her judicial district, she
spoke at many places, organizing wherever practicable. Her
motherly face, and persuasive but humorous argument, made her a
favorite at conventions. Coming to Nebraska in its early days, a
widow with a large family, she purchased a large farm and devoted
herself to its management, to the care and education of her
children, and to the direction of the village school, being a
member of the board of trustees for many years. She had not used
tongue or pen for public service since her girlhood until this
occasion enlisted her interest and proved her gifts.</p>

<p>Clara C. Chapin, <i>La Petite</i>, as she was called at conventions,
or as a friend styles her, "the dear little English bud that
blossomed on American soil," was one of the most zealous of our
women, organizing, lecturing and arranging campaigns. She is at
present very active in the temperance work, and is one of the
editors of a State temperance paper, the <i>Republican Valley
Echo</i>. An extract from a letter received from her in answer to
inquiry will show the spirit that actuates this representative
advocate of woman's political enfranchisement:</p>

<p>I never thought much about "woman's rights" until within the last
five years&mdash;that is, <i>political</i> rights. I always had a strong
sense of my responsibilities as a woman<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_694" id="Page_694">[Pg 694]</a></span> and a mother (have three
children), and realize that we need something more than moral
suasion to make our influence practical and effective. My
husband, though not what is called a "politician," has been
sufficiently in politics for me to know just what power the
ballot has, and to see the necessity of woman's work in that
direction. I am happy to say that Mr. Chapin is heart and soul
with me in this, and it is a wonder to us how any wife or mother,
how any Christian woman can say, "I have all the rights I want." </p></blockquote>

<p>Hoping to hold the vantage ground already gained, a State
convention was held at Kearney, December 6, 7, the place being
selected because Buffalo county had carried the amendment by a good
majority.</p>

<blockquote><p>The association held three formal sessions, which were well
attended and very interesting. Speeches of encouragement and
congratulation were made, plans for work discussed, and campaign
reminiscences recounted. One of the most interesting that was
given was that of Mrs. Beedy of Gardner precinct, who said that
the women actively interested in the suffrage work talked
socially on the subject with every man in the precinct. There
were seventy-two votes, and only four against the amendment. Of
these four persons, two could neither read nor write, a third
could not write his own name, and the fourth could not write his
name in English. All the delegates present reported that the
social work had been a prime cause of such success as they had
found. Mrs. Bigelow said that Geneva precinct stood ninety-eight
for the amendment and ninety-eight against. At Fairmont sixty
ladies went to the polls. They wore white ribbon badges on which
was printed, "Are we citizens?" The general impression among
those attending the convention was that the Association should
petition congress for a sixteenth amendment, petition the
Nebraska legislature for municipal suffrage, and make use of
school suffrage to its fullest extent. The executive committee
held four sessions, appointed a number of working committees, and
attended to settling up the campaign business of the Association.
The convention was considered a decided success in every way. </p></blockquote>

<p>The annual meeting was held in January, 1883. Mrs. Gertrude
McDowell was elected president. The usual business was transacted,
and a special committee appointed to secure favorable legislation.
In view of the fact that so much of the opposition had been based
on the allegation that "women do not want to vote," a resolution
was prepared for the immediate re-submission of a constitutional
amendment with a provision making it legal for women to vote on its
final ratification. The joint resolution was introduced by Senator
Charles H. Brown of Omaha, and ably advocated by him and others,
especially by Senator David Butler. It was lost by nearly a
two-thirds vote. The Committee on Amendments gave a hearing to
Lydia Bell, Clara C. Chapin and Clara B. Colby. The joint
resolution was taken up in the Senate for discussion February 15.
<i>Woman's Work</i> gives the record of the proceedings:</p>

<blockquote><p>Senator McShane of Douglas moved indefinite postponement. Senator
Brown of Douglas, who introduced the resolution, spoke against
the motion and made a forcible historical argument for the bill.
Senator McShane then spoke at length against the bill, basing his
opposition to the enfranchisement of woman on the ground that it
would be detrimental to the interests of the foreigner. Senator
Schönheit of Richardson opposed the bill on the plea that it
would mar the loveliness of woman in her domestic relations.
Senator Reynolds of Butler favored the bill. He had voted against
the amendment last fall, but he did it because he feared the
women did not want the ballot, and he was willing to let them
decide for themselves. Senator Dech of Saunders favored the bill
in remarks showing a broad and comprehensive philosophy. Senator
Butler of Pawnee made a magnificent arraignment of the Republican
and Democratic parties, and an appeal to the anti-monopolists to
oppose the monopoly<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_695" id="Page_695">[Pg 695]</a></span> of sex. His speech was the longest and most
earnest of the session. Several persons expressing a desire to
continue the discussion, McShane withdrew his motion to postpone.
The Senate adjourned, and on Friday morning it was moved and
carried that this bill be made the special order for that
evening. Accordingly, the chamber and gallery were filled. On
motion, Mrs. Colby was unanimously requested to address the
Senate in behalf of the bill. Senator Butler escorted her to the
clerk's desk, and she delivered an extemporaneous address, of
which a fair synopsis was given by the <i>Journal</i> reporter.
Foreseeing the defeat of the bill, she said, in closing, "You may
kill this bill, gentlemen, but you cannot kill the principle of
individual liberty that is at issue. It is immortal, and rises
Ph&oelig;nix-like from every death to a new life of surpassing
beauty and vigor. The votes you cast against the bill will, like
the dragons' teeth in the myth of old, spring up into armed
warriors that shall obstruct your path, demanding of you the
recognition of woman's right to 'equality before the law.'" The
grave and reverend senators joined in the applause of the
gallery, and carried Senator Reynolds' motion "that the thanks of
this Senate be returned to Mrs. Colby for the able, eloquent and
instructive address to which we have listened"; but with no
apparent reluctance, on Senator McShane's motion being renewed,
they postponed the bill by a vote of 18 to 6.<a name="FNanchor_474_474" id="FNanchor_474_474"></a><a href="#Footnote_474_474" class="fnanchor">[474]</a> Of the absent
ones, Senator Dech was known to be sick, some of the others were
in their seats a moment previous, and it is fairly to be presumed
that they did not dare to vote upon the question. Of those voting
aye, Senators Brown of Clay, and Walker of Lancaster had favored
the bill in the committee, and the friends were counting on their
vote, as also some others who had expressed themselves favorable.
It is due to Senators Brown of Douglas and Butler to say that
they championed the bill heartily, and furthered its interests in
every possible way. </p></blockquote>

<p>Conventions were held at Grand Island in May, at Hastings in August
of 1883, and at Fremont August, 1884. The annual meeting of 1884
was held at York, and that of 1885 in Lincoln. At all of these
enthusiasm and interest were manifested, which indicate that the
idea has not lost its foothold. The <i>Woman's Tribune</i>, established
in 1883, circulates largely in the State, and maintains an
intelligent if not an active interest. When a new occasion comes
the women will be able to meet it. Their present attitude of
hopeful waiting has the courage and faith expressed in the words of
Lowell:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"Endurance is the crowning quality,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And patience all the passion of great hearts;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">These are their stay, and when the hard world<br /></span>
<span class="i0">With brute strength, like scornful conqueror,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">Clangs his huge mace down in the other scale,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">The inspired soul but flings his patience in,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And slowly that out-weighs the ponderous globe;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">One faith against a whole world's unbelief,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">One soul against the flesh of all mankind."<br /></span>
</div></div>
</blockquote>

<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_457_457" id="Footnote_457_457"></a><a href="#FNanchor_457_457"><span class="label">[457]</span></a> Having visited Beatrice twice to speak in different
courses of lectures arranged by Mrs. Colby, I can testify to her
executive ability alike in her domestic and public work. She can
get up a meeting, arrange the platform, with desk and lights, and
introduce a speaker with as much skill and grace as she can spread
a table with dainty china and appetizing food, and enliven a dinner
with witty and earnest conversation.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_458_458" id="Footnote_458_458"></a><a href="#FNanchor_458_458"><span class="label">[458]</span></a> <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Messrs. Boulwere, Buck, Campbell, Chambers,
Clancy, Davis, Decker, Hail, Haygood, Hoover, Kirk, Larimer, Rose,
Sullivan&mdash;14.
</p><p>
<i>Nays</i>&mdash;Messrs. Beck, Bowen, Gibson, Harsh, Laird, Miller, Moore,
Morton, McDonald, Riden, Salisbury&mdash;11.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_459_459" id="Footnote_459_459"></a><a href="#FNanchor_459_459"><span class="label">[459]</span></a> It is a pleasure to record that both these gentlemen
have reached the logical result of their former views, and now
advocate giving the franchise to intelligence and patriotism
regardless of the sex of the possessor. Governor Saunders, in the
capacity of United States Senator, cast a favorable ballot on
measures in any manner referring to woman's civil rights, and in
1882 spoke on the platform of the National Association, at its
Washington convention.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_460_460" id="Footnote_460_460"></a><a href="#FNanchor_460_460"><span class="label">[460]</span></a> The legislature of 1875 repealed this law except so
far as it referred to unmarried adult women and widows. In the
legislature of 1881, Senator C. H. Gere introduced a bill revising
the laws relating to schools. One of the provisions of the bill
conferred the school ballot on women on the same terms as on
men&mdash;viz: Any person having children of school age, or having paid
taxes on personal property, or being assessed on real estate,
within such a period, is entitled to vote at all elections
pertaining to schools. This, however, does not include the power to
vote for State or county superintendents. The women of the State
now vote so largely that it is no longer a matter of comment or
record.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_461_461" id="Footnote_461_461"></a><a href="#FNanchor_461_461"><span class="label">[461]</span></a> The following named representatives voted "yea":
Messrs. Ahmanson, Cannon, Doone, Galey, Goodin, Hall, Jenkins,
Kipp, Majors, Myers, Nims, Patterson, Porter, Quimby, Rhodes, Ryan,
Wickham, Riordan, Roberts&mdash;19. Voting "nay": Messrs. Briggs, Beall,
E. Clark, J. Clark, Dillon, Duby, Grenell, Hudson, Munn, Overton,
Reed, Rosewater, Rouse, Schock, Shook, Sommerlad&mdash;16.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_462_462" id="Footnote_462_462"></a><a href="#FNanchor_462_462"><span class="label">[462]</span></a> Voting in the affirmative: Messrs. Gerrard, Hascall,
Kennedy, Tucker, Tennant, and Mr. President&mdash;6. Voting in the
negative: Messrs. Brown, Hawke, Hillon, Metz, Sheldon, and
Thomas&mdash;6.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_463_463" id="Footnote_463_463"></a><a href="#FNanchor_463_463"><span class="label">[463]</span></a> Voting "yea": Messrs. Ballard, Boyd, Campbell,
Cassell, Estabrook, Gibbs, Gray, Hascall, Kenaston, Kilburn,
Kirkpatrick, Lake, Lyon, Majors, Mason, Manderson, Maxwell, Neligh,
Newsome, Philpott, Price, Robinson, Stewart, Spiece, Shaff, Thomas,
Tisdel, Towle, Wakeley, President Strickland&mdash;30. Voting "nay":
Messrs. Abbott, Eaton, Granger, Griggs, Moore, Myers, Parchin,
Reynolds, Sprague, Stevenson, Hummel, Vifquain, Weaver&mdash;13.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_464_464" id="Footnote_464_464"></a><a href="#FNanchor_464_464"><span class="label">[464]</span></a> The gentlemen who advocated the measure most warmly,
were among the ablest judges and jurists of the State. Of the
opposition, Judge O. P. Mason experienced a change of heart, and
ten years later appeared as a foremost advocate. General E.
Estabrook of Omaha lent all his influence to the amendment in the
late canvass, and Col. Philpott of Lincoln was also a warm
advocate, often accompanying his zealous wife and other members of
the effective and untiring Lincoln association to the school-house
meetings held in all parts of Lancaster county. D. T. Moore was
called out at a meeting in York in 1881, and came forward without
hesitation, saying that he was in favor of woman suffrage. He
related this incident: that on his return home from the convention
of 1871, he found that his wife had been looking after his stock
farm and attending to his business so that everything was in good
order. He praised her highly, when she replied, "Yes, and while I
was caring for your interests, you were voting against my rights."
The reply set him to thinking, and he thought himself over on the
other side. A. J. Weaver opposed the clause in a very bitter
speech. The friends of the amendment in 1881 were given to
understand that Mr. Weaver was friendly, but to prevent the
foreigners having that opinion, Mr. Weaver translated the record of
his opposition into German, and distributed the papers among the
German voters. Having been elected to congress, he was one of only
three Republican members who voted against the standing committee
on woman's claims. These facts cost him a great many votes at the
time of his reëlection in 1884, and are not yet forgotten.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_465_465" id="Footnote_465_465"></a><a href="#FNanchor_465_465"><span class="label">[465]</span></a> The debates of this convention were not reported for
the economical reasons mentioned. The names of the honored fifteen
are, Clinton Briggs, W. L. Dunlap, R. C. Eldridge, J. G. Ewan, C.
H. Frady, C. H. Gere, R. B. Harrington, D. P. Henry, C. F.
Manderson, J. McPherson, M. B. Reese, S. M. Kirkpatrick, L. B.
Thorne, A. M. Walling, J. F. Zediker. Many of these were active
friends of the amendment of 1881.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_466_466" id="Footnote_466_466"></a><a href="#FNanchor_466_466"><span class="label">[466]</span></a> The officers elected were: <i>President</i>, Harriet S.
Brooks, Omaha; <i>Vice-President-at-Large</i>, Clara Bewick Colby,
Beatrice; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>&mdash;First Judicial District, Mrs. B. J.
Thomson, Hebron; Second, Mrs. E. L. Warner, Roca; Third, Mrs. A. P.
Nicholas, Omaha; Fourth, Mrs. J. S. Burns, Scribner; Fifth, Mrs. C.
C. Chapin, Riverton; Sixth, Mrs. D. B. Slaughter, Fullerton;
<i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. Ada M. Bittenbender, Osceola;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Gertrude McDowell, Fairbury;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. L. Russell, Tecumseh; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Rev.
M. J. DeLong, Tecumseh; Mrs. Orpha C. Dinsmoor, Omaha; Mrs. J. C.
Roberts, David City; Mrs. C. B. Parker, Mrs. J. B. Finch, Lincoln;
Mrs. E. M. Correll, Hebron; Mrs. J. H. Bowen, Hastings.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_467_467" id="Footnote_467_467"></a><a href="#FNanchor_467_467"><span class="label">[467]</span></a> Members voting in the affirmative were: Messrs.
Abbott, Babcock; Bailey, Baldwin, Bartlett, Broatch, Brown,
Cantlin, Carman, Cook, Cole, Correll, Dailey, Dew, Dowty, Filley,
Fried, Graham, Gray, Hall, Heacock, Herman, Hostetter, Howe,
Jackson of Pawnee, Jensen, Johnson, Jones, Kaley, Kempton, Kyner,
Linn, McClun, McDougall, McKinnon, Mickey, Moore of York,
Montgomery, Palmer, Paxton, Ransom, Reed, Roberts, Root, Schick,
Scott, Sill, Slocumb, Watts, Wilsey and Windham&mdash;51. Voting in the
negative: Messrs. Bick, Bolln, Case, Franse, Frederick, Gates,
Hollman, Jackson of Douglas, King, Lamb, Laughlin, McShane, Moore
of Otoe, Mullen, Overton, Peterson, Putney, Sears, Wells, Whedon,
Ziegler and Mr. Speaker&mdash;22.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_468_468" id="Footnote_468_468"></a><a href="#FNanchor_468_468"><span class="label">[468]</span></a> At this time the valuable information from Wyoming
with which Nebraska was afterwards flooded; letters from Gov. Hoyt,
editorials from leading papers of the territory, and testimony from
every reputable source, had not been gathered; but two members of
the House, J. H. Helm and Church Howe, had been residents of
Wyoming, and these cheerfully gave their assurance that only good
had resulted from the enfranchisement of the women of Wyoming.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_469_469" id="Footnote_469_469"></a><a href="#FNanchor_469_469"><span class="label">[469]</span></a> Those voting in the affirmative were: Messrs. Baker,
Burns (of Dodge), Burns (of York), Coon, Daily, Dinsmore, Doane,
Evans, Gere, Graham, Harrington, Morse, Perkins, Pierce, Powers,
Smith, Tefft, Turner, Van Wyck, Wells, Wherry and White&mdash;22. Those
voting in the negative were: Messrs. Ballentine, Cady, Ervin, Howe,
Myers, Taylor, Turk and Zehrung&mdash;8. Two of these names cannot stand
in the roll of honor without an explanation; for twenty votes
indicate the full strength of the bill. The irrelevance of
opponents was illustrated by Senators Morse and Pierce. The former
in voting said, he had opposed the measure every step of the way,
and now to be consistent he voted aye. Senator Pierce said he had
been watching the other side of the capitol and nothing there
seemed popular but whiskey and women, therefore, he voted aye!</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_470_470" id="Footnote_470_470"></a><a href="#FNanchor_470_470"><span class="label">[470]</span></a> The speakers of this convention were Clara Bewick
Colby, acting president; Mr. Sattler, who gave the welcome; Ada M.
Bittenbender, Esther L. Warner, Judge I. N. Taylor, Mrs. M. E.
Vandermark, Rev. Haywood and Professor Wood of Nebraska City
College. The latter spoke in English in the afternoon, and in
German, his native tongue, in the evening. The announcement that he
would do so drew a large number of his countrymen. One of these was
allowed the floor by request, when he soundly berated (in German)
the women as opposed to foreigners, while at the same time he tried
to weaken Professor Wood's argument by saying it was to be
attributed to an American wife. It was reported that the marked
contrast between the speakers was commented on by resident Germans
greatly to the disadvantage of their fellow-townsman.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_471_471" id="Footnote_471_471"></a><a href="#FNanchor_471_471"><span class="label">[471]</span></a> The officers elected were: <i>President</i>, Ada M.
Bittenbender; <i>Vice-President</i>, Clara Bewick Colby; <i>Secretary</i>,
Belle G. Bigelow; <i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Gertrude M. McDowell;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Lucinda Russell; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Harriet S.
Brooks, E. M. Correll, Susie Noble Fifield, George B. Skinner, Rev.
John McNamara, Jennie F. Holmes; <i>Vice-Presidents of Judicial
Districts</i>&mdash;First, Barbara J. Thompson; second, Dr. Ruth M. Wood;
third, Orpha Clement Dinsmoor; fourth, Ada Van Pelt; fifth, Mrs. H.
S. Sydenham.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_472_472" id="Footnote_472_472"></a><a href="#FNanchor_472_472"><span class="label">[472]</span></a> Most of the speakers spent several weeks in the
State. Mrs. Helen M. Gougar, Mrs. May Wright Sewall, Mrs. Saxon,
Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Harbert, Mrs. Shattuck, Mrs. Neyman, Miss Anthony,
Miss Couzins and Miss Hindman were the principal National speakers,
and their ability and zeal aroused the whole State. Mrs. Colby was
indefatigable in her exertions from the moment the amendment was
submitted to the end of the canvass. Mrs. Colby and Miss Rachel
Foster organized the whole campaign throughout the State, and kept
all the speakers in motion.&mdash;[S. B. A.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_473_473" id="Footnote_473_473"></a><a href="#FNanchor_473_473"><span class="label">[473]</span></a> For further details of the closing scenes, see Vol.
III. page <a href="#Page_241">241</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_474_474" id="Footnote_474_474"></a><a href="#FNanchor_474_474"><span class="label">[474]</span></a> <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Brown (Clay), Brown (Colfax), Butler,
Canfield, Conklin, Dolan, Dunphy, Harrison, Heist, McShane, Norris,
Patterson, Rogers, Sang, Schönheit, Sowers, Thatch and Walker&mdash;18.
Senator Butler voted with these for the purpose of being able to
move a reconsideration. <i>Nays</i>&mdash;Bomgardner, Brown (Douglas),
Conner, Dye, Filley and Reynolds&mdash;6. <i>Absent</i>&mdash;Barker, Brown
(Lancaster), Case, Dech, Fisher, Harris, Kinkaid and Rich.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_696" id="Page_696">[Pg 696]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_L" id="CHAPTER_L"></a>CHAPTER L.</h2>

<h3>KANSAS.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Effect of the Popular Vote on Woman Suffrage&mdash;Anna C.
Wait&mdash;Hannah Wilson&mdash;Miss Kate Stephens, Professor of Greek in
State University&mdash;Lincoln Centre Society, 1879&mdash;The Press&mdash;The
Lincoln <i>Beacon</i>&mdash;Election, 1880&mdash;Sarah A. Brown, Democratic
Candidate&mdash;Fourth of July Celebration&mdash;Women Voting on the School
Question&mdash;State Society, 1884&mdash;Helen M. Gougar&mdash;Clara Bewick
Colby&mdash;Bertha H. Ellsworth&mdash;Radical Reform Association&mdash;Mrs. A.
G. Lord&mdash;Prudence Crandall&mdash;Clarina Howard Nichols&mdash;Laws&mdash;Women
in the Professions&mdash;Schools&mdash;Political Parties&mdash;Petitions to the
Legislature&mdash;Col. F. G. Adams' Letter. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">We</span> closed the chapter on Kansas in Vol. II. with the submission and
defeat of the woman suffrage amendment, leaving the advocates of
the measure so depressed with the result that several years elapsed
before any further attempts were made to reorganize their forces
for the agitation of the question. This has been the experience of
the friends in every State where the proposition has been submitted
to a vote of the electors&mdash;alike in Michigan, Colorado, Nebraska
and Oregon&mdash;offering so many arguments in favor of the
enfranchisement of woman by a simple act of the legislature, where
the real power of the people is primarily represented. We have so
many instances on record of the exercise of this power by the
legislatures of the several States in the regulation of the
suffrage, that there can be no doubt that the sole responsibility
in securing this right to the women of a State rests with the
legislature, or with congress in passing a sixteenth amendment that
should override all State action in protecting the rights of United
States citizens.</p>

<p>We are indebted to Anna C. Wait for most of the interesting facts
of this chapter. She writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>I watched with intense interest from my home in Ohio, the
progress of the woman suffrage idea in Kansas in the campaign of
1867, and although temporary defeat was the result, yet the moral
grandeur displayed by the people in seeking to make their
constitution an embodiment of the principle of American liberty,
decided me to become a citizen of that young and beautiful State.
Gov. Harvey's message was at that time attracting much attention
and varied comments by the press. For the benefit of those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_697" id="Page_697">[Pg 697]</a></span> who
have not studied the whole history of the cause, we give the
following extracts from his message, published February 9, 1871:</p>

<blockquote><p>The tendency of this age is towards a civil policy wherein
political rights will not be affected by social or ethnological
distinctions; and from the moral nature of mankind and the
experience of States, we may infer that restrictions merely
arbitrary and conventional, like those based upon color and sex,
cannot last much longer than they are desired, and cannot be
removed much sooner than they should be. This consideration
should give patience to the reformer, and resignation to the
conservative.</p>

<p>Let us have a true republic&mdash;a "government of the people, by the
people, for the people," and we shall hear no more the
oligarchical cry of croaking conservatism calling for a "white
man's government"&mdash;appealing by this, and like slogans of class
and caste to the lowest and meanest principles of human nature,
dangerous alike to real republicanism and true democracy.
Expediency, that great pretext for the infringement of human
rights, no longer justifies us in the retention of a monopoly of
political power in our own favored class of "white male
citizens." </p></blockquote>

<p>In the summer of 1871, Mr. Wait and myself removed to Salina, where
Mrs. Hannah Wilson resided. She was the only person in this section
of Kansas I ever heard of doing any suffrage work between the years
of 1867 and 1877. She was a woman of great force of character, and
a strong advocate of suffrage. She was born in Hamilton county,
Ohio, and came to Salina in 1870. After Miss Anthony lectured in
that city in 1877, Mrs. Wilson circulated petitions to the
legislature and to congress. She was also active and aggressive in
the temperance cause. When she learned of the Lincoln <i>Beacon</i>, and
its advocacy of woman suffrage, she wrote an article for the paper,
and accompanied it with a kind letter and the price of a year's
subscription. Mrs. Wilson was a Quaker, and in her dress and
address strictly adhered to the peculiarites of that sect.</p>

<p>Miss Kate Stephens, professor of Greek in the Kansas State
University, writes that she has made diligent search during the
past summer among the libraries of Topeka and Lawrence for record
of suffrage work since the campaign of 1867, and finds absolutely
nothing, so that I am reduced to the necessity of writing,
principally, of our little efforts here in central Kansas. In the
intensely interesting letters of Mesdames Helen Ekin Starrett,
Susan E. Wattles, Dr. R. S. Tenney and Hon. J. P. Root, in Vol.
II., all written since 1880, I find no mention of any woman
suffrage organizations. Mrs. Wattles, of Mound City, says: "My work
has been very limited. I have only been able to circulate tracts
and papers"; and she enumerates all the woman suffrage papers ever
published in America, which she had taken and given away. A quiet,
unobtrusive method of work, but one of the most effective; and
doubtless to the sentiment created and fostered by this sowing of
suffrage literature by Mrs. Wattles, is largely due the wonderful
revival which has swept like one of our own prairie fires over
south-eastern Kansas during the past year; a sentiment so strong as
to need but "a live coal from off the altar" to kindle into a blaze
of enthusiasm. This it received in the earnest eloquence of Mrs.
Helen M. Gougar, who has twice visited that portion of the State.
All these writers express their faith in a growing interest in the
suffrage cause, and, some of them, the belief that if the question
were again submitted to a vote of the people, it would carry.</p>

<p>In our State suffrage convention, June, 1884, among the demands
which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_698" id="Page_698">[Pg 698]</a></span> we resolved to make of our incoming legislature, was the
submission of an amendment striking out the word "male" from the
State constitution. For myself, I entertained no hope that it would
succeed further than as a means of agitation and education. On
reflection, I hope it will not be done. The women of Kansas have
once been subjected to the humiliation of having their political
disabilities perpetuated by the vote of the "rank and file" of our
populace. While I believe the growth of popular opinion in favor of
equality of rights for women has nowhere been more rapid than in
Kansas, yet I do not lose sight of the fact that thousands of
foreigners are each year added to the voting population, whose
ballots in the aggregate defeat the will of our enlightened,
American-born citizens. Besides, it is a too convenient way for a
legislature to shirk its own responsibility. If the demand is made,
I hope it may be done in connection with that for municipal and
presidential suffrage.</p>

<p>The history of the woman suffrage organizations in Kansas since
1867, may be briefly told. The first owes its existence to one copy
of the <i>National Citizen and Ballot-Box</i> subscribed for by my
husband, W. S. Wait, who by the merest chance heard Miss Anthony
deliver her famous lecture, "Woman wants Bread, not the Ballot," in
Salina, in November, 1877. The paper was religiously read by Mrs.
Emily J. Biggs and myself; although we did not need conversion,
both being radical in our ideas on this question, we had long felt
the need of something being done which would fix public attention
and provoke discussion. This was all we felt ourselves competent to
do, and the knowledge that nobody else in our section of the
country would do it, coupled with the inspiration of the <i>National
Citizen</i>, culminated, in November 1879, in sending to the <i>Saline
Valley Register</i>, George W. Anderson, editor and proprietor, a
notice for a meeting of women for the purpose of organizing a
suffrage society. In response to the call, Mrs. Emily J. Biggs,
Mrs. Sarah E. Lutes, and Mrs. Wait, met November 11, 1879, at the
house of A. T. Biggs, and organized the Lincoln Auxiliary of the
National Association. We elected a full corps of officers from
among ladies whom we believed to be favorable, interviewed them for
their approval, and sent a full report of the meeting to be
published as a matter of news in the <i>Register</i>, which had given
our call without comment. The editor had a few weeks previously
bought the paper, and we were totally ignorant in regard to his
position upon the question. We were not long left in doubt, for the
fact that we had actually organized in a way which showed that we
understood ourselves, and meant business, had the effect to elicit
from his pen a scurrilous article, in which he called us "the three
noble-hearted women," classed us with "free-lovers," called us
"monstrosities, neither men nor women," and more of the same sort.
Of course, the effect of this upon the community was to array all
true friends of the cause on our side, to bring the opposition,
made bold by the championship of such a gallant leader, to the
front, and cause the faint-hearted to take to the fence. And here
we had the discussion opened up in a manner which, had we foreseen,
I fear our courage would have been inadequate to the demand. But
not for one moment did we entertain a thought of retreating.
Knowing that if we maintained silence, the enemy would consider us
vanquished, I<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_699" id="Page_699">[Pg 699]</a></span> wrote an article for his paper, quoting largely from
Walker's American Law, which he published; and Mrs. Biggs also
furnished him an article in which she showed him up in a manner so
ludicrous and sarcastic that he got rid of printing it by setting
it up full of mistakes which he manufactured himself, and sending
her the proof with the information that if he published it at all,
it would be in that form. It appeared the following week, however,
in the first number of <i>The Argus</i>, a Democratic paper, Ira C.
Lutes, editor and proprietor, in which we at once secured a column
for the use of our society. About a dozen ladies attended our
second meeting, at which the following resolutions were unanimously
adopted, all the ladies present being allowed to vote:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The local newspaper is adjudged, by common consent, to
be the exponent of the intelligence, refinement, and culture of a
community, and, in a large degree, the educator of the rising
generation; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, In one issue of the Lincoln <i>Register</i> there appears no
fewer than forty-seven misspelled words, with numerous errors in
grammatical construction and punctuation; also a scurrilous
article headed "Woman vs. Man," in which the editor not only
grossly misrepresents us, but assails the characters of all
advocates of suffrage everywhere in a manner which shocks the
moral sense of every true lady and gentleman in this community;
therefore</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That this association present the editor of the
<i>Register</i> with a copy of some standard English spelling-book,
and English Language Lessons, for his especial use.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That as he has been so kind as to offer his advice to
us, unsolicited, we reciprocate the favor by admonishing him to
confine himself to facts in future, and to remember that the
people of Lincoln are capable of appreciating truth and common
decency.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That a copy of these resolutions be furnished the
editor of the Lincoln <i>Register</i>, with the books above named. </p></blockquote>

<p>This was promptly done, and so enraged him that the following week
he published a tirade of abuse consisting of brazen falsehoods,
whereupon a gentleman called a halt, by faithfully promising to
chastise him if he did not desist, which had the desired effect so
far as his paper was concerned.</p>

<p>W. S. Wait bought the <i>Argus</i> at the end of four months, changed
its politics to Republican, and its name to the Lincoln <i>Beacon</i>,
in which I established a woman suffrage department, under the head
of "Woman as a Citizen," with one of Lucretia Mott's favorite
mottoes, "Truth for Authority, and not Authority for Truth"; and
weekly, for six years, it has gone to a constantly increasing
circle of readers, and contributed its share to whatever strength
and influence the cause has gained in this portion of the State. In
the summer of 1880, G. W. Anderson announced himself a candidate
for the legislature. He had just before made himself especially
obnoxious by shockingly indecent remarks about the ladies who had
participated in the exercises of the Fourth of July celebration. At
a meeting of the suffrage society, held August 6, the following
resolution, suggested by Mrs. S. E. Lutes, were unanimously
adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, We, as responsible members of society, and guardians of
the purity of our families and community, are actuated by a sense
of duty and our accountability to God for the faithful
performance of it; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, George W. Anderson, editor and proprietor of the Lincoln
<i>Register</i>, during his few months' residence in our county has,
by constant calumny and scurrility,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_700" id="Page_700">[Pg 700]</a></span> both verbal and through the
columns of his paper, sought to injure the reputation of the
honorable women who compose the Lincoln suffrage and temperance
associations, and of all women everywhere who sympathize with the
aims and purposes which these societies represent; and</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, His utterances through the columns of the Lincoln
<i>Register</i> are often unfit to be read by any child, or aloud in
any family, because of their indecency, we are unanimously of the
opinion that his course is calculated to defeat the aims and
purposes of Christianity, temperance and morality; therefore</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That whenever George W. Anderson aspires to any
position of honor, trust or emolument in the gift of the voters
of Lincoln county, we will use all honorable means in our power
to defeat him; and we further urge upon every woman who has the
welfare of our county at heart, the duty and necessity of
coöperating with us to accomplish this end. </p></blockquote>

<p>The above preamble and resolution appeared in the woman's column of
the Lincoln <i>Beacon</i> the following week, and 250 copies were
printed in the form of hand-bills and distributed to the
twenty-three post-offices in Lincoln county. It did not prevent his
election, and we did not expect it would, but we believed it our
duty to enter our protest against the perpetration of this outrage
upon the moral sense of those who knew him best. We ignored him in
the legislature, sending our petitions asking that body to
recommend to congress the adoption of the sixteenth amendment, to
Hon. S. C. Millington of Crawford, who had come to our notice that
winter by offering a woman suffrage resolution in the House. In
1882 Anderson sought a second indorsement as a candidate for the
legislature, but that portion of the community which he really
represented had become disgusted with him; he struggled against
fate with constantly waning patronage for another year, when he
succumbed to the inevitable and sought a new field, a wiser if a
sadder man. His mantle has fallen upon E. S. Bower, whose capacity
and style were graphically portrayed in caustic rhyme by Mrs.
Ellsworth, making him the target for the wit of the women long
after.</p>

<p>I have given more space and prominence to these two editors than
they merit, but the influence of a local newspaper is not to be
despised, however despicable the editor and his paper may be; and
it takes no small degree of courage to face such an influence as
that exerted in this county by the one in question, which, I am
happy to say, has gradually dwindled, until to-day it is too
trifling, both in extent and character, to deserve recognition.</p>

<p>Six years ago I do not believe there was a paper in the State of
Kansas which contained a woman suffrage department, and we rarely
saw any reference whatever to the subject; now, within a radius of
fifty miles of Lincoln Centre, fully two-thirds of all newspapers
published have a column devoted to suffrage or temperance, or both,
edited by women. The reason this is not true of the press of the
entire State is because our indefatigable corresponding secretary,
Mrs. Bertha H. Ellsworth, has not yet had sufficient time to
personally present the matter; but there has been such a growth on
the subject that by the press generally it seems to be accepted as
one of the living issues of the day. A very efficient agency in
bringing about this desirable result was the printed column,
entitled "Concerning Women," sent out gratis every week during<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_701" id="Page_701">[Pg 701]</a></span> the
year 1882, by Mrs. Lucy Stone, from the office of <i>The Woman's
Journal</i>, to all newspapers that would publish it. Many Kansas
editors availed themselves of this generous offer, greatly to the
advantage of their patrons and themselves.</p>

<p>But to return to the Lincoln Woman Suffrage Association. The first
year our membership increased to twenty-seven; the second, to
forty, including six gentlemen. We did not invite gentlemen to join
the first year; owing to the character and attitude of the
opposition, we preferred to demonstrate our ability to conduct the
affairs of the society without masculine assistance. During our six
years' existence we have enrolled eighty members, eighteen of whom
are gentlemen. Of this number, forty-five women and fourteen men
still reside in Lincoln county. We have held, on an average, one
parlor meeting a month and ten public meetings.</p>

<p>In 1880, Mesdames Emily J. Biggs, Mary Crawford, Bertha H.
Ellsworth and myself were assigned places on the programme for the
Fourth of July celebration, after solicitation by a committee from
our society. To me was assigned the reading of the Declaration of
Independence, and I embraced the opportunity of interspersing a few
remarks not found in that honored document, to the delight of our
friends and the disgust of our foes. The other ladies all made
original, excellent and well-timed addresses. In 1881 we got up the
Fourth of July celebration<a name="FNanchor_475_475" id="FNanchor_475_475"></a><a href="#Footnote_475_475" class="fnanchor">[475]</a> ourselves, and gave the men half
the programme without their asking for it. In 1883 we had a
"Foremothers' Day" celebration, and confined the programme to our
own society. In September, 1882, the society sent the writer as
delegate to the annual meeting of the National Woman Suffrage
Association, held at Omaha, Nebraska; and in March, 1884, we sent
Bertha H. Ellsworth to the Washington convention in the same
capacity. Our society has taken an active part in the annual school
district elections in Lincoln Centre. In the last five elections we
have been twice defeated and three times successful. Our defeats we
claimed as victories, inasmuch as we forced our opponents to bring
out all their friends to outvote us. Fifty per cent. of all the
votes cast at the last three elections were by women. Only twelve
women in the town failed to vote in 1884. This increase is general
all over the State; and, although we have only once tried in
Lincoln Centre to elect a woman, and then failed, yet very<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_702" id="Page_702">[Pg 702]</a></span> many of
the country districts have one, some two women on the school-board,
and at one time all three members in one district were women. That
they are honest, capable and efficient is the verdict in every
case.</p>

<p>In the spring of 1881, Mrs. Emily J. Biggs organized the Stanton
Suffrage Society, eight miles from Lincoln Centre, with a
membership of over twenty, more than half of whom were gentlemen.
Mesdames Mary Baldwin, N. Good, T. Faulkner, M. Biggs, Mrs. Swank
and others were the leading spirits. All their meetings are public,
and are held in the school-house. Through this society that portion
of the county has become well leavened with suffrage sentiment.
Failing health alone has prevented Mrs. Biggs from carrying this
school district organization to all parts of the county and beyond
its limits, as she has been urgently invited to do. "Instant in
season and out of season" with a word for the cause, she has,
individually, reached more people with the subject than any other
half-dozen women in the society. Her pen, too, has done good
service. Over the <i>nom de plume</i> of "Nancy," in the <i>Beacon</i>, she
has dealt telling blows to our ancient adversary, the <i>Register</i>.
In October, 1882, the writer went by invitation to Ellsworth and
organized a society<a name="FNanchor_476_476" id="FNanchor_476_476"></a><a href="#Footnote_476_476" class="fnanchor">[476]</a> auxiliary to the National, composed of
excellent material, but too timid to do more than hold its own
until the summer of 1884, when Mrs. Gougar, and later, Mrs. Colby,
lectured there, soon after which Mrs. Ellsworth canvassed the town
with literature and a petition for municipal suffrage, which was
signed by eighty of the eighty-five women to whom it was presented,
showing that there was either a great deal of original suffrage
sentiment there, or that the society had exerted a large amount of
"silent influence." In October, 1883, Mrs. Helen M. Gougar came to
fill some lecture engagements in the southeastern part of the
State. During this visit she organized several clubs.<a name="FNanchor_477_477" id="FNanchor_477_477"></a><a href="#Footnote_477_477" class="fnanchor">[477]</a></p>

<p>In June, 1884, Mrs. Gougar again visited Kansas, lecturing for a
month in different parts of the State. She drew large audiences and
made many converts. A suffrage society was organized at Emporia,
Miss M. J. Watson, president. The active friends availed themselves
of her assistance to call a State Suffrage Convention, which met in
the Senate chamber in Topeka, June 25, 26, and organized a State
Association.<a name="FNanchor_478_478" id="FNanchor_478_478"></a><a href="#Footnote_478_478" class="fnanchor">[478]</a> Mrs. Gougar, by the unanimous vote of the
convention, presided, and dispatched business with her
characteristic ability. In view of all the circumstances, this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_703" id="Page_703">[Pg 703]</a></span>
convention and its results were highly satisfactory. The attendance
was not large, but the fact that the call was issued from Topeka to
the press of the State but eight days before the convention met,
and probably did not reach half the papers in time for one
insertion, accounts for the absence of a crowd. Some even in Topeka
learned that the convention was in progress barely in time to reach
its last session. Reporters for the Topeka <i>Capital</i>, the Topeka
<i>Commonwealth</i> and Kansas City <i>Journal</i> attended all the day
sessions of the convention, and gave full and fair reports of the
proceedings. After the adjournment of the State convention, the
women of Topeka formed a city society. The corresponding secretary,
Mrs. Ellsworth, with Mrs. Clara B. Colby, made an extensive
circuit, lecturing and organizing societies. They were everywhere
cordially welcomed.<a name="FNanchor_479_479" id="FNanchor_479_479"></a><a href="#Footnote_479_479" class="fnanchor">[479]</a></p>

<p>Kansas has a flourishing Women's Christian Temperance Union which
at its last annual meeting adopted a strong woman suffrage
resolution; Miss O. P. Bray of Topeka is its superintendent of
franchise. Mrs. Emma Molloy of Washington, both upon the rostrum
and through her paper, the official organ of the State Union, ably
and fearlessly advocates woman suffrage as well as prohibition, and
makes as many converts to the former as to the latter.</p>

<p>Mrs. A. G. Lord did a work worthy of mention in the formation of
the Radical Reform Christian Association, for young men and boys,
taking their pledge to neither swear, use tobacco nor drink
intoxicating liquors. A friend says of Mrs. Lord:</p>

<blockquote><p>Like all true reformers she has met even more than the usual
share of opposition and persecution, and mostly because she is a
woman and a licensed preacher of the Methodist church in Kansas.
She was a preacher for three years, but refuses to be any longer
because, she says, under the discipline as it now is, the church
has no right to license a woman to preach. Trying to do her work
inside the church in which she was born and reared, she has had
to combat not only the powers of darkness outside the church, but
also the most contemptible opposition, amounting in several
instances to bitter persecutions, from the ministers of her own
denomination with whom she has been associated in her work as a
preacher; and through it all she has toiled on, manifesting only
the most patient, forgiving spirit, and the broadest, most
Christ-like charity. </p></blockquote>

<p>The R. R. C. A. has been in existence two and a half years, and has
already many hundreds of members in this and adjoining counties,
through the indefatigable zeal of its founder. Mitchell county has
the honor of numbering among its many enterprising women the only
woman who is a mail contractor in the United States, Mrs. Myra
Peterson, a native of New Hampshire. The <i>Woman's Tribune</i> of
November, 1884, contains the following brief sketch of a grand
historic character:</p>

<blockquote><p>Marianna T. Folsom is lecturing in Kansas on woman suffrage. She
gives an interesting account of a visit to Mrs. Prudence Crandall
Philleo. Miss Crandall over<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_704" id="Page_704">[Pg 704]</a></span> fifty years ago allowed a girl with
colored blood in her veins to attend her young ladies' school in
Connecticut. On account of the social disturbance because of
this, she dismissed the white girls and made her school one for
colored pupils. Protests were followed by indictments, and these
by mobbings, until she was obliged to give up her school. For her
fortitude, the Anti-Slavery Society had her portrait painted. It
became the property of Rev. Samuel J. May, who donated it to
Cornell University when opened to women. Miss Crandall married,
but has now been a widow many years. She is in her eighty-third
year, and is vigorous in mind and body, having been able to
deliver the last Fourth of July oration at Elk Falls, Kan., where
she now lives and advocates woman suffrage and temperance. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the introduction to <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_171">
Chapter VII., Vol. I.</a>, of this history,
appears this sentence: "To Clarina Howard Nichols<a name="FNanchor_480_480" id="FNanchor_480_480"></a><a href="#Footnote_480_480" class="fnanchor">[480]</a> the women of
Kansas are indebted for many civil rights which they have as yet
been too apathetic to exercise." Uncomplimentary as this statement
is, I must admit its truthfulness as applied to a large majority of
our women of culture and leisure, those who should have availed
themselves of the privileges already theirs and labored for what
the devotion of Mrs. Nichols made attainable. They have neither
done this, nor tried to enlighten their less favored sisters
throughout the State, the great mass of whom are obliged to exert
every energy of body and mind to furnish food, clothes and shelter
for themselves and children. Probably fully four-fifths of the
women of Kansas never have heard of Clarina Howard Nichols; while a
much larger number do know that our laws favor women more than
those of other States, and largely avail themselves of the school
ballot. The readiness with which the rank and file of our women
assent to the truth when it is presented to them, indicates that
their inaction results not so much from apathy and indifference as
from a lack of means and opportunity. Among all the members of all
the woman suffrage societies in Central Kansas, I know of but just
one woman of leisure&mdash;one who is not obliged to make a personal
sacrifice of some kind each time she attends a meeting or pays a
dollar into the treasury. Section 6, Article XV., of the
constitution of Kansas reads:</p>

<blockquote><p>The legislature shall provide for the protection of the rights of
women, in acquiring and possessing property, real, personal, and
mixed, separate and apart from her husband; and shall also
provide for their equal rights in the possession of their
children. In accordance with the true spirit of this section, our
statute provides that the law of descents and distributions as
regards the property of either husband or wife is the same; and
the interests of one in the property of the other are the same
with each; and that the common-law principles of estates of
dower, and by courtesy are abolished.<a name="FNanchor_481_481" id="FNanchor_481_481"></a><a href="#Footnote_481_481" class="fnanchor">[481]</a> </p></blockquote>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 407px;">
<a name="v3_704" id="v3_704">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_704.jpg" width="407" height="500" alt="&quot;The world needs women who do their own thinking.
Cordially yours, Helen M. Gougar&quot;" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>The rights of husband and wife in the control of their respective
properties, both real and personal, are identical, as provided
for in sections 1, 2, 3, and 4. Chapter 62, page 539, compiled
laws of Kansas, 1878:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Section 1.</span> The property, real and personal, which any woman in
this State may own at the time of her marriage, and the rents,
issues, profits, and proceeds thereof,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_705" id="Page_705">[Pg 705]</a></span> and any real, personal,
or mixed property which shall come to her by descent, devise, or
bequest, or the gift of any person except her husband, shall
remain her sole and separate property, notwithstanding her
marriage, and not be subject to the disposal of her husband, or
liable for his debts.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 2. A married woman, while the marriage relation subsists,
may bargain, sell and convey her real and personal property, and
enter into any contract with reference to the same, in the same
manner, to the same extent, and with like effect as a married man
may in relation to his real and personal property.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 3. A woman may, while married, sue and be sued, in the same
manner as if unmarried.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 4. Any married woman may carry on any trade or business, and
perform any labor or services, on her sole and separate account,
and the earnings of any married woman from her trade, business,
labor or services, shall be her sole and separate property, and
may be used and invested by her in her own name. </p></blockquote>

<p>It is a fact worthy of note that the above legislation, also the
passage of the law of descents and distributions, immediately
followed the woman suffrage campaign of 1867.</p>

<p>In 1880, the Democrats of Kansas, in their State convention at
Topeka, nominated Miss Sarah A. Brown of Douglas county, for
superintendent of public instruction, the first instance on record
of a woman receiving a nomination from one of the leading political
parties for a State office. The following is Miss Brown's letter of
acceptance:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction</span>, Douglas Co., Kansas, }<br />
<span class="smcap">Lawrence</span>, Kansas, Sept. 30, 1880. }</p>

<p><i>To Hon. John Martin, Topeka, Kansas, Chairman of the State
Democratic Central Committee:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>:&mdash;I am in receipt of your communication of August 30,
advising me of the action of the Democratic convention of August
26, in nominating me as their candidate for State superintendent
of public instruction.</p>

<p>In making this nomination the Democratic party of Kansas has,
with a liberal and enlightened spirit, and with a generous
purpose, yielded to the tendency of the times, which demand equal
rights and equal opportunities for all the people, and it has
thus shown itself to be a party of progress. It has placed itself
squarely and unequivocally before the people upon this great and
vital question of giving to woman the right to work in any field
for which she may be fitted, thus placing our young and glorious
State in the foremost rank on this, as on the other questions of
reform.</p>

<p>Furthermore, in nominating one who has no vote, and for this
reason cannot be considered in politics, and in doing this of its
own free will, without any solicitation on my part, the
Democratic party of this State has shown that it is in full
accord with the Jeffersonian doctrine that the office should seek
the man and not the man the office; and also that it fully
appreciates the fact which is conceded by all persons who have
thought much on educational matters, that the best interests of
our schools demand that the office of superintendent, both of the
State and county, should be as far as possible disconnected from
politics, and it has done what it could to rescue the office from
the vortex of mere partisan strife. For this reason I accept the
nomination, thanking the party for the honor it has conferred
upon me.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF sc">Sarah A. Brown.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Respectfully,</p>

</blockquote>


<p>Miss Brown was defeated. The vote of the State showed the average
Democrat unable to overcome his time-rusted prejudices sufficiently
to vote for a woman to fill the highest educational office in the
gift of the people, so that Miss Brown's minority was smaller even
than that of the regular Democratic ticket.</p>

<p>January 21, 1881, Hon. S. C. Millington of Crawford county
introduced in the House a joint resolution providing for the
submission to the legal<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_706" id="Page_706">[Pg 706]</a></span> voters of the State of Kansas of a
proposition to amend the constitution so as to admit of female
suffrage. The vote on the adoption of the resolution stood 51 ayes
and 31 noes in the House, and a tie in the Senate. Later in the
same session, Hon. A. C. Pierce of Davis county introduced in the
House a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the constitution
which should confer the right of suffrage on any one over 21 years
of age who had resided in the State six months. Mr. Hackney of
Cowley county, introduced a like resolution in the Senate.</p>

<p>In December, 1881, Governor St. John appointed Mrs. Cora M. Downs
one of the regents of the State University at Lawrence. In 1873,
Mrs. Rice was elected to the office of county clerk of Harper
county, and Miss Alice Junken to the office of recorder of deeds,
in Davis county. In 1885 Miss Junken was reëlected by a majority of
500 over her competitor, Mrs. Fleming, while Trego county gave a
unanimous vote for Miss Ada Clift as register of deeds.</p>

<p>In proportion to her population Kansas has as many women in the
professions as any of the older States. We have lawyers,
physicians, preachers and editors, and the number is constantly
increasing. In Topeka there are eight practicing physicians,
holding diplomas from medical colleges, and two or three who are
not graduates. In the Woman's Medical College of Chicago, Kansas
now has four representatives&mdash;Mrs. Sallie A. Goff of Lincoln, Miss
Thomas of Olathe, Miss Cunningham of Garnett, and Miss Gilman of
Pittsburg.</p>

<p>All female persons over the age of twenty-one years are entitled to
vote at any school-district meeting on the same terms as men.</p>

<p>The right of a woman to hold any office, State (except member of
the legislature), county, township or school-district, in the State
of Kansas, is the same as that of a man. In 1882, six counties,
viz., Chase, Cherokee, Greenwood, Labette, Pawnee, and Woodson,
elected women as superintendents of public instruction.</p>

<blockquote><p>Section 23, Article II., Constitution of Kansas, reads: "The
legislature, in providing for the formation and regulation of
schools, shall make no distinction between males and females." </p></blockquote>

<p>Under the legislation based upon this clause of our constitution,
males and females have equal privileges in all schools controlled
by the State. The latest report of the State superintendent of
public instruction shows that over one-half of the pupils of the
Normal school, about two-fifths in the University, and nearly
one-third in the Agricultural College, are females.</p>

<p>In the private institutions of learning, including both
denominational and unsectarian, over one-half of the students are
females who study in the same classes as the males, except in
Washburn college which has a separate course for ladies.</p>

<p>Most of these institutions have one woman, or more, in their
faculties. One-half of the faculty of the State University is
composed of women. In the last report of the State superintendent
is the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>The ratio of female teachers is greater than ever before, some 69
per cent. of the entire number employed. It is, indeed, a matter
of congratulation that the work of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_707" id="Page_707">[Pg 707]</a></span> the schools, especially the
primary teaching, is falling more and more to the care of women. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Republican State convention of 1882, by an overwhelming
majority endorsed woman suffrage, which action the Lincoln W. S. A.
promptly recognized as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, The Republican party of the State of Kansas, by and
through its chosen representatives in the Republican State
convention at Topeka, August 9, 1882, did, by an overwhelming
majority, pledge itself to the support of the principle of woman
suffrage by the following:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we request the next legislature to submit such
an amendment to the constitution of the State as will secure to
woman the right of suffrage. And,</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Whereas</span>, By this action the Republican party of Kansas has placed
itself in line with the advanced thought of the times in a manner
worthy a great political party of the last quarter of the
nineteenth century, thereby proving itself worthy the respect and
confidence of the women of the State; therefore,</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the Lincoln Woman Suffrage Association, in
behalf of the women of Kansas, does hereby express thanks to the
Republican party for this recognition of the political rights of
the women of the State, and especially to the Hon. J. C. Root of
Wyandotte, Hon. Hackney of Winfield, Col. Graves of Montgomery,
and Gen. Kelly, for their able and fearless support of the
measure, and to each and every member of the convention who voted
for it. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1883. Senator Hackney introduced a bill of which we find the
following in the <i>Topeka Capital</i> of that date:</p>

<blockquote><p>Senate bill No. 46, being Senator Hackney's, an act to provide
for the submission of the question of female suffrage to the
women of Kansas, was taken up, the reading thereof being greeted
with applause. It provides that at the general election in 1883
the women of the State shall decide, by ballot, whether they want
suffrage or not. Senator Hackney made an address to the Senate
upon the bill, saying he believed in giving women the same rights
as men had. The last Republican platform declared in favor of
woman suffrage, and those Republicans who opposed the platform
said they believed the women of the State should have their say
about it; the Democratic platform said the same as the dissenters
from the Republican. Several humorous amendments were made to the
bill. Senator Kelley favored the bill because there were a great
many women in the State who wanted to vote. He hoped the Senate
would not be so ungallant as to vote the bill down. Senator Sluss
moved the recommendation be made that the bill be rejected.
Carried. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Republican State convention of 1884 ignored the woman suffrage
question. The Anti-monopoly (Greenback) party State convention, of
August 1884, placed in its platform the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>That we believe the advancing civilization of the past quarter of
the nineteenth century demands that woman should have equal pay
for equal work, and equal laws with man to secure her equal
rights, and that she is justly entitled to the ballot. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Fanny Randolph of Emporia, was nominated by acclamation for
State superintendent of public instruction, by this convention. The
Prohibition State convention, in session in Lawrence, September 2,
1884, placed the following plank in its platform:</p>

<blockquote><p>We believe that women have the same right to vote as men, and in
the language of the Republican State platform of two years ago,
we request the next legislature to submit such an amendment to
the constitution of the State as will secure to woman the right
of suffrage. </p></blockquote>

<p>This year we sent from Lincoln a petition with 175 names asking for
a resolution recommending to congress the adoption of the
sixteenth<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_708" id="Page_708">[Pg 708]</a></span> amendment. The results of the election of 1884, showed
quite a gain for women in county offices. There are now eleven
superintendents of public instruction, several registers of deeds,
and county clerks. The number of lawyers,<a name="FNanchor_482_482" id="FNanchor_482_482"></a><a href="#Footnote_482_482" class="fnanchor">[482]</a> physicians, notaries
public, principals of schools, members of school-boards in cities
and school districts, is rapidly increasing, as is also the number
of women who vote in school-district elections. Miss Jessie
Patterson, who ran as an independent candidate for register of
deeds in Davis county, beat the regular Republican nominee 286
votes, and the Democratic candidate 299 votes.</p>

<p>The work of organizing suffrage societies has also progressed,
though not as rapidly as it should, for want of speakers and means
to carry it on. Through the efforts of Mrs. Laura M. Johns of
Salina, vice-president of the State society, several new and
flourishing clubs have been formed this summer in Saline county, so
that it is probably now the banner county in Kansas. The Lincoln
society is preparing to hold a fair in September, for the benefit
of the State association, which will hold its next annual
convention in October. Suffrage columns in newspapers are
multiplying and much stress is placed upon this branch of work. On
July 18, a convention was held to organize the Prohibition party in
Lincoln county. A cordial invitation was extended to women to
attend. Eight were present, and many more would have been had they
known of it. I was chosen secretary of the convention, and Mesdames
Ellsworth and Goff were appointed upon the platform committee, and
several of the central committee are women. The position of the new
party upon the question may be inferred from the following clauses
in its platform:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, By the Prohibition party of Lincoln county, Kansas,
in convention assembled, that the three vital issues before the
people to-day are prohibition, anti-monopoly, and woman suffrage.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we believe in the political equality of the
sexes, and we call on the legislature to submit such an amendment
to the people for adoption or rejection, to the constitution of
the State as will secure to women equal political rights. </p></blockquote>

<p>Later the convention nominated me for register of deeds, and Dr.
Sallie A. Goff for coroner. I immediately engaged Miss Jennie Newby
of Tonganoxie, member of the executive committee and State
organizer of the Prohibition party of Kansas, to make a canvass of
the county with me in the interest of the party and the county
ticket. We held ten meetings and at all points visited made
converts to both prohibition and woman suffrage, though nothing was
said about the latter. There were two men on the ticket; one of
them received more votes than Dr. Goff and I did, and the other
fewer. Emma Faris ran independently for register of deeds in
Ellsworth county and received a handsome vote. It is no longer a
matter of much comment for a woman to run for an office in Kansas.</p>

<p>Mrs. Gougar came again to Kansas in June to attend the third annual
meeting of the Radical Reform Christian Association, and spent a
month lecturing on woman suffrage and temperance.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_709" id="Page_709">[Pg 709]</a></span></p>

<p>January 15, 16, 1885, the annual meeting of the State society was
held at Topeka. Large and enthusiastic audiences greeted Mrs.
Gougar on this, her third visit to Kansas. She remained at the
capital for several days, and largely through her efforts with
members of the legislature special committees were voted for in
both Houses to consider the interests of women. The measure was
carried in the House by a vote of 75 to 45.<a name="FNanchor_483_483" id="FNanchor_483_483"></a><a href="#Footnote_483_483" class="fnanchor">[483]</a> In the Senate it
was a tie, 19 to 19. The new committee<a name="FNanchor_484_484" id="FNanchor_484_484"></a><a href="#Footnote_484_484" class="fnanchor">[484]</a> through its chairman,
George Morgan of Clay, reported in favor of a bill for municipal
suffrage. It was so low on the calendar that there was no hope of
its being reached, but a motion was made to take it out of its
regular course, which was lost by 65 to 52.</p>

<p>The second annual meeting of the State society was held at Salina,
October 28, 29, 1885. Mrs. Laura M. Johns gave the address of
welcome, to which Mrs. Anna C. Wait, the president, responded.
"Mother Bickerdyke,"<a name="FNanchor_485_485" id="FNanchor_485_485"></a><a href="#Footnote_485_485" class="fnanchor">[485]</a> who followed Sherman's army in its march
to the sea, was present and cheered all with her stirring words of
the work of women in the war.<a name="FNanchor_486_486" id="FNanchor_486_486"></a><a href="#Footnote_486_486" class="fnanchor">[486]</a> Her introduction was followed
with applause and the earnest attention to her remarks showed in
what high esteem she is held. She said that half the work of the
war was done by women, but she made no complaint, indeed no
mention, of the fact that these women had never been pensioned.</p>

<p>As it may add force to some facts already stated to have them
repeated by one in authority, we give the following letter from the
secretary of the Kansas Historical Society: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_710" id="Page_710">[Pg 710]</a></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Kansas Historical Society</span> Topeka, Nov. 26, 1885
</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Miss Susan B. Anthony</span>, Rochester, N. Y.:</p>

<p><i>My Dear Friend</i>:&mdash;In answer to your request for information upon
certain points bearing upon the subject of woman suffrage in
Kansas, I give the following:</p>

<p>The women avail themselves quite generally of their privilege of
voting at the annual and special school district meetings, at
which district officers are elected, and all questions of taxes
and expenditures are voted on and settled. Women are, in many
instances, elected members of the board of school directors, and
thus are charged with the duty of employing teachers, with the
supervision of the schools, and with the general management of
the affairs of the district. Women vote on the question of the
issue of school district bonds, and thus they take part in
deciding whether new school houses shall be built and the
property of the districts be pledged for the future payment of
the cost of the same.</p>

<p>In the chartered cities women do not generally vote for school
officers although, under the constitution, it is believed they
have the right to do so, and in one or more instances I am
informed they have done so, without the right being contested. In
cities, school officers are elected at general elections for
other city officers, for which women are not permitted to vote,
and as they cannot vote for all they generally do not choose to
vote for any. Women do not vote for either city, county, or State
superintendents, and it is not considered that under our
constitution they have the right to do so.</p>

<p>In 1884, there were 4,915 women teaching in the State, and 1,936
men. The average monthly wages of women was $32.85, and of men,
$40.70. There are at present twelve women holding the office of
county superintendent of public schools in the State. In 72
counties the office is filled by men. Thus, of the 84 organized
counties of the State, one-seventh of the school superintendents
are women, who generally prove to be competent and efficient, and
the number elected is increasing.</p>

<p>In one county, Harper, a woman holds the office of county clerk.
A young woman was recently elected to the office of register of
deeds, in Davis county. It is conceded that these two offices can
very appropriately be filled by women; and now that the movement
has begun, no doubt the number of those elected will increase at
recurring elections. Already, in numerous instances, women are
employed as deputies and assistants in these and other public
offices.</p>

<p>The participation of women in school elections and their election
to membership of school district boards, are resulting in a
steady growth of sentiment in favor of woman suffrage, generally.
It is seen that in the decision of questions involving the proper
maintenance of schools, and the supplying of school apparatus,
women usually vote for liberal and judicious expenditures, and
make faithful school officers. Their failures are not those of
omission, as is so frequently the case with men holding these
offices. If they err in judgment, it is from a lack of that
business information and experience which women as non-voters
have had little opportunity to acquire, but which, under our
Kansas system is now rapidly being supplied.</p>

<p>Among the influences tending to increase the suffrage sentiment
in Kansas, may be mentioned those growing out of the active part
women are taking in the discussion of political, economical,
moral and social questions, through their participation in the
proceedings of the Woman's Christian Temperance Union, the State
Temperance Union, the Woman's Social Science Association, the
Kansas Academy of Science, the Grange, the State and local
Teachers' Associations, and many other organizations in which
women have come to perform so prominent a part. In these
organizations, and in the part they take in discussions, they
show their capacity to grapple with the political, social, and
scientific problems of the day, in such a manner as to
demonstrate their ability to perform the highest duties of
citizenship. Still the chief influence which is bringing about a
growth of opinion in favor of woman suffrage in Kansas, comes
from what has now become the actual, and I may say, the popular
and salutary practice of woman suffrage at school district
meetings. It is seen that the reasons which make it right and
expedient for women to vote on questions pertaining to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_711" id="Page_711">[Pg 711]</a></span>
education of their children, bear with little, if any, less force
upon the propriety of their voting upon all questions affecting
the public welfare.</p>

<p>I think I may truly say to you that the tendencies in Kansas are
to the steady growth of sentiment in favor of woman suffrage.
This is so apparent that few of those even who do not believe in
its propriety or expediency now doubt that it will eventually be
adopted, and the political consequences fully brought to the test
of experience.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF sc">F. G. Adams.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Yours sincerely,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The greatest obstacle to our speedy success in this State, as
elsewhere, is the ignorance and indifference of the women
themselves. But the earnestness and enthusiasm of the few, in their
efforts from year to year, cannot be wholly lost&mdash;the fires kindled
by that memorable campaign of 1867 are not dead, only slumbering,
to burst forth with renewed brilliancy in the dawn of the day that
brings liberty, justice, and equality for woman. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_475_475" id="Footnote_475_475"></a><a href="#FNanchor_475_475"><span class="label">[475]</span></a> In the centennial year, when protests were in order,
the following was sent to the National Association at Philadelphia,
describing the manner in which a lady eighty-four years old
celebrated her birthday:
</p>
<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
"<span class="smcap">Neutral Station</span>, Kansas, July 17, 1876.</p>
<p>
"<span class="smcap">Dear Sisters</span>: Two days ago, on Saturday, the 15th, as has been
usual for three or four years, a company of our friends and
neighbors met at our house to celebrate my eighty-fourth
birthday. We had a pleasant time. Some pieces, composed for the
occasion, were read, and a clergyman made some appropriate
remarks. I improved the opportunity to obtain the names of the
ladies present, and succeeded with all, old and young, except one
who was afraid it would get her into a trap; but with <i>the rest
it needed but little electioneering beside reading your
advertisement to secure their names</i>. We, as a neighborhood, are
ignorant on the subject. I solicited assistance pecuniarily, and
send you what I can, with a word of encouragement still to work
and wait, and my earnest prayer for your final success.
</p>
<p class="ltr-from">Elsie Stewart."</p>
</blockquote>
<p>
The other signatures were: Henrietta L. Miller, Mrs. Julia A.
Ingraham, Mrs. Hollet, Mrs. Lottie Griffin, Selinda Miller, Celina
Lake, Mollie Yeates, Betsey J. Corse, Mary G. Hapeman, Mrs. Maggie
Clark, Miss Elsie Miller, Louie Ingraham, Malura Hickox, C. A.
Eddy, Anna Lowe, Charlotte H. Butler.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_476_476" id="Footnote_476_476"></a><a href="#FNanchor_476_476"><span class="label">[476]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mrs. Mary Maberly; <i>Secretary</i>, Miss
Lillie M. Hull; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Emma H. Johns; and an able
executive committee, of which Mrs. E. M. Alden, Mrs. Emma Faris,
Mrs. Mattie McDowell and Bertha H. Ellsworth, who was then teaching
there, were members.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_477_477" id="Footnote_477_477"></a><a href="#FNanchor_477_477"><span class="label">[477]</span></a> Arkansas City Suffrage Club, with Mrs. M. B.
Houghton, <i>President</i>; Mrs. E. T. Ayers, <i>Vice-President</i>; Miss
Gertrude Fowler, <i>Secretary</i>, and Mrs. F. Daniels, <i>Treasurer</i>;
also one at Winfield, county-seat of Cowley county, with Mrs. J.
Cairns, <i>President</i>; Mrs. M. R. Hall, <i>Secretary</i>, and Mrs. E. D.
Garlick, <i>Treasurer</i>; and vice-presidents from each of the
churches, as follows: Mesdames P. P. Powell, G. Miller, M. Burkey
and J. C. Fuller.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_478_478" id="Footnote_478_478"></a><a href="#FNanchor_478_478"><span class="label">[478]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mrs. Hetta P. Mansfield, Winfield;
<i>Vice-President-at-Large</i>, Mrs. Anna C. Wait, Lincoln;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Bertha H. Ellsworth, Lincoln;
<i>Recording Secretary</i>, Miss Georgiana Daniels, Eureka; <i>Treasurer</i>,
Mrs. D. A. Millington, Winfield; <i>Chaplain</i>, Rev. S. S. Cairns,
Winfield; <i>Vice-Presidents</i> and <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mrs. Judge
Griswold, Leavenworth; Miss Sarah Hurtsel, Columbus; Mrs. Anna
Taylor, Wichita; Miss Myra Willets, Independence; Mrs. W. P.
Roland, Cherryvale; Judge Lorenzo Westover, Clyde; Mr. V. P.
Wilson, Abilene; Hon. Albert Griffin, Manhattan; Mrs. A. O.
Carpenter, Emporia; Mrs. Noble Prentis, Atchison; Mrs. S. S. Moore,
Burden; Mrs. Emma Faris, Carnerio; Mrs. Houghton and Mrs. Farrer,
Arkansas City; Mrs. Finley, Topeka.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_479_479" id="Footnote_479_479"></a><a href="#FNanchor_479_479"><span class="label">[479]</span></a> The towns visited were: Beloit, Lincoln Center,
Wilson, Ellsworth, Salina, Solomon City, Minneapolis, Cawker City
and Clyde. The officers of the Topeka society were: <i>President</i>,
Mrs. Priscilla Finley; <i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. E. G. Hammon; <i>Treasurer</i>,
Mrs. Sarah Smith. The officers of Beloit were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. H.
Still; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. J. M. Patten, Mrs. M. Vaughan;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. F. J. Knight; <i>Recording
Secretary</i>, Mary Charlesworth; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. M. Bailey. At
Salina, Mrs. Johns and Mrs. Christina Day are the officers.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_480_480" id="Footnote_480_480"></a><a href="#FNanchor_480_480"><span class="label">[480]</span></a> The women of Kansas should never forget that to the
influence of Mrs. Nichols in the Constitutional convention at
Wyandotte, they owe the modicum of justice secured by that
document. With her knitting in hand, she sat there alone through
all the sessions, the only woman present, watching every step of
the proceedings, and laboring with members to so frame the
constitution as to make all citizens equal before the law. Though
she did not accomplish what she desired, yet by her conversations
with the young men of the State, she may be said to have made the
idea of woman suffrage seem practicable to those who formed the
constitution and statute laws of that State.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_481_481" id="Footnote_481_481"></a><a href="#FNanchor_481_481"><span class="label">[481]</span></a> See compiled laws of Kansas, 79, page 378, chapter
XXXIII.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_482_482" id="Footnote_482_482"></a><a href="#FNanchor_482_482"><span class="label">[482]</span></a> Miss Flora M. Wagstaff of Paoli was among the first
to practice law in Kansas. In 1881, Ida M. Tillotson of Mill Brook,
and in 1884, Maria E. DeGeer were admitted.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_483_483" id="Footnote_483_483"></a><a href="#FNanchor_483_483"><span class="label">[483]</span></a> The names of representatives voting for the
committee stand as follows: <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Barnes, Beattie, Bollinger,
Bond, Bonebrake, Brewster, Buck, Butterfield, Caldwell, Campbell,
Carter, Clogston, J. B. Cook of Chetopa, H. C. Cook of Oswego,
Collins, Cox, Currier, Davenport, Dickson, Edwards, Faulkner,
Gillespie, Glasgow, Gray, Grier, Hargrave, Hatfield, Hogue,
Hollenshead, Holman, Hopkins, Hostetler, Johnson of Ness City,
Johnson of Marshall, Johnson of Topeka, Johnson (Speaker of the
House), Kelley of Cawker City, King, Kreger, Lawrence, Lewis,
Loofburrow, Lower, McBride, McNall, McNeal, Matlock, Maurer,
Miller, Moore, Morgan of Clay, Morgan of Osborne, Mosher, Osborn,
Patton, Pratt, Reeves, Rhodes, Roach, Roberts, Slavens, Spiers,
Simpson, Smith of McPherson, Smith of Neosho, Stewart, Stine,
Sweezy, Talbot, Vance, Veach, Wallace, Wentworth, Wiggins,
Willhelm&mdash;75. The names of senators were: <i>Yeas</i>&mdash;Bowden, Congdon,
Donnell, Edmunds, Granger, Hicks, Humphrey, Jennings, M. B. Kelley,
Kellogg, Kimball, Kohler, Pickler, Ritter, Rush, Shean, Sheldon,
White, Young&mdash;19.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_484_484" id="Footnote_484_484"></a><a href="#FNanchor_484_484"><span class="label">[484]</span></a> The Committee on the Political Rights of Women,
granted by the House, were: George Morgan of Clay, George Seitz of
Ellsworth, David Kelso of Labette, F. W. Rash of Butler, W. C.
Edwards of Pawnee, F. J. Kelley of Mitchell, W. H. Deckard of
Doniphan.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_485_485" id="Footnote_485_485"></a><a href="#FNanchor_485_485"><span class="label">[485]</span></a> The speakers were: Rev. Amanda May (formerly of
Indiana), Mrs. Martha L. Berry, Mrs. Ada Sill, Mrs. Colby, Dr.
Addie Kester, Mrs. M. D. Vale, Rev. C. H. Rogers, Mrs. De Geer,
Miss Jennie Newby. Officers: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Anna C. Wait of
Lincoln; <i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs. Laura M. Johns of Salina;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Martia L. Berry of Cawker City; <i>Corresponding
Secretary</i>, Mrs. B. H. Ellsworth of Lincoln; <i>Recording Secretary</i>,
Mrs. Alice G. Bond of Salina.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_486_486" id="Footnote_486_486"></a><a href="#FNanchor_486_486"><span class="label">[486]</span></a> When Miss Anthony and I went through Kansas in 1867
we held an afternoon and evening meeting in Salina. Our
accommodations at the hotel were wretched beyond description.
Mother Bickerdyke was just preparing to open her hotel but was
still in great confusion. Hearing of our dismal quarters she came
and took us to her home, where her exquisitely cooked food and
clean beds redeemed in a measure our dolorous impressions of
Salina. Our meetings were held in an unfinished church without a
floor, the audience sitting on the beams, our opponents (two young
lawyers) and ourselves on a few planks laid across, where a small
stand was placed and one tallow candle to lighten the discussion
that continued until a late hour. Being delayed the next day at the
depot a long time waiting for the train we held another prolonged
discussion with these same sprigs of the legal profession. We had
intended to go on to Ellsworth, but hearing of trouble there with
the Indians we turned our faces eastward. Mother Bickerdyke and her
thrilling stories of the war are the pleasant memories that still
linger with us of Salina.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_712" id="Page_712">[Pg 712]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LI" id="CHAPTER_LI"></a>CHAPTER LI.</h2>

<h3>COLORADO.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Great American Desert&mdash;Organized as a Territory, February 28,
1860&mdash;Gov. McCook's Message Recommending Woman Suffrage,
1870&mdash;Adverse Legislation&mdash;Hon. Amos Steck&mdash;Admitted to the
Union, 1876&mdash;Constitutional Convention&mdash;Efforts to Strike Out the
Word "Male"&mdash;Convention to Discuss Woman Suffrage&mdash;School
Suffrage Accorded&mdash;State Association Formed, Alida C. Avery,
President&mdash;Proposition for Full Suffrage Submitted to the Popular
Vote&mdash;A Vigorous Campaign&mdash;Mrs. Campbell and Mrs. Patterson of
Denver&mdash;Opposition by the Clergy&mdash;Their Arguments Ably
Answered&mdash;D. M. Richards&mdash;The Amendment Lost&mdash;<i>The Rocky Mountain
News</i>. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">That</span> our English readers may appreciate the Herculean labors that
the advocates of suffrage undertake in this country in canvassing a
State, they must consider the vast territory to be traveled over,
in stages and open wagons where railroads are scarce. Colorado, for
example, covers an area of 104,500 square miles. It is divided by
the Rocky Mountains running north and south, with two hundred lofty
peaks rising thirteen thousand feet above the level of the sea, and
some still higher. To reach the voters in the little mining towns a
hundred miles apart, over mountains such as these, involves
hardships that only those who have made the journeys can
understand. But there is some compensation in the variety, beauty
and grandeur of the scenery, with its richly wooded valleys, vast
parks and snow-capped mountains. It is the region for those awake
to the sublime in nature to reverently worship some of her grandest
works that no poet can describe nor artist paint. Here, too, the
eternal struggle for liberty goes on, for the human soul can never
be attuned to harmony with its surroundings, especially the grand
and glorious, until the birthright of justice and equality is
secured to all.</p>

<p>For a history of the early efforts made in the Centennial State to
secure equal rights for women, we are indebted to Mrs. Mary G.
Campbell and Mrs. Katharine G. Patterson, two sisters who have been
actively interested in the suffrage movement in Colorado, as
follows:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_713" id="Page_713">[Pg 713]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>In 1848, while those immortal women whose names will be found on
many another page of the volume in which this chapter is
included, were asking in the convention at Seneca Falls, N. Y.,
that their equal membership in the human family might be admitted
by their husbands, fathers and sons, Colorado, unnamed and
unthought of, was still asleep with her head above the clouds.
Only two mountain-tops in all the-world were nearer heaven than
hers, and they, in far Thibet, had seen the very beginnings of
the race which, after six thousand years, had not yet penetrated
Colorado. Islanded in a cruel brown ocean of sand, she hid her
treasures of gold and silver in her virgin bosom and dreamed,
unstirred by any echoes of civilization. When she woke at last it
was to the sound of an anvil chorus&mdash;to the ring of the mallet
and drill, and the hoarse voices of men greedy only for gold.</p>

<p>In 1858, when the Ninth National Convention of women to demand
their legal rights was in session in New York, there were only
three white women in the now rich and beautiful city of Denver.
Still another ten years of wild border life, of fierce
vicissitudes, of unwritten tragedies enacted in forest and mine,
and Colorado was organized into a territory with a population of
5,000 women and 25,000 men.</p>

<p>The first effort for suffrage was made in 1870, during the fifth
session of the legislative assembly, soon after General Edward
McCook was sent out by President Grant to fill the gubernatorial
chair. In his message to the legislature, he promptly recommended
to the attention of its members the question of suffrage for
woman:</p>

<blockquote><p>Before dismissing the subject of franchise, I desire to call your
attention to one question connected with it, which you may deem
of sufficient importance to demand some consideration at your
hands before the close of the session. Our higher civilization
has recognized woman's equality with man in all respects save
one&mdash;suffrage. It has been said that no great reform was ever
made without passing through three stages&mdash;ridicule, argument,
and adoption. It rests with you to say whether Colorado will
accept this reform in its first stage, as our sister territory of
Wyoming has done, or in the last; whether she will be a leader or
a follower; for the logic of a progressive civilization leads to
the inevitable result of a universal suffrage. </p></blockquote>

<p>This was the first gun of the campaign, and summoned to the field
various contending forces, armed with ridicule, argument, or an
optimistic diplomacy, urging an immediate surrender of the ground
claimed. Bills favoring the enfranchisement of women were discussed
both in the Territorial Council Chamber and in the lower House of
the legislature. The subject was taken up by the press and the
people, and not escaping its meed of ridicule, was seriously dealt
with by both friend and enemy. Perhaps the western champions of
woman's recognition as an intelligent part of the body politic were
brought to understand the full meaning of her disabilities by their
own experiences as territorial minors. Certain it is that the high
spirit of the citizens of Colorado chafed intolerably under the
temporary limitations of accustomed rights of sovereign manhood.
The federal government, in the capacity of regent, sent to these
territorial wards their officers and governors and fixed the rate
of their taxation without full representation. These wards were
indeed empowered, as were the people of their sister territories,
to elect a delegate to the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_714" id="Page_714">[Pg 714]</a></span> national congress, whose opinions upon
territorial matters were allowed expression in that body, but who
could no more enforce there his convictions upon important
measures, by a vote, than could the most intelligent woman of this
territory upon the question of his election to represent her
interests.</p>

<p>In the Colorado papers of those days of territorial tutelage, there
appeared repeatedly most impatient protests against these
humiliating conditions of citizenship. With the attainment of
statehood in 1876 there came to the men of Colorado a restoration
of their full rights as citizens of the Republic. According to the
proscriptive usage, the humiliating conditions of citizenship
without the ballot, remained to the women of the Centennial State;
and those of their reënfranchised brothers who had felt most keenly
their own unaccustomed restrictions, were without doubt the
foremost advocates of the movement to secure the full recognition
of women's rights.</p>

<p>The majority of the territorial legislative assembly of 1870 was
unexpectedly Democratic, and almost as unexpected was the favor
promptly shown by the Democratic members to the passage of the bill
proposing woman suffrage. The measure was indeed characterized by
the opposing Republicans, as "the great Democratic reform," and for
weeks seemed destined to triumph through Democratic votes, in spite
of the frivolous and serious opposition of the Republican minority,
and the few Democratic members who deserted what then seemed the
party policy upon this question. The pleas urged in advocacy of the
new movement, as well as the protests urged against it, were
substantially the same as were used in the East at that stage of
the question. Accompanying them were the extravagancies of hope and
fear incident to the early consideration of every suggested change
in a long-accepted social order. An impossible Utopia was promised
on the one hand no less confidently than was predicted upon the
other a dire iconoclasm of the sacred shrine of long-adored ideals,
as a consequence of simply granting to intelligent women a
privilege justly their due. Both the derision and the adverse
reasoning of the alarmists were well met by fearless friends, in
Council and House. Bills looking to the removal of woman's
disabilities were referred in each to a select committee for
consideration, on January 19. The majority report to the House
through the chairman of its special committee, M. DeFrance, was an
able advocacy of the measure under consideration, while the adverse
recommendation of the Council committee was accompanied by an
excellent report by Hon. Amos Steck, setting forth clearly the
reasons of the minority for their favorable views. After hearing
the reports, both Houses went into committee of the whole for a
free discussion upon the question.</p>

<p>"The criterion of civilization, physical force," "Strength as the
measure of right,"&mdash;as recent writers have defined the divine right
of might&mdash;seemed the basis of reasoning with those who claimed that
woman should not be given the ballot because she might not carry
the sword. Dark pictures were drawn of possible women as electors
plunging their country into wars, from whose consequences they
would themselves suffer nothing.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_715" id="Page_715">[Pg 715]</a></span> By the more hopeful it was urged
that the mighty heart, the moral force of humanity, as represented
in womanhood, and united with clear womanly intelligence, would
prove a greater power in all State interests than sword or bayonet.</p>

<p>The strongest speaker in the legislature upon the subject of
suffrage&mdash;President Hinsdale of the Council&mdash;was, unfortunately, a
bitter enemy of the proposed reform. Yet some of his most forcible
utterances made in committee of the whole, were excellent arguments
in favor of, rather than against the measure. Excellent arguments
in favor of the bill in question were made by leading members of
the House&mdash;Messrs. Lea, Shepard and DeFrance. By invitation of the
legislature, that body was addressed by a prominent member of the
Denver bar, Mr. Willard Teller, the brother of one of our U. S.
senators. The hall was filled by an interested audience to hear Mr.
Teller's address, which was a strong presentation of the principles
upon which rest the claims of American citizens to universal
suffrage.</p>

<p>Outside the assembly halls, Governor McCook and his beautiful,
accomplished, and gracefully aggressive wife, strongly favored the
affirmative of the question at issue, while Willard Teller, D. M.
Richards and other distinguished men and women of the territory
were active friends during the contest. In the press, the measure
had a most influential support in the <i>Daily Colorado Tribune</i>, a
well-conducted Denver journal, edited by Mr. R. W. Woodbury. Space
in its columns was given to well-written articles by contributors
interested in the success of the cause, and many able editorials
appeared, embodying strong arguments in favor of the reform, or
answering the opposing bitterness and frivolity of its contemporary
the <i>Rocky Mountain News</i>. The interest in the proposed innovation
was indeed quite general throughout the territory, but wherever the
subject was discussed, in the legislative halls, in private
conversation, editorial column, or correspondence of the press, the
grounds argumentatively traversed were the same highways and byways
of reason and absurdity which have been so often since gone over.</p>

<p>There was perhaps one lion in the way of establishing universal
suffrage in the West, which the eastern advocates did not fear. It
was said that our intelligent women could not be allowed to vote,
whatever the principles upon which the right might be claimed,
because in that case, the poor, degraded Chinese women who might
reach our shores, would also be admitted to the voting list, and
what then would become of our proud, Caucasian civilization?
Whether it was the thought of the poor Mongolian slave at the
polls, or some other equally terrifying vision of a yearly visit of
American women to the centre of some voting precinct, the majority
of the Colorado legislative assembly of 1870, in spite of all the
free discussion of the campaign of that year, decided adversely. In
the latter days of the session, the bill having taken the form of a
proposition to submit the question at issue to the already
qualified voters of the territory, was lost in the council chamber
by a majority of one, and in the House by a two-thirds majority,
leaving to the defeated friends of the reform as their only reward,
a consciousness of strength gained in the contest.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_716" id="Page_716">[Pg 716]</a></span></p>

<p>A few years more made Denver a city beautiful for habitation, made
Colorado a garden, filled that goodly land with capable men, and
intelligent, spirited women. Statehood had been talked of, but
lost, and then men began to say: "The one hundredth birthday of our
American independence is so near, let us make this a centennial
State; let the entrance into the Union be announced by the same
bells that shall ring in our national anniversary." And so it was
decreed. Mindful of 1776&mdash;mindful too, of the second declaration
made by the women at the first equal rights convention in 1848, the
friends of equality in Colorado determined to gird themselves for a
supreme effort in anticipation of the constitution that was to be
framed for the new State to be.</p>

<p>A notice was published asking all persons favorable to suffrage for
women, to convene in Denver, January 10, to take measures to secure
the recognition of woman's equality under the pending constitution.
In pursuance to this call, a large and eager audience filled Unity
Church long before the hour appointed for the meeting. A number of
the orthodox clergy were present. The Rev. Mrs. Wilkes of Colorado
Springs, opened the exercises with prayer. Mrs. Margaret W.
Campbell of Massachusetts was then introduced, and said: "This
convention was called to present woman's claims to the ballot, from
her own stand-point, and to take such measures to secure the
recognition of her equality in the constitution of Colorado, as the
friends gathered from different parts of the territory may think
proper. We do not ask that women shall take the places of men, or
usurp authority over them; we only ask that the principles upon
which our government is founded shall be applied to women.</p>

<p>Rev. Mrs. Wilkes made an especial point of the fact that in
Colorado Springs women owned one-third of the taxable property, and
yet were obliged (at the recent spring election) to see the bonds
for furnishing a supply of pure water, voted down because women had
no voice in the matter. This had been a serious mistake, as the
physicians of the place had pronounced the present supply impure
and unwholesome. She referred to the fears of many that the
constitution, freighted with woman suffrage, might sink, when it
would else be buoyant, and begged her hearers not to fear such a
burden would endanger it. The convention continued through two days
with enthusiastic speeches from Mr. D. M. Richards and Rev. Mr.
Wright, who preferred to be introduced as the nephew of Dr. Harriot
K. Hunt of Boston. Letters were read from Lucy Stone and Judge
Kingman, and an extract from the message of Governor Thayer of
Wyoming, in which he declared the results of woman suffrage in that
territory to have been beneficial and its influence favorable to
the best interests of the community. A territorial society was
formed with an efficient board of officers;<a name="FNanchor_487_487" id="FNanchor_487_487"></a><a href="#Footnote_487_487" class="fnanchor">[487]</a> resolutions, duly
discussed, were adopted,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_717" id="Page_717">[Pg 717]</a></span> and the meeting closed with a
carefully-prepared address by Dr. Avery, the newly-elected
president of the territorial association.</p>

<p>The committee<a name="FNanchor_488_488" id="FNanchor_488_488"></a><a href="#Footnote_488_488" class="fnanchor">[488]</a> appointed to wait upon the constitutional
convention were received courteously by that body, and listened to
with respectful attention. One would have thought the gentlemen to
whom the arguments and appeals of such women were addressed would
have found it in their hearts to make some reply, even while
disclaiming the official character of their act; but they preserved
a decorous and non-committal, if not incurious silence, and the
ladies withdrew. The press said, the morning after their visit:
"The gentlemen were all interested and amused by the errand of the
ladies." The morning following, the constitutional convention was
memorialized by the Suffrage Association of Missouri, and was also
presented with a petition signed by a thousand citizens of
Colorado, asking that in the new constitution no distinction be
made on account of sex. This was only the beginning. Petitions came
in afterwards, numerously signed, and were intended to have the
force of a sort of ante-election vote.</p>

<p>Denver presented an interesting social aspect at this time. It was
as if the precursive tremor of a moral earthquake had been felt,
and people, only half awake, did not know whether to seek safety in
the house, or outside of it. Women especially were perplexed and
inquiring, and it was observed that those in favor of asking a
recognition of their rights in the new State, were the intelligent
and leading ladies of the city. The wives of ministers, of
congressmen, of judges, the prominent members of Shakespeare clubs,
reading circles, the directors of charitable institutions,&mdash;these
were the ones who first ranged themselves on the side of equal
rights, clearly proving that the man was right who pointed out the
danger of allowing women to learn the alphabet.</p>

<p>When February 15 came, it was a momentous day for Colorado. The
report of the Committee on Suffrage and Elections was to come up
for final action. As a matter of fact there were two reports; that
of the minority was signed by two members of the committee, Judge
Bromwell, whose breadth and scholarship were apparent in his able
report, and a Mexican named Agapita Vigil, a legislator from
Southern Colorado where Spanish is the dominant tongue. Mr. Vigil
spoke no English, and was one of those representatives for whose
sake an interpreter was maintained during the session of the
convention.</p>

<p>Ladies were present in large numbers. Some of the gentlemen
celebrated the occasion by an unusual spruceness of attire, and
others by being sober enough to attend to business. The report with
three-fifths of the signatures, after setting forth that the
subject had had careful consideration,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_718" id="Page_718">[Pg 718]</a></span> went on to state the
qualifications of voters, namely, that all should be male citizens,
with one exception, and that was, that women might vote for school
district officers.</p>

<p>Mr. A. K. Yount of Boulder, spoke in favor of the motion to strike
out the word "male" in section 1: "That every male person over the
age of 21 years, possessing the necessary qualifications, shall be
entitled to vote," etc. He called attention to the large number of
petitions which had been sent in, asking for this, and to the fact
that not a single remonstrance had been received. He believed the
essential principles of human freedom were involved in this demand,
and he insisted that justice required that women should help to
make the laws by which they are governed. The amendment was lost by
a vote of 24 to 8.</p>

<p>Mr. Storm offered an amendment that women be permitted to vote for,
and hold the office of, county superintendent of schools. This also
was lost. The only other section of the report which had any
present interest to women, was the one reading:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 2. The General Assembly may at any time extend by law the
right of suffrage to persons not herein enumerated, but no such
law shall take effect or be in force until the same shall have
been submitted to a vote of the people, at a general election,
and approved by a majority of all the votes cast for and against
such law. </p></blockquote>

<p>After much discussion it was voted that the first General Assembly
should provide a law whereby the subject should be submitted to a
vote of the electors.</p>

<p>After this the curtain fell, the lights were put out, and all the
atmosphere and <i>mise en scène</i> of the drama vanished. It was well
known, however, that another season would come, the actors would
reäppear, and an "opus" would be given; whether it should turn out
a tragedy, or a Miriam's song of deliverance, no one was able to
predict. Meantime, the women of Colorado&mdash;to change the
figure&mdash;bivouacked on the battle-field, and sent for reïnforcements
against the fall campaign. They held themselves well together, and
used their best endeavors to educate public sentiment.</p>

<p>A column in the Denver <i>Rocky Mountain News</i>, a pioneer paper then
edited by W. N. Byers, was offered the woman suffrage association,
through which to urge our claims. The column was put into the hands
of Mrs. Campbell, the wife of E. L. Campbell, of the law firm of
Patterson &amp; Campbell of Denver, for editorship. This lady, from
whose editorials quotations will be given, was too timid (she
herself begs us to say cowardly) to use her name in print, and so
translated it into its German equivalent of <i>Schlachtfeld</i>, thus
nullifying whatever of weight her own name would have carried in
the way of personal and social endorsement of an unpopular cause.
Her sister, Mrs. T. M. Patterson, an early and earnest member of
the Colorado Suffrage Association, "bore testimony" as courageously
and constantly as her environment permitted.</p>

<p>Mrs. Gov. McCook, as previously stated, had been the first woman in
Colorado to set the example of a spirited claim to simple political
justice for her sex, but she, alas! at the date now reached in our
sketch, was dead&mdash;in her beautiful youth, in the first flower of
her sweet, bright womanhood. Her loss to the cause can best be
measured by those who know<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_719" id="Page_719">[Pg 719]</a></span> what an immense uplifting power is
present when an intelligent man in an influential position joins
his personal and political force to his wife's personal and social
force in the endeavor to accomplish an object dear to both.</p>

<p>It is a pity not to register here, however inadequately, some
outline of many figures that rise to form a part of the picture of
Colorado in 1876-7. When liberty shall have been achieved, and all
citizens shall be comfortably enjoying its direct and indirect
blessings, this book should be found to have preserved in the amber
of its pages the names of those who bravely wrought for freedom in
that earlier time. Would that one might indeed summon them all by a
roll-call! But they will not answer&mdash;they say only: "Let our work
stand for us, be its out-come small or great."</p>

<p>To Dr. Alida C. Avery, however, whatever the outcome, a weighty
obligation is due from all past, present and future laborers in
this cause in Colorado. She it was who set at work and kept at work
the interplay of ideas and efforts which accomplished what was
done. Through her personal acquaintance with the immortals at the
East, Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony, Henry B. Blackwell, she drew
them to Colorado during the campaign about to be described, and
with them came others. Mrs. M. W. Campbell and her husband
reäppeared to do faithful service, and then came also Miss Lelia
Patridge of Philadelphia, a young, graceful, and effective
speaker,&mdash;so the local papers constantly describe her, and then
came, in the person of Miss Matilda Hindman of Pittsburg Pa., one
of the ablest women of the whole campaign. Gentle, persuasive,
womanly, she was at the same time armed at all points with fact,
argument, and illustration, and her zeal was only equaled by her
power of sustained labor.</p>

<p>Many of these same qualities belong to Mrs. M. F. Shields, of
Colorado Springs, one of the committee on constitutional work in
the campaign of 1876, and an ardent, unceasing, unselfish laborer
in the church, in suffrage and temperance, for more than ten years.
She did not lecture, but "talked"; talked to five hundred men at a
time as if they were her own sons, and only needed to be shown they
were conniving at injustice, in order to turn about and do the
right thing. This same element of "motherliness" it was, which
gained her the respectful attention of an audience of the roughest
and most ignorant Cornish miners up in Caribou, who would listen to
no other woman speaking upon the subject. When the members of the
famous constitutional committee were considering the suffrage
petition, prior to making their report, Judge Stone of Pueblo,
tried to persuade the Spanish-speaking member that to grant the
franchise to women would be to be false to his party, as those
women were all Democrats. But Senor Vigil replied that he had been
talking through his interpreter to the "nice old lady, who smiled
so much" (meaning Mrs. Shields), and he knew what they asked was
all right, and he should vote for it.</p>

<p>Of the men who were willing to obey Paul's entreaty to "help those
women," must be named in the front rank David M. Richards of
Denver, a pioneer of '59, and as brave and generous and true a
heart as ever beat<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_720" id="Page_720">[Pg 720]</a></span> in time to the pulse of progress, Rev. B. F.
Crary, a true apostolic helper, Mr. Henry C. Dillon, a young
western Raleigh for knightly chivalry, Hon. J. B. Belford, member
of congress then and now, Judge H. P. H. Bromwell, who needs no
commendation from the historian, as his eloquent minority report
speaks adequately for him; these, and very many more, both men and
women, have, as the French say, "deserved well of the State and of
their generation."</p>

<p>And it was once more to the aid of these men and women that the
East sent reïnforcements as soon as the winter of 1877 was well
ushered in. An annual convention was announced for January 15, in
Denver. When the bitter cold evening came it seemed doubtful if any
great number of persons would be present, but the large Lawrence
street Methodist Church was, on the contrary, packed to its utmost
capacity. Rev. Mr. Eads, pastor of the church, opened the meeting
with prayer, and Dr. Avery, as president of the association, gave a
brief <i>résumé</i> of the work during its one year of existence.
Colonel Henry Logan of Boulder (formerly of Illinois), made a manly
and telling speech in favor of a measure which he called one of
axiomatic justice. Mrs. Wright of New York, after a piquant
address, announced the meeting of the convention for the next day.
On the following morning a business session was held, and officers
elected for the year.<a name="FNanchor_489_489" id="FNanchor_489_489"></a><a href="#Footnote_489_489" class="fnanchor">[489]</a> In the afternoon speeches were made by
Dr. Crary, Mrs. Shields, and Mr. David Boyd of Greeley, and in the
evening by Mr. Henry C. Dillon and Rev. J. R. Eads, the closing and
crowning speech of the convention being given by Miss Laura Hanna
of Denver, a <i>petite</i>, pretty young girl, whose remarks made a
<i>bonne bouche</i> with which to close the feast. Interest in the
subject rose to fever heat before October. Pulpit, press and
fireside were occupied with its discussion. The most effective, and
at the same time, exasperating opposition, came from the pulpit,
but there was also vigorous help from the same quarter. The
Catholic Bishop preached a series of sermons and lectures, in which
he fulminated all the thunders of apostolic and papal revelation
against women who wanted to vote:</p>

<blockquote><p>Though strong-minded women who are not satisfied with the
disposition of Providence and who wish to go beyond the condition
of their sex, profess no doubt to be Christians, do they consult
the Bible?&mdash;do they follow the Bible? I fear not. Had God
intended to create a companion for man, capable of following the
same pursuits, able to undertake the same labors, he would have
created another man; but he created a woman, and she fell. <span class="spacious">* * *</span>
The class of women wanting suffrage are battalions of old maids
disappointed in love&mdash;women separated from their husbands or
divorced by men from their sacred obligations&mdash;women who, though
married, wish to hold the reins of the family government, for
there never was a woman happy in her home who wished for female
suffrage. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> Who will take charge of those young children (if
they consent to have any) while mothers as surgeons are operating
indiscriminately upon the victims of a terrible railway disaster?
<span class="spacious">* * *</span> No kind husband<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_721" id="Page_721">[Pg 721]</a></span> will refuse to nurse the baby on Sunday
(when every kind of business is stopped) in order to let his wife
attend church; but even then, as it is not his natural duty, he
will soon be tired of it and perhaps get impatient waiting for
the mother, chiefly when the baby is crying. </p></blockquote>

<p>These, with the omnipresent quotations from St. Paul to the effect
that women shall keep silence in the church, etc., formed the
argument of the Bishop in two or three lengthy sermons. Indignant
men, disgusted with the caliber of the opposition and yet obliged
to notice it on account of the position of the divine, made ample
rejoinders. Rev. Dr. Crary of Golden, in an exhaustive review of
the Bishop's discourse, deprecated the making permanent and of
universal application the commands which with Paul were evidently
temporary and local, and said half the churches in Christendom
would be closed if these were literally obeyed:</p>

<blockquote><p>"Women should not usurp authority, therefore men should
usurp all authority." This is the sort of logic we have
always heard from men who are trotting along in the wake of
progress and howling because the centuries do not stop
rolling onward. In barbarous regions Paul is paraded against
educating girls at all. In half-civilized nations Paul is
doing service against educating girls except in the
rudiments. Among people who are just beginning to see the
hill-tops of a higher, nobler world, Paul is still on duty
crowding off women from high-schools and colleges. Proud
universities to-day have Paul standing guard over medical
meanness and pushing down aspiring female souls from the
founts of knowledge. Within our memory Paul has been the
standing demonstration in favor of slavery, intemperance and
the oppression of women. </p></blockquote>

<p>Another sermon in which the Bishop lays solemn stress on the one
sacred, inevitable duty of women to become wives and mothers, was
answered by Mr. David Boyd of Greeley, who, among other things,
asks the Bishop:</p>

<blockquote><p>How, in view of the injunction to increase and multiply, he can
justify the large celibate class created by positive command of
the Catholic church, not only by the ordination of priests, but
by the constant urging of the church that women should become the
barren brides of Christ by taking on them the vows of nuns. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Bishop published his lectures in pamphlet form, that their
influence might be far-reaching, and curiously enough, the very
same lectures were printed and scattered by the friends of suffrage
as the best sort of document for the campaign now fairly
inaugurated. D. M. Richards, the able chairman of the executive
committee, and Dr. Avery, president of the association, showed
themselves capable of both conceiving and executing a plan of
operations which had the merit of at least deserving victory.</p>

<p>There was no lack of pens to defend women's claim to equal chances
in the struggle for existence. In Denver, the <i>Rocky Mountain News</i>
and the <i>Times</i> planted themselves fairly and squarely in an
affirmative attitude, and gave generous aid to the effort. The
<i>Tribune's</i> columns were in a state of chronic congestion from a
plethora of protests, both feminine and masculine. One young lawyer
said: "If suffrage is to come, let it come by man's call, and not
by woman's clamor"; and, "When all the women of the land can show
the ability to rear a family, and at the same time become eminent
in some profession or art, then men will gladly welcome them."
Whereupon the women naturally rushed into print to protest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_722" id="Page_722">[Pg 722]</a></span> against
the qualifications required of them, compared with those required
of men.</p>

<p>It is safe to say, that from the middle of January, 1877, until the
following October, the most prominent theme of public discussion
was this question of suffrage for women. Miners discussed it around
their camp-fires, and "freighters" on their long slow journeys over
the mountain trails argued <i>pro</i> and <i>con</i>, whether they should
"let" women have the ballot. Women themselves argued and studied
and worked earnestly. One lawyer's wife, who declared that no
refined woman would contend for such a right, and that no woman
with self-respect would be found electioneering, herself urged
every man of her acquaintance to vote against the measure, and even
triumphantly reported that she had spoken to seventy-five men who
were strangers to her, and secured their promise to vote against
the pending amendment. This, however, must not be mistaken for
electioneering.</p>

<p>On Wednesday, August 15, an equal rights mass-meeting was held in
Denver, for the purpose of organizing a county central committee,
and for an informal discussion of plans for the campaign. Judge H.
P. H. Bromwell and H. C. Dillon spoke, with earnest repetition of
former pledges of devotion to the cause, and Gov. Evans said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Equal suffrage is necessary to equal rights. It is fortunate that
we have in Colorado an opportunity of bringing to bear the
restraining, purifying and ennobling influence of women upon
politics. It is a reform that will require all the benign
influences of the country to sustain and carry out, and, as I
hope for the perpetuation of our free institutions, I dare not
neglect the most promising and potent means of purifying
politics, and I regard the influence of women as this means. </p></blockquote>

<p>Major Bright of Wyoming, was introduced as the man who framed and
brought in the first bill for the enfranchisement of women. Judge
W. B. Mills said: "It is an anomalous condition of affairs which
made it necessary for a woman to ask a man whether she should
vote," and referring to all the reforms and changes of the last
half century, predicted that the extension of the franchise to
woman would be the next in order.</p>

<p>The meeting was a full and fervid one, and great confidence of
success was felt and expressed. A committee of seventeen was
appointed<a name="FNanchor_490_490" id="FNanchor_490_490"></a><a href="#Footnote_490_490" class="fnanchor">[490]</a> and this committee did its full duty in districting
the territory and sending out speakers. Mr. Henry B. Blackwell,
Lucy Stone and Miss Anthony arrived almost immediately after this,
and henceforth the advocates of suffrage swarmed through the rocky
highways and byways of Colorado as eagerly, if not as
multitudinously, as its gold seekers. Mrs. Campbell wrote to the
<i>Woman's Journal</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>We have now been at work two weeks. Some of our meetings are very
encouraging, some not so much so. But the meetings are only one
feature of the work. We stop along the way and search out all the
leading men in each voting precinct, and secure the names of
those who will work on election day. We do more talking out of
meeting than in. We rode thirty-five miles yesterday, and arrived
here after six o'clock in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_723" id="Page_723">[Pg 723]</a></span> the evening. While Mr. Campbell was
taking care of the horse, I filled out bills before taking off my
hat and duster; in fifteen minutes they were being distributed,
and at eight o'clock I was speaking to a good-sized audience. </p></blockquote>

<p>On October 1, a monster meeting was held in the Lawrence street
Methodist Church, and was addressed by Lucy Stone, Miss Matilda
Hindman, Mrs. Campbell, and Dr. Avery. The most intense interest
was manifested, and the excellent speeches heartily applauded.</p>

<p>The next day (Sunday) the Rev. Dr. Bliss of the Presbyterian
Church, preached a sermon in his own pulpit, on "Woman Suffrage and
the Model Wife and Mother," in which he alluded to "certain
brawling, ranting women, bristling for their rights," and said God
had intended woman to be a wife and mother, and the eternal fitness
of things forbade her to be anything else. If women could vote,
those who were wives now would live in endless bickerings with
their husbands over politics, and those who were not wives would
not marry."</p>

<p>These utterences brought out many replies. One was in the column
edited by "Mrs. Schlachtfeld," and may perhaps be quoted as a
specimen of her editorial work, such being, as we have intimated,
her one service to suffrage, and that incognito:</p>

<blockquote><p>One of the daily, dismal forecasts of the male Cassandras of our
time is, that in the event of women becoming emancipated from the
legal thralldom that disables them, they will acquire a sudden
distaste for matrimony, the direful consequences of which will be
a gradual extermination of homes, and the extinction of the human
species. This is an artless and extremely suggestive lament. In
the first place&mdash;accepting that prophecy as true&mdash;why will women
not marry? Because, they will then be independent of men; because
in a fair field for competition where ability and not sex shall
determine employment and remuneration, women will have an equal
chance with men for distinction and reward, for triumphs
commercial and professional as well as social, and hence, needing
men less, either to make them homes, or to gratify indirectly
their ambitions, their affections will become atrophied, the
springs of domestic life will disappear in the arid sands of an
unfeminine publicity, and marriage, with all the wearying cares
and burdens and anxieties that it inevitably brings to every
earnest woman, will be regarded more and more as a state to be
shunned. The few who enter it will be compassionated much as a
minister is who undertakes a dangerous foreign mission. Men will
stand mateless, and the ruins of the hymeneal altars everywhere
crumble mournfully away, and be known to tradition only by their
vanishing inscriptions: "To the unknown god." But it is ill
jesting over that which tugs at every woman's heartstrings and
which impinges upon the very life-centres of society. If women,
on being made really free to choose, will not marry, then we must
arraign men on the charge of having made the married state so
irksome and distasteful to women that they prefer celibacy when
they dare enjoy it. Observe, however, the inconsistency of
another line of reasoning running parallel with this in the
floating literature of the day: "Motherhood," these writers say,
"is the natural vocation of women; is, indeed, an instinct so
mighty, even if unconscious, that it draws women toward matrimony
with a yearning as irresistible as that which pulls the great sea
upon the land in blind response to the moon." If this be true,
society is safe, and women will still be wives, no matter how
much they may exult in political freedom, no matter how
alluringly individual careers may open before them, nor how
accessible the tempting prizes of human ambition may become. </p></blockquote>

<p>Well, the day came,&mdash;the <i>dies irae</i> for one side or the other, and
it proved to be for the "one." The measure was defeated. Ten
thousand votes were for it, twenty thousand against it. Women
remained at the polls all day,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_724" id="Page_724">[Pg 724]</a></span> distributing ballots, and answering
objections. They had flowers on all the little tables where the
tickets were heaped, on which were printed the three words, "Woman
Suffrage Approved," words for many pregnant with hope for a new
impetus to civilization, for others with a misfortune only to be
compared to that which happened in Greece when Ino boiled the seed
corn of a whole kingdom, and thus not only lost the crop of that
year, but, by the subtle interplay of the laws by which evolution
proceeds, set back humanity for a period not to be reckoned in
years. Mrs. H. S. Mendenhall of Georgetown wrote to Dr. Avery on
the evening of election day:</p>

<blockquote><p>Before this reaches you the telegraph will have given you the
result of the day's work all over the State, but I thought I
would jot down a line while the experiences of the last ten hours
were fresh in my mind. Last evening our committee appointed
ladies to represent the interests of woman suffrage at the polls.
To my surprise, many evaded the work who were, nevertheless,
strongly in favor of the measure. Mrs. Dr. Collins and I were the
only ones at the lowest and most important precinct until one
o'clock, when we were joined by the wife of the Presbyterian
minister. Our course was somewhat as follows: On the approach of
a voter, we would ask him, "have you voted?" If he had, we
usually troubled him no further; if he had not, we asked, "Can
you vote for woman suffrage?" If he approved, we supplied him
with his ticket; if he disapproved, we asked him for his
objections, and we have listened to some comical ones to-day. One
man asked me, though not rudely, "Who is cooking your husband's
dinner?" I promptly invited him to dine with us. Another spoke of
neglected household duties, and when I mentioned a loaf of bread
I had just baked, and should be glad to have him see, he said, "I
expect you can bake bread," but he voted against us. The
Methodist men were for us; the Presbyterians and Episcopalians
very fairly so, and the Roman Catholics were not all against us,
some of the prominent members of that church working and voting
for woman suffrage. The liquor interest went entirely against us,
as far as I know.</p>

<p>The observations of the day have led me to several general
conclusions, to which, of course, exceptions exist: (1) Married
men will vote for suffrage if their wives appreciate its
importance. (2) Men without family ties, and especially if they
have associated with a bad class of women, will vote against it.
(3) Boys who have just reached their majority will vote against
it more uniformly than any other class of men. We were treated
with the utmost respect by all except the last class. Destitute
of experience, and big with their own importance, these young
sovereigns will speak to a woman twice their years with a
flippancy which the most ignorant foreigner of mature age would
not use, and I have to-day been tempted to believe that no one is
fitted to exercise the American franchise under twenty-five years
of age.</p>

<p>The main objection which I heard repeatedly urged was, women do
not want to vote. This seems to be the great stumbling-block to
our brethren. Men were continually saying that their wives told
them not to vote for woman suffrage. If we are defeated this time
I know we can succeed in the next campaign, or just as soon as we
can educate enough prominent women up to the point of coming out
plainly on the subject. Then all men, or all but the vicious men
who always vote against every good thing, will give in right
away. </p></blockquote>

<p>Lucy Stone, in a letter to the <i>Woman's Journal</i> describes similar
scenes enacted that day in Denver; speaks of the order and quiet
prevailing at the polls, of the flowers on all the tables, and, in
spite of the strangeness of the occasion, of the presence of women
as evidently a new and beneficent element there. Rev. Dr. Ellis of
the Baptist Church, who, on the Sunday before had preached from the
text, "Help those Women," was using his influence to convert those
doubtful or opposed. Rev. Mr.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_725" id="Page_725">[Pg 725]</a></span> Bliss, who had declared in his
pulpit that "the only two women the Bible mentioned as having
meddled in politics were Jezebel and Herodias," was there also, to
warn men not to vote for equal rights for women. At other polls I
saw colored men, once slaves, electioneering and voting against the
rights of women. When remonstrated with, one said: "We want the
women at home cooking our dinners." A shrewd colored woman asked
whether they had provided any dinner to cook, and added that most
of the colored women there had to earn their dinner as well as cook
it.</p>

<p class="tb">* * * * * * * * * * *</p>

<p>Hear the conclusion of the whole matter. In the words of the last
editorial of the woman's column in the <i>Rocky Mountain News</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>Woman's hour has not yet struck! The chimes that were waiting to
ring out the tidings of her liberty&mdash;the candles furtively stored
against an illumination which should typify a new influx of
light, the achievement of a victory whose meaning and promise at
least seemed to those who both prayed and worked for it, neither
trivial nor selfish&mdash;all these are relegated to the guardianship
of Patience and Hope. Colorado has refused to enfranchise its
women. <span class="spacious">* * * * * *</span> The Germans, the Catholics, and the negroes
were said to be against us. Naturally, those who themselves most
keenly feel, or most recently have felt, the galling yoke of
arbitrary rule, are most disposed to derive a certain enjoyment
from the daily contemplation of a noble class still in bondage. <span class="spacious">*
* * * * *</span> But <i>all</i> opposition, in whatever guise, comes back at
last to be written under one rubric&mdash;the immaturity of woman. We
make this dispassionate statement of a fact. We feel neither
scorn nor anger, and we trust that we shall excite none. It is a
fault which time will cure, but meantime it is the grand factor
in our account. Every other argument has been met&mdash;every other
stronghold of opposition taken. Woman's claim to the ballot has
been shown to rest in justice on the very foundation stone of
democratic government&mdash;has been, from the Christian standpoint,
as completely exonerated from the charge of impiety as ever
anti-slavery and anti-polygamy were, and the fact which was the
slogan of the anti-suffragists still remains: the mass of the
women do not want it. We do not quarrel with the fact, but state
it to give the real reason for our failures&mdash;the real objective
point for our future work.</p>

<p>The complacency with which we are able to state without fear of
contradiction that the body of intelligent and thoughtful women
<i>do</i> want suffrage must not obscure our perception of the equal
truth of what we have just stated above. To accept this verity
and turn our energies toward the emancipation of our own
sex&mdash;toward their emancipation from frivolous aims, petty
prejudices, and that attitude toward the other sex which is
really the sycophancy born of vanity and weakness; to make them
recognize the State as a multiplication of their own families,
and patriotism as the broadening of their love of home; to make
them see that that mother will be most respected whose son does
not, when a downy beard is grown, suddenly tower above her in the
supercilious enjoyment of an artificial superiority&mdash;a
superiority which consists simply, as Figaro says, in his having
taken the trouble to be born; to make them see, finally, that in
the highest exercise of all the powers with which God has endowed
her, woman can no more refuse the duties of citizenship, than she
can refuse the duties of wifehood and motherhood, once having
accepted those sacred relations. This is our first duty, and this
the scope of our work, if we would attain suffrage in 1879, or
even in 1900. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_487_487" id="Footnote_487_487"></a><a href="#FNanchor_487_487"><span class="label">[487]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Alida C. Avery, M. D., Denver.
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Rev. Mr. Harford, Denver; Mr. J. E. Washburn,
Big Thompson; Mrs. H. M. Lee, Longmont; Mrs. M. M. Sheetz, Cañon
City; Mrs. L. S. Ruhn, Del Norte; Mr. N. C. Meeker, Greeley; Hon.
Willard Teller, Central; Mr. D. M. Richards, Denver; Mr. J. B.
Harrington, Littleton; Mr. A. E. Lee, Boulder; Rev. Wm. Shephard,
Cañon City. <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Miss Eunice D. Sewall, Denver.
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. A. L. Washburn, Big Thompson.
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. I. T. Hanna, Denver. <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mrs.
M. F. Shields, Colorado Springs; Mr. A. L. Ellis, Boulder; Mrs. M.
E. Hale, Denver; Mr. W. A. Wilkes, Colorado Springs; Mr. J. R.
Hanna, Denver; Mrs. S. C. Wilber, Greeley; Rev. Dr. Crary, Pueblo.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_488_488" id="Footnote_488_488"></a><a href="#FNanchor_488_488"><span class="label">[488]</span></a> Of the membership of this committee a grateful word
is to be said: Mrs. Campbell is a woman of agreeable and stately
presence, and adds to thorough information on all points connected
with the claims made in this campaign, an unusual facility and
persuasiveness of language. Mrs. Shields is one of the most lovable
women to be seen in the suffrage panorama; a tower of strength in
her own family, where she is at once the comrade and commander of
her children&mdash;the help-meet and friend of her husband. She inspires
immediate confidence whenever she confronts an audience. Mrs.
Washburn is also an attractive and large-hearted woman&mdash;a
"Granger," and thus experienced in united, organized action of men
and women for furthering the interests of both. Mrs. Hanna, a tall,
graceful blonde, more reserved in speech but entirely intelligent
in faith and in labor, represented to many men of the convention
the very qualities they liked in their own wives.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_489_489" id="Footnote_489_489"></a><a href="#FNanchor_489_489"><span class="label">[489]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Dr. Alida C. Avery of Denver;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, D. Howe, Mrs. M. B. Hart, J. E. Washburn, Mrs.
Emma Moody, Willard Teller, J. B. Harrington, A. E. Lee, and N. C.
Meeker; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Birks Carnforth of Denver;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. T. M. Patterson of Denver;
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. H. C. Lawson of Denver; <i>Executive Committee</i>, D.
M. Richards, Mrs. M. F. Shields, Mrs. M. E. Hale, H. McAllister,
Mrs. Birks Carnforth, J. A. Dresser, A. J. Wilber, B. F. Crary,
Miss Annie Figg, H. Logan, J. R. Eads, F. M. Ellis, C. Roby, Judge
Jones, General Cameron, B. H. Eaton, Agapita Vigil, W. B. Felton,
S. C. Charles and J. B. Campbell.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_490_490" id="Footnote_490_490"></a><a href="#FNanchor_490_490"><span class="label">[490]</span></a> Consisting of Dr. R. G. Buckingham, chairman, Hon.
John Evans, Judge G. W. Miller, Benjamin D. Spencer, A. J.
Williams, Captain Richard Sopris, E. B. Sluth, John Armor, Hon. E.
L. Campbell, John Walker, J. U. Marlow, Col. W. H. Bright, John G.
Lilly, John S. McCool, J. W. Nesmyth, Henry O. Wagoner, and Dr.
Martimore.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_726" id="Page_726">[Pg 726]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LII" id="CHAPTER_LII"></a>CHAPTER LII.</h2>

<h3>WYOMING.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>The Dawn of the New Day, December, 1869&mdash;The Goal Reached in
England and America&mdash;Territory Organized, May, 1869&mdash;Legislative
Action&mdash;Bill for Woman Suffrage&mdash;William H. Bright&mdash;Gov. Campbell
Signs the Bill&mdash;Appoints Esther Morris, Justice of the Peace,
March, 1870&mdash;Women on the Jury, Chief-Justice Howe, Presiding&mdash;J.
W. Kingman, Associate-Justice, Addresses the Jury&mdash;Women Promptly
take their Places&mdash;Sunday Laws Enforced&mdash;Comments of the
Press&mdash;Judge Howe's Letter&mdash;Laramie <i>Sentinel</i>&mdash;J. H.
Heyford&mdash;Women Voting, 1870&mdash;Grandma Swain the First to Cast her
Ballot&mdash;Effort to Repeal the Law, 1871&mdash;Gov. Campbell's Veto&mdash;Mr.
Corlett&mdash;Rapid Growth of Public Opinion in Favor of Woman
Suffrage. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">After</span> recording such a long succession of disappointments and
humiliations for women in all the States in their worthy endeavors
for higher education, for profitable employment in the trades and
professions and for equal social, civil and political rights, it is
with renewed self-respect and a stronger hope of better days to
come that we turn to the magnificent territory of Wyoming, where
the foundations of the first true republic were laid deep and
strong in equal rights to all, and where for the first time in the
history of the race woman has been recognized as a sovereign in her
own right&mdash;an independent, responsible being&mdash;endowed with the
capacity for self-government. This great event in the history of
human progress transpired in 1869.</p>

<p>Neither the point nor the period for this experiment could have
been more fitly chosen. Midway across this vast western continent,
on the highest plane of land, rising from three to eight thousand
feet above the level of the sea, where gigantic mountain-peaks
shooting still higher seem to touch the clouds, while at their feet
flow the great rivers that traverse the State in all directions,
emptying themselves after weary wanderings into the Pacific ocean
at last; such was the grand point where woman was first crowned
with the rights of citizenship. And the period was equally marked.
To reach the goal of self-government the women of England and
America seemed to be vieing with each other in the race, now one
holding the advance position, now the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_727" id="Page_727">[Pg 727]</a></span> other. And in many respects
their struggles and failures were similar. When seeking the
advantages of collegiate education, the women of England were
compelled to go to France, Austria and Switzerland for the
opportunities they could not enjoy in their own country. The women
of our Eastern States followed their example, or went to Western
institutions for such privileges, granted by Oberlin and Antioch in
Ohio, Ann Arbor in Michigan, Washington University in Missouri, and
refused in all the colleges of the East. For long years, alike they
endured ridicule and bitter persecution to secure a foothold in
their universities at home.</p>

<p>Our battles in Parliament and in the Congress of the United States
were simultaneous. While nine senators,<a name="FNanchor_491_491" id="FNanchor_491_491"></a><a href="#Footnote_491_491" class="fnanchor">[491]</a> staunch and true,
voted in favor of woman suffrage in 1866, and women were rolling up
their petitions for a constitutional amendment in '68 and '69, with
Samuel C. Pomeroy in the Senate and George W. Julian in the House,
the women of England, keeping step and time, found their champions
in the House of Commons in John Stuart Mill and Jacob Bright in
1867-69, and no sooner were their mammoth petitions presented in
parliament than ours were rolled into the halls of congress. At
last we reached the goal, the women of England in 1869 and those of
Wyoming in 1870. But what the former gained in time the latter far
surpassed in privilege. While to the English woman only a limited
suffrage was accorded, in the vast territory of Wyoming, larger
than all Great Britain, all the rights of citizenship were fully
and freely conferred by one act of the legislature&mdash;the right to
vote at all elections on all questions and to hold any office in
the gift of the people.</p>

<p>The successive steps by which this was accomplished are given us by
Hon. J. W. Kingman, associate-justice in the territory for several
years:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is now sixteen years since the act was passed giving women the
right to vote at all elections in this territory, including all
the rights of an elector, with the right to hold office. The
language of the statute is broad, and beyond the reach of
evasion. It is as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>That every woman of the age of twenty-one years, residing in the
territory, may, at every election to be holden under the laws
thereof, cast her vote; and her rights to the elective franchise,
and to hold office, shall be the same, under the election laws of
the territory, as those of the electors. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_728" id="Page_728">[Pg 728]</a></span></p>

<p>There was no half-way work about it, no quibbling, no grudgingly
parting with political power, no fear of consequences, but a manly
acknowledgment of equal rights and equal privileges, among all the
citizens of the new territory. Nor was this the only act of that
first legislature on the subject of equal rights. They passed the
following:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><span class="smcap">An Act</span> <i>to protect married women in their separate property,
and the enjoyment of their labor.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 1. That all the property, both real and personal,
belonging to any married woman as her sole and separate
property, or which any woman hereafter married, owns at the
time of her marriage, or which any married woman during
coverture acquires in good faith from any person other than
her husband, by descent or otherwise, together with all the
rents, issues, increase and profits thereof, shall,
notwithstanding her marriage, be and remain during
coverture, her sole and separate property, under her sole
control, and be held, owned, possessed and enjoyed by her,
the same as though she were sole and unmarried, and shall
not be subject to the disposal, control or interference of
her husband, and shall be exempt from execution or
attachment for the debts of her husband.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 2. Any married woman may bargain, sell, and convey, her
personal property, and enter into any contract in reference
to the same, as if she were <i>sole</i>.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 3. Any woman may, while married, sue and be sued in all
matters having relation to her property, person or
reputation, in the same manner as if she were <i>sole</i>.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 4. Any married woman may, while married, make a will
the same as though she were <i>sole</i>.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 5. Any married woman may carry on any trade or
business, and perform any labor or service on her sole and
separate account, and the earnings of any married woman from
her trade, business, labor or services, shall be her sole
and separate property, and may be used and invested by her
in her own name; and she may sue and be sued, as if <i>sole</i>,
in regard to her trade, business, labor, services, and
earnings. <span class="spacious">* * *</span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 9. The separate deed of the husband shall convey no
interest in the wife's lands. </p></blockquote>

<p>Under the statute for distributions, the wife is treated exactly as
the husband is; each having the same right in the estate of the
other. The provisions are so unusual and peculiar, that I venture
to copy some of them:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="spacious">* * * *</span> If such intestate leave a husband or wife, <i>and</i>
children, him or her surviving, one-half of such estate shall
descend to such surviving husband or wife, and the residue
thereof <span class="spacious">* * * *</span> to the children; if such intestate leave a
husband or wife and <i>no</i> child, <span class="spacious">* * * *</span> then the property shall
descend as follows, to wit: three-fourths thereof to such
remaining husband or wife, and one-fourth thereof to the father
and mother of the intestate, or the survivor of them; provided
that if the estate of such intestate, real and personal, does not
exceed in volume the sum of ten thousand dollars, then the whole
thereof shall descend to and rest in the surviving husband or
wife as his or her absolute estate. Dower and the tenancy by the
curtesy are abolished. </p></blockquote>

<p>The school law also provides:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Sec</span>. 9. In the employment of teachers no discrimination shall be
made, in the question of pay, on account of sex, when the persons
are equally qualified. </p></blockquote>

<p>Such are some of the radical enactments of the first legislature of
Wyoming territory in reference to woman's rights; and to a person
who has grown up under the common law and the usages of
English-speaking people, they undoubtedly appear extravagant if not
revolutionary, and well calculated to disturb or overthrow the very
foundations of social order.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_729" id="Page_729">[Pg 729]</a></span> Experience has not, however,
justified any such apprehensions. The people of Wyoming have
prospered under these laws, and are growing to like them better and
better, and adapt themselves more and more to their provisions. The
object of this sketch is to trace the progress and development of
this new legislation, and gather up some of its consequences as
they have been observed in our social and political relations.</p>

<p>The territory of Wyoming was first organized in May, 1869. The
Union Pacific railroad was completed on the 9th of the month, and
the transcontinental route opened to the public. There were but few
people in the territory at that time, except such as had been
brought hither in connection with the building of that road, and
while some of them were good people, well-educated, and came to
stay, many were reckless, wicked and wandering. The first election
was held in September, 1869, for the election of a delegate in
congress, and members of the Council and House of Representatives
for the first territorial legislature. There was a good deal of
party feeling developed, and election day witnessed a sharp and
vigorous struggle. The candidates and their friends spent money
freely, and every liquor shop was thrown open to all who would
drink. I was about to say that any one could imagine the
consequences; but in fact I do not believe that any one could
picture to himself the mad follies, and frightful scenes of that
drunken election. Peaceful people did not dare to walk the streets,
in some of the towns, during the latter part of the day and
evening. At South Pass City, some drunken fellows with large knives
and loaded revolvers swaggered around the polls, and swore that no
negro should vote. One man remarked quietly that he thought the
negroes had as good a right to vote as any of them had. He was
immediately knocked down, jumped on, kicked and pounded without
mercy, and would have been killed, had not his friends rushed into
the brutal crowd and dragged him out, bloody and insensible. It was
a long time before the poor fellow recovered from his injuries.
There were quite a number of colored men who wanted to vote, but
did not dare approach the polls until the United States Marshal
placed himself at their head and with revolver in hand escorted
them through the crowd, saying he would shoot the first man that
interfered with them. There was much quarreling and tumult, but the
negroes voted. This was only a sample of the day's doings, and
characteristic of the election all over the territory. The result
was that every Republican was defeated, and every Democratic
candidate elected; and the whisky shops had shown themselves to be
the ruling power in Wyoming. From such an inspiration one could
hardly expect a revelation of much value! Yet there were some fair
men among those elected.</p>

<p>The legislature met October 12, 1869. Wm. H. Bright was elected
president of the Council. As he was the author of the woman
suffrage bill, and did more than all others to secure its passage,
some account of him may be of interest. He was a man of much energy
and of good natural endowments, but entirely without school
education. He said frankly, "I have never been to school a day in
my life, and where I learned to read and write I do not know." His
character was not above reproach,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_730" id="Page_730">[Pg 730]</a></span> but he had an excellent,
well-informed wife, and he was a kind, indulgent husband. In fact,
he venerated his wife, and submitted to her judgment and influence
more willingly than one could have supposed; and she was in favor
of woman suffrage.<a name="FNanchor_492_492" id="FNanchor_492_492"></a><a href="#Footnote_492_492" class="fnanchor">[492]</a> There were a few other men in that
legislature, whose wives exercised a similar influence; but Mr.
Bright found it up-hill work to get a majority for his bill, and it
dragged along until near the close of the session. The character of
the arguments he used, and the means he employed to win success are
perhaps worthy of notice, as showing the men he had to deal with. I
ought to say distinctly, that Mr. Bright was himself fully and
firmly convinced of the justice and policy of his bill, and gave
his whole energy and influence to secure its passage; he secured
some members by arguing to support their pet schemes in return, and
some he won over by even less creditable means. He got some votes
by admitting that the governor would veto the bill (and it was
generally understood that he would), insisting at the same time,
that it would give the Democrats an advantage in future elections
by showing that they were in favor of liberal measures while the
Republican governor and the Republican party were opposed to them.
The favorite argument, however, and by far the most effective, was
this: it would prove a great advertisement, would make a great deal
of talk, and attract attention to the legislature, and the
territory, more effectually than anything else. The bill was
finally passed and sent to the governor. I must add, however, that
many letters were written from different parts of the territory,
and particularly by the women, to members of the legislature,
urging its passage and approving its object.</p>

<p>On receipt of the bill, the governor was in great doubt what course
to take. He was inclined to veto it, and had so expressed himself;
but he did not like to take the responsibility of offending the
women in the territory, or of placing the Republican party in open
hostility to a measure<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_731" id="Page_731">[Pg 731]</a></span> which he saw might become of political
force and importance. I remember well an interview that
Chief-Justice Howe and myself had with him at that time, in which
we discussed the policy of the bill, and both of us urged him to
sign it with all the arguments we could command. After a protracted
consultation we left him still doubtful what he would do.<a name="FNanchor_493_493" id="FNanchor_493_493"></a><a href="#Footnote_493_493" class="fnanchor">[493]</a> But
in the end he signed it, and drew upon himself the bitter curses of
those Democrats who had voted for the bill with the expectation
that he would veto it. From this time onward, the measure became
rather a Republican than a Democratic principle, and found more of
its friends in the former party, and more of its enemies in the
latter.</p>

<p>Soon after the passage of the bill, a vacancy occurred in the
office of justice of the peace, at South Pass City, the county seat
of Sweetwater county, and the home of Mr. Bright and of Mrs. Esther
Morris. At the request of the county attorney&mdash;who favored woman
suffrage&mdash;the commissioners, two of whom also approved of it,
appointed Mrs. Morris to fill the vacancy. The legislature had
vested the appointment of officers, in case of a vacancy, in the
county commissioners, but the organic act of congress, creating the
territory, provided that the governor "shall commission all
officers who shall be appointed under the laws of said territory."
Governor Campbell being absent from the territory at the time, the
secretary, acting as governor, sent Mrs. Morris her commission. It
is due to Secretary Lee to say that he was an earnest advocate of
woman's enfranchisement, and labored for the passage of the bill,
and gladly embraced the opportunity to confirm a woman in office.
The important fact is, however, that Mrs. Morris' neighbors first
suggested the appointment that secured her the office, and manfully
sustained her during her whole term. She tried between thirty and
forty cases, and decided them so acceptably that not one of them
was appealed to a higher court; and I know of no one who has held
the office of justice of the peace in this territory, who has left
a more acceptable record, in all respects, than has Mrs. Esther
Morris. Some other appointments of women to office were made, but I
do not find that any of them entered upon its duties.</p>

<p>The first term of the District Court, under the statutes passed by
the first legislature, was to be held at Laramie City, on the first
Monday of March, 1870. When the jurors were drawn, a large number
of women were selected, for both grand and petit jurors. As this
was not done by the friends of woman suffrage, there was evidently
an intention of making the whole subject odious and ridiculous, and
giving it a death-blow at the outset. A great deal of feeling was
excited among the people, and some effort made to prejudice the
women against acting as jurors, and even threats, ridicule and
abuse, in some cases, were indulged in. Their husbands were more
pestered and badgered than the women, and some of them were so much
inflamed that they declared they would never live with their wives
again if they served on the jury. The fact that women<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_732" id="Page_732">[Pg 732]</a></span> were drawn
as jurors was telegraphed all over the country, and the newspapers
came loaded with hostile and uncomplimentary criticisms. At this
stage of the case Col. Downey, the prosecuting attorney for the
county, wrote to Judge Howe for advice and direction as to the
eligibility of the women as jurors, and what course should be taken
in the premises. At first Judge Howe was much inclined to order the
women discharged, and new juries drawn; and it certainly required
no small amount of moral courage to face the storm of ridicule and
abuse that was blowing from all quarters. We had a long
consultation, and came to the conclusion that since the law had
clearly given all the rights of electors to the women of the
territory, they must be protected in the exercise of these rights
if they chose to assume them; that under no circumstances could the
judges permit popular clamor to deprive the women of their legal
rights in the very presence of the courts themselves. The result
was that Judge Howe wrote the county attorney the following letter:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Cheyenne</span>, March 3, 1870.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">S. W. Downey</span>&mdash;<i>My Dear Sir</i>: I have your favor of yesterday, and
have carefully considered the question of the eligibility of
women who are "citizens," to serve on juries. Mr. Justice Kingman
has also considered the question, and we concur in the opinion
that such women are eligible. My reason for this opinion will be
given at length, if occasion requires. I will thank you to make
it known to those ladies who have been summoned on the juries,
that they will be received, protected, and treated with all the
respect and courtesy due, and ever paid, by true American
gentlemen to true American ladies, and that the Court, in all the
power of government, will secure to them all that deference,
security from insult, or anything which ought to offend the most
refined woman, which is accorded in any walks of life in which
the good and true women of our country have heretofore been
accustomed to move. Thus, whatever may have been, or may now be
thought of the policy of admitting women to the right of suffrage
and to hold office, they will have a fair opportunity, at least
in my Court, to demonstrate their ability in this new field, and
prove the policy or impolicy of occupying it. Of their right to
try it I have no doubt. I hope they will succeed, and the Court
will certainly aid them in all lawful and proper ways. Very
respectfully,</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">J. H. Howe</span>, <i>Chief-Justice</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>When the time came to hold the court, Judge Howe, whose duty it was
to preside, requested me to go with him to Laramie City, and sit
with him during the term. I gladly availed myself of the
opportunity. As soon as we arrived there, Judge Howe was waited on
by a number of gentlemen who endeavored to induce him to order the
discharge of the female jurors without calling them into court.
Some spoke of the impolicy of the proceeding, and said the women
all objected to it and wished to be excused; while some were cross,
and demanded the discharge of their wives, saying that it was an
intentional insult and they would not submit to it. But Judge Howe
told them all firmly, that the women must come into court, and if,
after the whole question was fairly explained to them, they chose
to decline, they should be excused. At the opening of the court
next morning, the house was crowded, and the female jurors were all
there. After the usual preliminaries, an attorney arose and moved
that all the women summoned as jurors be excused, saying he made
the motion at the request of the women themselves; and that he was
assured they did not wish to serve. Judge Howe then requested me to
express my opinion<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_733" id="Page_733">[Pg 733]</a></span> and make some remarks to the women on the
duties devolving on them. I said:</p>

<blockquote><p>It was a real pleasure to me to see ladies in the court-room,
with the right to take a responsible part in the proceedings, as
grand and petit jurors; that no one knew so well as they did, the
evils our community suffered from lawless and wicked people; and
no one better understood the difficulties the court labored under
in its efforts to administer justice and punish crime; that the
time had come when the good women of the territory could give us
substantial aid, and we looked to them especially, as the power
which should make the court efficient in the discharge of its
duties; that the new law had conferred on them important rights,
and corresponding duties necessarily devolved upon them; that I
hoped and believed they would not shrink when so many influences
were calling on them for noble and worthy action; that if they
failed us now, the cause of equal rights would suffer at their
hands, not only in our territory, but in every land where its
advocates were struggling for its recognition; that if they would
remain, their presence would secure a degree of decorum in the
court-room and add a dignity to the proceedings, which the judges
had been unable to command; that we required the assistance of
good women all over the territory, and I begged them to help us. </p></blockquote>

<p>Judge Howe then spoke as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is an innovation and a great novelty to see, as we do to-day,
ladies summoned to serve as jurors. The extension of political
rights and franchise to women is a subject that is agitating the
whole country. I have never taken an active part in these
discussions, but I have long seen that woman is a victim to the
vices, crimes and immoralities of man, with no power to protect
and defend herself from these evils. I have long felt that such
powers of protection should be conferred upon woman, and it has
fallen to our lot here to act as the pioneers in the movement and
to test the question. The eyes of the whole world are to-day
fixed upon this jury of Albany county. There is not the slightest
impropriety in any lady occupying this position, and I wish to
assure you that the fullest protection of the court shall be
accorded to you. It would be a most shameful scandal that in our
temple of justice and in our courts of law, anything should be
permitted which the most sensitive lady might not hear with
propriety and witness. And here let me add that it will be a
sorry day for any man who shall so far forget the courtesy due
and paid by every American gentleman to every American lady as to
ever by word or act endeavor to deter you from the exercise of
those rights with which the law has invested you. I conclude with
the remark that this is a question for you to decide for
yourselves. No man has any right to interfere. It seems to me to
be eminently proper for women to sit upon grand juries, which
will give them the best possible opportunities to aid in
suppressing the dens of infamy which curse the country. I shall
be glad of your assistance in the accomplishment of this object.
I do not make these remarks from distrust of any of the
gentlemen. On the contrary, I am exceedingly pleased and
gratified with the indication of intelligence, love of law and
good order, and the gentlemanly deportment which I see manifested
here. </p></blockquote>

<p>The ladies were then told that those who could not conveniently
serve, and those who insisted on being excused, might rise and they
should be discharged. Only one rose and she was excused. But a
victory had been won of no small moment. Seeing the earnestness of
the judges and the dignified character they had given to the
affair, the women were encouraged and pleased, and the enemies of
equal rights, who had planned, as they thought, a stunning blow to
further progress, were silenced and defeated. The current set
rapidly in the other direction and applause, as usual, followed
success. The business of the court proceeded with marked
improvement. The court-room, always crowded, was quiet and decorous
in the extreme. The bar in particular was always on its good<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_734" id="Page_734">[Pg 734]</a></span>
behavior, and wrangling, abuse and buncome speeches were not heard.
When men moved about they walked quietly, on tip-toe, so as to make
no noise, and forbore to whisper or make any demonstrations in or
around the court-room. The women when called took their chairs in
the jury-box with the men, as they do their seats in church,<a name="FNanchor_494_494" id="FNanchor_494_494"></a><a href="#Footnote_494_494" class="fnanchor">[494]</a>
and no annoyance or reluctance was visible from the bench. They
gave close and intelligent attention to the details of every case,
and the men who sat with them evidently acted with more
conscientious care than usual. The verdicts were generally
satisfactory, except to convicted criminals. They did not convict
every one they tried, but "no guilty man escaped," if there was
sufficient evidence to hold him. The lawyers soon found out that
the usual tricks and subterfuges in criminal cases would not
procure acquittal, and they began to challenge off all the women
called. The court checkmated this move by directing the sheriff to
summon other women in their places, instead of men, and then came
motions for continuances. The result was a great success and was so
acknowledged by all disinterested persons. On the grand jury were
six women and nine men, and they became such a terror to evil-doers
that a stampede began among them and very many left the town
forever. Certainly there was never more fearless or efficient work
performed by a grand jury.</p>

<p>The legislature copied most of the statutes which it enacted from
the laws of Nebraska, and among others the following clauses in the
crimes act, to wit.:</p>

<blockquote><p>If any person shall keep open any tippling or gaming-house on the
Sabbath day or night, <span class="spacious">* * *</span> he shall be fined not exceeding one
hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county jail not exceeding
six months.</p>

<p>Any person who shall hereafter knowingly disturb the peace and
good order of society by labor on the first day of the week,
commonly called Sunday (works of necessity and charity excepted),
shall be fined, on conviction thereof, in any sum not exceeding
fifty dollars. </p></blockquote>

<p>No attention whatever had been paid to these statutes, and Sunday
was generally the great drinking day of the whole week; the saloons
sold more whiskey and made more money that day than any other. The
women on that grand jury determined to put a stop to it and enforce
these laws. They therefore indicted every liquor saloon in town.
This made a great outcry, not only among the liquor-sellers but
among their customers also. They were all arrested, brought into
court and gave bail; but Judge Howe told them as this was a new law
recently passed, and as it was quite probable that most of them
were ignorant of its provisions, he would continue the cases with
this express understanding, that if they would strictly obey the
law in future these cases should be dismissed; but<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_735" id="Page_735">[Pg 735]</a></span> if any of them
violated it, these cases would be tried and the full penalty
inflicted. They all agreed to this, and the "Sunday Law," as it was
called, was carefully observed afterwards in Laramie City; and so
great has been the change in that town in the habits of the people
and the quiet appearance of the streets on Sunday, as compared with
other towns in the territory, that it has been nick-named the
"Puritan town" of Wyoming, and, I may add, rejoices in its
singularity.</p>

<p>And how was this most successful experiment in equal rights
received and treated by the press and the people out of the
territory? The New York illustrated papers made themselves funny
with caricatures of female juries, and cheap scribblers invented
all sorts of scandals and misrepresentations about them. The
newspapers were overflowing with abuse and adverse criticism, and
only here and there was a manly voice heard in apology or defense.
I copy these extracts as a sample of the rest.</p>

<p>"<span class="smcap">Lady Jurors.</span>"&mdash;Under this head the New Orleans <i>Times</i>, the ablest
and largest paper in the South, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Confusion is becoming worse confounded by the hurried march of
events. Mad theorizings take the form of every-day realities, and
in the confusion of rights and the confusion of dress, all
distinctions of sex are threatened with swift obliteration. When
Anna Dickinson holds forth as the teacher of strange doctrines in
which the masculinity of woman is preposterously asserted as a
true warrant for equality with man in all his political and
industrial relations; when Susan B. Anthony flashes defiance from
lips and eyes which refuse the blandishment and soft dalliance
that in the past have been so potent with "the sex"; when, in
fine, the women of Wyoming are called from their domestic
firesides to serve as jurors in a court of justice, a question of
the day, and one, too, of the strangest kind, is forced on our
attention. From a careful review of all the surroundings, we
think the Wyoming experiment will lead to beneficial results. By
proving that lady jurors are altogether impracticable&mdash;that they
cannot sit as the peers of men without setting at defiance all
the laws of delicacy and propriety&mdash;the conclusion may be reached
that it will be far better to let nature alone in regulating the
relations of the sexes. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Philadelphia <i>Press</i> had the following:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Women as Jurors.</span>&mdash;Now one of the adjuncts of female citizenship
is about to be tested in Wyoming. Eleven women have been drawn as
jurors to serve at the March term of the Albany County Court. It
is stated that immense excitement has been created thereby, but
the nature of the aforesaid excitement does not transpire. Will
women revolutionize justice? What is female justice, or what is
it likely to be? Would twelve women return the same verdict as
twelve men, supposing that each twelve had heard the same case?
Is it possible for a jury of women, carrying with them all their
sensitiveness, sympathies, predilections, jealousies, prejudices,
hatreds, to reach an impartial verdict? Would not every criminal
be a monster, provided not a female? Can the sex, ordinarily so
quick to pronounce pre-judgments, divest itself of them
sufficiently to enter the jury-box with unbiased minds? Perhaps
it were best to trust the answer to events. Women may learn to be
jurymen, but in so doing they have a great deal to learn. </p></blockquote>

<p>So persistent were the attacks and so malignant were the
perversions of truth that Judge Howe, at the request of the editor,
wrote the following letter for publication anonymously in the
Chicago <i>Legal News</i>, every statement in which I can confirm from
my own observation. The Judge, after writing the letter, consented
to its publication over his own signature: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_736" id="Page_736">[Pg 736]</a></span></p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Cheyenne</span>, Wyoming, April 4, 1870.</p>

<p><i>Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Chicago, Ill.:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Madam</span>: I am in receipt of your favor of March 26, in which
you request me to "give you a truthful statement, over my own
signature, for publication in your paper, of the history of, and
my observations in regard to, women as grand and petit jurors in
Wyoming." I will comply with your request, with this
qualification, that it be not published over my own signature, as
I do not covet newspaper publicity, and have already, without any
agency or fault of my own, been subjected to an amount of it
which I never anticipated nor conceived of, and which has been
far from agreeable to me.</p>

<p>I had no agency in the enactment of the law in Wyoming conferring
legal equality upon women. I found it upon the statute-book of
that territory, and in accordance with its provisions several
women were legally drawn by the proper officers on the grand and
petit juries of Albany county, and were duly summoned by the
sheriff without any agency of mine. On being apprised of these
facts, I conceived it to be my plain duty to fairly enforce this
law, as I would any other; and more than this, I resolved at once
that, as it had fallen to my lot to have the experiment tried
under my administration, it should have a fair trial, and I
therefore assured these women that they could serve or not, as
they chose; that if they chose to serve, the Court would secure
to them the most respectful consideration and deference, and
protect them from insult in word or gesture, and from everything
which might offend a modest and virtuous woman in any of the
walks of life in which the good and true women of our country
have been accustomed to move.</p>

<p>While I had never been an advocate for the law, I felt that
thousands of good men and women had been, and that they had a
right to see it fairly administered; and I was resolved that it
should not be sneered down if I had to employ the whole power of
the court to prevent it. I felt that even those who were opposed
to the policy of admitting women to the right of suffrage and to
hold office would condemn me if I did not do this. It was also
sufficient for me that my own judgment approved this course.</p>

<p>With such assurances these women chose to serve and were duly
impanelled as jurors. They were educated, cultivated eastern
ladies, who are an honor to their sex. They have, with true
womanly devotion, left their homes of comfort in the States to
share the fortunes of their husbands and brothers in the far West
and to aid them in founding a new State beyond the Missouri.</p>

<p>And now as to the results. With all my prejudices against the
policy, I am under conscientious obligations to say that these
women acquitted themselves with such dignity, decorum, propriety
of conduct and intelligence as to win the admiration of every
fair-minded citizen of Wyoming. They were careful, pains-taking,
intelligent and conscientious. They were firm and resolute for
the right as established by the law and the testimony. Their
verdicts were right, and, after three or four criminal trials,
the lawyers engaged in defending persons accused of crime began
to avail themselves of the right of peremptory challenge to get
rid of the female jurors, who were too much in favor of enforcing
the laws and punishing crime to suit the interests of their
clients. After the grand jury had been in session two days, the
dance-house keepers, gamblers and <i>demi-monde</i> fled out of the
city in dismay, to escape the indictment of women grand jurors!
In short I have never, in twenty-five years of constant
experience in the courts of the country, seen more faithful,
intelligent and resolutely honest grand and petit juries than
these.</p>

<p>A contemptibly lying and silly dispatch went over the wires to
the effect that during the trial of A. W. Howie for homicide (in
which the jury consisted of six women and six men) the men and
women were kept locked up together all night for four nights.
Only two nights intervened during the trial, and on these nights,
by my order, the jury was taken to the parlor of the large,
commodious and well-furnished hotel of the Union Pacific
Railroad, in charge of the sheriff and a woman bailiff, where
they were supplied with meals and every comfort, and at 10
o'clock the women were conducted by the bailiff to a large and
suitable apartment where beds were prepared for them,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_737" id="Page_737">[Pg 737]</a></span> and the
men to another adjoining, where beds were prepared for them, and
where they remained in charge of sworn officers until morning,
when they were again all conducted to the parlor and from thence
in a body to breakfast, and thence to the jury-room, which was a
clean and comfortable one, carpeted and heated, and furnished
with all proper conveniences.</p>

<p>The cause was submitted to the jury for their decision about 11
o'clock in the forenoon, and they agreed upon their verdict,
which was received by the court between 11 and 12 o'clock at
night of the same day, when they were discharged.</p>

<p>Everybody commended the conduct of this jury and was satisfied
with the verdict, except the individual who was convicted of
murder in the second degree. The presence of these ladies in
court secured the most perfect decorum and propriety of conduct,
and the gentlemen of the bar and others vied with each other in
their courteous and respectful demeanor toward the ladies and the
court. Nothing occurred to offend the most refined lady (if she
was a sensible lady) and the universal judgment of every
intelligent and fair-minded man present was and is, that the
experiment was a success.</p>

<p>I dislike the notoriety this matter has given me, but I do not
shrink from it. I never sought it nor expected it, and have only
performed what I regarded as a plain duty, neither seeking nor
desiring any praise, and quite indifferent to any censure or
criticism which my conduct may have invoked.</p>

<p>Thanking you for your friendly and complimentary expressions, I
am very respectfully yours,</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">J. H. Howe.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>As showing how the matter was received at home, in Laramie City, I
copy the following from the <i>Laramie Sentinel</i> of April 7, 1870:</p>

<blockquote><p>If we should neglect to give some idea of the results of our jury
experiment, the world would say we were afraid or ashamed of it.
For our own part we are inclined to admit that it succeeded
beyond all our expectations. We naturally wished it to succeed;
still we scarcely wished it to demonstrate a theory that women
were better qualified for these duties than men. Hence, when
Chief-Justice Howe said, "In eighteen years' experience I have
never had as fair, candid, impartial and able a jury in court, as
in this term in Albany county," and when Associate-Justice
Kingman said, "For twenty-five years it has been an anxious study
with me, both on the bench and at the bar, how we are to prevent
jury trials from degenerating into a perfect burlesque, and it
has remained for Albany county to point out the remedy and
demonstrate the cure for this threatened evil," we confess to
having been <i>more</i> than satisfied with the result. It may be
safely stated as the unanimous verdict of bench, bar and public
opinion, that the jurors of Albany county did well and faithfully
discharge their duties, with honor and credit to themselves and
to the satisfaction of the public. </p></blockquote>

<p>Among the few exceptions to the general abuse of the press, the
following from the Cincinnati <i>Gazette</i> of April 14, 1870, is well
worth preserving:</p>

<blockquote><p>Now, in the name of the inalienable right of every person to the
pursuit of happiness, we have to ask: Are not these women
competent to decide for themselves whether their households,
their children or their husbands are of more importance than
their public duties? And having the best means for deciding this
question, have they not the right to decide? Who has the right to
pick out the females of a jury and challenge them with the
question whether they are not neglecting their households or
their husbands? Who challenges a male juror and demands whether
he left his family well provided, and his wife well cherished? or
if, through his detention in court, the cupboard will be bare,
the wife neglected, or the children with holes in their trousers?
This is simply the crack of the familiar whip of man's absolute
domination over women. It means nothing short of their complete
subjection. Not to use rights is to abandon them. There are
inconveniences and cares in all possessions; but who argues that
therefore they should be abandoned? It would much promote the
convenience of man if he would let his political rights and
duties be performed by a few willing persons; but he would soon
find that he had no rights left.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_738" id="Page_738">[Pg 738]</a></span></p>

<p>And what is this family impediment which is thus set up as a
female disability? The family obligation is just as strong in man
as in woman. It is much stronger, for the manners which compel
woman to be the passive waiter on the male providence leave to
him the real responsibility. Yet many men forego marriage and
homes and children, and nobody imagines that it disqualifies them
for public duties. Nobody challenges them as jurors, and demands
if they have discharged the family obligation. Rather it is held
wise in them to give themselves wholly to their pursuits, without
the distraction of conjugal joys, until they have achieved
success. Why should the family requirement, which man throws off
so easily, be made a yoke for woman? There is something more
fundamental than nursing babies or coddling the appetites of
husbands. The sentiment, "Give me liberty, or give me death," is
the American instinct. Breathes there a woman with soul so dead
that she would bring forth slaves? Babes had better not be born
if they are not to have their rights. It is the duty of women to
first provide the state of freedom for their progeny. Then they
may consent to become wives and mothers. Liberty and the exercise
of all political rights are so bound together, that to neglect
one is to abandon all. Trial by a jury of one's peers is the
essential principle of the administration of justice. To be a
peer on a jury involves the whole principle of equal rights. To
abandon this to man, is to accept subjection to man.</p>

<p>For women to neglect jury duty is to give men the exclusive
privilege to <i>judge women</i>, and to abandon the right to be tried
by a jury of their peers. How can men justly judge a woman? They
cannot have that knowledge of her peculiar physical and mental
organization which is requisite to the judgment of motives and
temptations. They cannot comprehend the variable moods and
emotions, nor the power of her impulses. It is monstrous
injustice to judge women by the same rules as men. And men lack
that intuitive charity and tender sympathy which women always
feel for an exposed, erring sister. Furthermore, many of the
crimes of men are against women. How can men appreciate their
injury? That which is her ruin, they call, as Anna Dickinson
says, sowing their wild oats. How can justice be expected from
those who instinctively combine to preserve their privilege to
abuse women? For the administration of justice to women who are
accused, and to men who have wronged women, judges and jurors of
their own sex are indispensable. </p></blockquote>

<p>As long as Judge Howe remained on the bench he had women on his
juries.<a name="FNanchor_495_495" id="FNanchor_495_495"></a><a href="#Footnote_495_495" class="fnanchor">[495]</a> His first term at Cheyenne, after the law was passed,
several women were among the jurors, and they did fully as well,
and exerted quite as good an influence there, as the women had
recently at Laramie City.</p>

<p>The first election under the woman suffrage law was held in
September 1870, for the election of a delegate in congress, and
county officers. There was an exciting canvass, and both parties
applied to the whisky shops, as before, supposing they would wield
the political power of the territory, and that not enough women
would vote to influence the result. The morning of election came,
but did not bring the usual scenes around the polls. A few women
came out early to vote, and the crowd kept entirely out of sight.
There was plenty of drinking and noise at the saloons, but the men
would not remain, after voting, around the polls. It seemed more
like Sunday than election day. Even the negro men and women voted
without objection or disturbance. Quite a number of women voted
during the day, at least in all the larger towns, but apprehension
of a repetition<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_739" id="Page_739">[Pg 739]</a></span> of the scenes of the former election, and doubt as
to the proper course for them to pursue, kept very many from
voting. The result was a great disappointment all around. The
election had passed off with unexpected quiet, and order had
everywhere prevailed. The whisky shops had been beaten, and their
favorite candidate for congress, although he had spent several
thousand dollars to secure an election, was left out in the cold. I
cannot deny myself the pleasure of quoting at length the following
letter of the Rev. D. J. Pierce, at that time a resident of Laramie
City, and a very wealthy man, to show the powerful influence that
was exerted on the mind of a New England clergyman by that first
exhibition of women at the polls, and as evidence of the singular
and beneficial change in the character of the election, and the
conduct of the men:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Editor Laramie Sentinel:</i> I am pleased to notice your action in
printing testimonials of different classes to the influence of
woman suffrage in Wyoming. With the apathy of conservatism and
prejudice of party spirit arrayed against the idea in America, it
is the duty of the residents in Wyoming to note the simple facts
of their noted experiment, and lay them before the world for its
consideration. I came from the vicinity of Boston, arriving in
Laramie two weeks before the first regular election of 1870. I
had never sympathized with the extreme theories of the woman's
rights platform, to the advocates of which I had often listened
in Boston. But I had never been able to learn just why a woman is
naturally excluded from the privilege of franchise, and I
sometimes argued in favor in lyceum debates. Still the question
of her degradation stared me in the face, and I came to Wyoming
unsettled in the matter, determined to be an impartial judge. I
was early at the polls, but too late to witness the polling of
the first female vote&mdash;by "Grandma" Swain, a much-esteemed Quaker
lady of 75 summers, who determined by her words and influence to
rally her sex to defend the cause of morality and justice.</p>

<p>I saw the rough mountaineers maintaining the most respectful
decorum whenever the women approached the polls, and heard the
timely warning of one of the leading canvassers as he silenced an
incipient quarrel with uplifted finger, saying, "Hist! Be quiet!
A woman is coming!"</p>

<p>And I was compelled to allow that in this new country, supposed
at that time to be infested by hordes of cut-throats, gamblers
and abandoned characters, I had witnessed a more quiet election
than it had been my fortune to see in the quiet towns of Vermont.
I saw ladies attended by their husbands, brothers, or
sweethearts, ride to the places of voting, and alight in the
midst of a silent crowd, and pass through an open space to the
polls, depositing their votes with no more exposure to insult or
injury than they would expect on visiting a grocery store or
meat-market. Indeed, they were much safer here, every man of
their party was pledged to shield them, while every member of the
other party feared the influence of any signs of disrespect.</p>

<p>And the next day I sent my impressions to an eastern paper,
declaring myself convinced that woman's presence at the polls
would elevate the tone of public sentiment there as it does in
churches, the social hall, or any other place, while her own
robes are unspotted by the transient association with evil
characters which she is daily obliged to meet in the street or
dry-goods store. My observation at subsequent annual elections
has only confirmed my opinion in this respect.</p>

<p>Without reference to party issues, I noticed that a majority of
women voted for men of the most temperate habits, thus insuring
success to the party of law and order.</p>

<p>After three years' absence from my old home, I could not fail to
notice in the elections of 1877 and 1878 that both parties had
been led to nominate men of better standing in moral character,
in order to secure the female vote.</p>

<p>I confess that I believe in the idea of aristocracy&mdash;<i>i. e.</i> "the
rule of the best ones"&mdash;not<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_740" id="Page_740">[Pg 740]</a></span> by blood or position, but the
aristocracy of character, to which our laws point when they
declare that prison characters shall not vote.</p>

<p>The ballot of any community cannot rise above its character. A
town full of abandoned women would be cursed by the application
of woman suffrage.</p>

<p>We need to intrust our State interests to the class most noted
for true character. As a class, women are more moral and upright
in their character than men. Hence America would profit by their
voting.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">D. J. Pierce</span>, <i>Pastor Baptist Church</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The next general election occurred in September, 1871, for members
of the second territorial legislature. The usual tactics were
employed and considerable sums of money were given to the drinking
saloons to secure their influence and furnish free drinks and
cigars for the voters. But no one thought of trying to buy up the
women, nor was it ever supposed that a woman's vote could be
secured with whiskey and cigars! Election day passed off with
entire quiet and good order around the polling-places; the noise
and bustle were confined to the bar-rooms. The streets presented no
change from an ordinary business day, except that a large number of
wagons and carriages were driven about with the watch-words and
banners of different parties, or different candidates,
conspicuously posted on them. A much larger number of women voted
at this election than at the former one, but quite a number failed
or refused to take part in it. The result was again a surprise, and
to many a disappointment. Some candidates were unexpectedly
elected, and some who had spent large amounts of money and worked
hard around the drinking saloons, and were ready to bet largely on
being elected, were defeated. The Republicans had shown an
unexpected strength and had returned several members to each House,
although it was quite certain that some of the Democrats were
indebted to the women for their success. It was admitted, however,
that their votes had generally gone against the favorites of the
whiskey shops and that the power of the saloons had been largely
neutralized and in some cases entirely overthrown. Some remarkable
instances of woman's independence and moral character occurred at
this election which I cannot help recording, but must not mention
names.</p>

<p>As above stated in reference to the grand jury in Laramie City, the
"Sunday law" had there been put into vigorous operation. The
evening before the election, and after both the political parties
had nominated their candidates for the legislature, the
saloon-keepers got together very secretly and nominated a ticket of
their own number, pledged to repeal the "Sunday law." This move was
not discovered until they began to vote that ticket at the polls
next day. Then it was found that the saloons were pushing it with
all their influence and giving free drinks to all who would vote
it. This aroused the women and they came out in force; many who had
declined to vote before not only voted, but went round and induced
others to do the same. At noon the rum-sellers' ticket was far
ahead and it looked as though it would be elected by a large
majority; at the close of the polls at night it was overwhelmingly
defeated. In one case the wife of a saloon-keeper who was a
candidate on that ticket, told her husband that she would defeat
him if she could. He was beaten, and he was man enough to say he
was glad of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_741" id="Page_741">[Pg 741]</a></span> it&mdash;glad he had a wife so much better than he was, and
who had so much more influence in town than he had.</p>

<p>Another candidate on that ticket was a saloon-keeper who had grown
rich in the traffic, but whose private character was much above the
morals of his business. He had recently married a very nice young
lady in the East, and she was much excited when she learned how
matters were progressing. She told her husband she was ashamed of
him and would vote against him, and would enlist all the members of
her church against him if she could; and she went to work in
earnest and was a most efficient cause of the defeat of the ticket.
Her husband also was proud of her, and said it served him right and
he was glad of it. I have never heard that the domestic harmony of
either of these families was in anyway disturbed by these events,
but I know that they have prospered and are still successful and
happy.</p>

<p>Still the legislature was strongly Democratic. There were four
Republicans and five Democrats in the Council, and four Republicans
and nine Democrats in the House. When they met in November, 1871,
many Democrats were found to be bitterly opposed to woman suffrage
and determined to repeal the act; they said it was evident they
were losing ground and the Republicans gaining by reason of the
women voting, and that it must be stopped. The Republicans were all
inclined to sustain the law. Several caucuses were held by the
Democrats to determine on their course of action and overcome the
opposition in their own ranks. These caucuses were held in one of
the largest drinking saloons in Cheyenne and all the power of
whiskey was brought to bear on the members to secure a repeal of
the woman suffrage act. It required considerable time and a large
amount of whiskey, but at last the opposition was stifled and the
Democratic party was brought up solid for repeal. A bill was
introduced in the House for the purpose, but was warmly resisted by
the Republicans and a long discussion followed. It was finally
carried by a strict party vote and sent to the Council, where it
met with the same opposition and the same result followed. It then
went to the governor for his approval. There was no doubt in his
mind as to the course he ought to take. He had seen the effects
produced by the act of enfranchisement, and unhesitatingly approved
all of them. He promptly returned the bill with his veto; and the
accompanying message is such an able paper and so fully sets forth
the reasons in favor of the original act, and the good results of
its operation, that at least a few extracts well deserve a
prominent place in this record:</p>

<blockquote><p>I return herewith to the House of Representatives, in which it
originated, a bill for "An Act to repeal Chapter XXXI. of the
Laws of the First Legislative Assembly of the Territory of
Wyoming."</p>

<p>I regret that a sense of duty compels me to dissent from your
honorable body with regard to any contemplated measure of public
policy. It would certainly be more in accordance with the desire
I have to secure and preserve the most harmonious relations among
all the branches of our territorial government, to approve the
bill. A regard, however, for the rights of those whose interests
are to be affected by it, and for what I believe to be the best
interests of the territory, will not allow me to do so. The
consideration, besides, that the passage of this bill would be,
on the part of those instrumental in bringing it about, a
declaration that the principles upon which the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_742" id="Page_742">[Pg 742]</a></span> enfranchisement
of women is urged are false and untenable, and that our
experience demonstrates this, influences me not a little in my
present action.</p>

<p>While I fully appreciate the great danger of too much attention
to abstract speculation or metaphysical reasoning in political
affairs, I cannot but perceive that there are times and
circumstances when it is not only proper but absolutely necessary
to appeal to principles somewhat general and abstract, when they
alone can point out the way and they alone can guide our conduct.
So it was when, two years ago, the act which this bill is
designed to repeal was presented for my approval. There was at
that time no experience to which I might refer and test by its
results the conclusions to which the application of certain
universally admitted principles led me. In the absence of all
such experience I was driven to the application of principles
which through the whole course of our national history have been
powerfully and beneficially operative in making our institutions
more and more popular, in framing laws more and more just and in
securing amendments to our federal constitution. If the ballot be
an expression of the wish, or a declaration of the will, of the
tax-payer as to the manner in which taxes should be levied and
collected and revenues disbursed, why should those who hold in
their own right a large proportion of the wealth of the country
be excluded from a voice in making the laws which regulate this
whole subject? If, again, the ballot be for the physically weak a
guarantee of protection against the aggression and violence of
the strong, upon what ground can the delicate bodily organism of
woman be forbidden this shelter for her protection? If, once
more, each ballot be the declaration of the individual will of
the person casting it, as to the relative merit of opposed
measures or men, surely the ability to judge and determine&mdash;the
power of choice&mdash;does not depend upon sex, nor does womanhood
deprive of personality. If these principles are too general to be
free from criticism, and if this reasoning be too abstract to be
always practically applicable, neither the principles nor the
reasoning can fail of approbation when contrasted with the gloomy
misgivings for the future and the dark forebodings of evils,
imaginary, vague and undefined, by dwelling upon which the
opponents of this reform endeavor to stay its progress.
Aggressive reasoning and positive principles like these must be
met with something more than mere doubtful conjectures, must be
resisted by something more than popular prejudices, and
overthrown&mdash;if overthrown at all&mdash;by something stronger than the
force of inert conservatism; yet what is there but conjecture,
prejudice and conservatism opposing this reform? <span class="spacious">* * * *</span></p>

<p>The law granting to women the right to vote and to hold office in
this territory was a natural and logical sequence to the other
laws upon our statute-book. Our laws give to the widow the
guardianship of her minor children. Will you take from her all
voice in relation to the public schools established for the
education of those children? Our laws permit women to acquire and
possess property. Will you forbid them having any voice in
relation to the taxation of that property? This bill says too
little or too much. Too little, if you legislate upon the
assumption that woman is an inferior who should be kept in a
subordinate position, for in that case the other laws affecting
her should be repealed or amended; and too much, if she is, as no
one will deny, the equal of man in heart and mind, for in that
case we cannot afford to dispense with her counsel and assistance
in the government of the territory.</p>

<p>I need only instance section 9 of the school act, which declares
that, "In the employment of teachers no discrimination shall be
made in the question of pay on account of sex when the persons
are equally qualified." What is more natural than that the men
who thought that women were competent to instruct the future
voters and legislators of our land, should take the one step in
advance of the public sentiment of yesterday and give to her
equal wages for equal work? And when this step had been taken,
what more natural than that they should again move forward&mdash;this
time perhaps a little in advance of the public sentiment of
to-day&mdash;and give to those whom they consider competent to
instruct voters, the right to vote.</p>

<p>To the statement, so often made, that the law which this bill is
intended to repeal was passed thoughtlessly and without proper
consideration, I oppose the fact to which<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_743" id="Page_743">[Pg 743]</a></span> I have adverted, that
the law perfectly conforms to all the other laws in relation to
women upon our statute-book. Studied in connection with the other
laws it would seem to have grown naturally from them. It
harmonizes entirely with them, and forms a fitting apex to the
grand pyramid which is being built up as broadly and as surely
throughout all the States of the Union as it has been built up
and capped in Wyoming.</p>

<p>The world does not stand still. The dawn of Christianity was the
dawn of light for woman. For eighteen centuries she has been
gradually but slowly rising from the condition of drudge and
servant for man, to become his helpmeet, counselor and companion.
As she has been advanced in the social scale, our laws have kept
pace with that advancement and conferred upon her rights and
privileges with accompanying duties and responsibilities. She has
not abused those privileges, and has been found equal to the
duties and responsibilities. And the day is not far distant when
the refining and elevating influence of women will be as clearly
manifested in the political as it now is in the social world.</p>

<p>Urged by all these considerations of right, and justice, and
expediency, and the strong conviction of duty, I approved that
act of which this bill contemplates the repeal, and it became a
law. To warrant my reconsidering that action, there ought to be
in the experience of the last two years something to show that
the reasons upon which it was founded were unsound, or that the
law itself was wrong or at least unwise and inexpedient. My view
of the teachings of this experience is the very reverse of this.
Women have voted, and have the officers chosen been less faithful
and zealous and the legislature less able and upright? They have
sat as jurors, and have the laws been less faithfully and justly
administered, and criminals less promptly and adequately
punished? Indeed the lessons of this two years' experience fully
confirm all that has been claimed by the most ardent advocate of
this innovation.</p>

<p>In this territory women have manifested for its highest interests
a devotion strong, ardent, and intelligent. They have brought to
public affairs a clearness of understanding and a soundness of
judgment, which, considering their exclusion hitherto from
practical participation in political agitations and movements,
are worthy of the greatest admiration and above all praise. The
conscience of women is in all things more discriminating and
sensitive than that of men; their sense of justice, not
compromising or time-serving, but pure and exacting; their love
of order, not spasmodic or sentimental merely, but springing from
the heart; all these,&mdash;the better conscience, the exalted sense
of justice, and the abiding love of order, have been made by the
enfranchisement of women to contribute to the good government and
well-being of our territory. To the plain teachings of these two
years' experience I cannot close my eyes. I cannot forget the
benefits that have already resulted to our territory from woman
suffrage, nor can I permit myself even to seem to do so by
approving this bill.</p>

<p>There is another, and in my judgment, a serious objection to this
bill, which I submit for the consideration and action of your
honorable body. It involves a reference to that most difficult of
questions, the limitations of legislative power. High and
transcendent as that power undoubtedly and wisely is, there are
limits which not even it can pass. Two years ago the legislature
of this territory conferred upon certain of its citizens valuable
rights and franchises. Can a future legislature, by the passage
of a law not liable to the objection, that it violates the
obligation of contracts, take away those rights? It is not
claimed, so far as I have been informed, that the persons upon
whom these franchises were conferred have forfeited or failed to
take advantage of them. But even if such were the case it would
be rather a matter for judicial determination than for
legislative action. What that determination would be is clearly
indicated in the opinion of Associate-justice Story in the
celebrated case of Trustees of Dartmouth College <i>vs.</i> Woodward:
"The right to be a freeman of a corporation is a valuable
temporal right. * * It is founded on the same basis as the right
of voting in public elections; it is as sacred a right; and
whatever might have been the prevalence of former doubts, since
the time of Lord Holt, such a right has always been deemed a
valuable franchise or privilege."<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_744" id="Page_744">[Pg 744]</a></span></p>

<p>But even if we concede that these rights once acquired may be
taken away, the passage of this bill would be, in my judgment, a
most dangerous precedent. Once admit the right of a
representative body to disfranchise its own constituents, and who
can establish the limits to which that right may not be carried?
If this legislature takes from women their franchises or
privileges, what is to prevent a future legislature from
depriving certain men, or classes of men, that, from any
consideration they desire to disfranchise, of the same rights? We
should be careful how we inaugurate precedents which may "return
to plague the inventors," and be used as a pretext for taking
away our liberties.</p>

<p>It will be remembered that in my message to the legislature at
the commencement of the present session I said: "There is upon
our statue book an act granting to the women of Wyoming territory
the right of suffrage and to hold office which has now been in
force two years. Under its liberal provisions women have voted in
the territory, served on juries, and held office. It is simple
justice to say that the women, entering for the first time in the
history of the country upon these new and untried duties, have
conducted themselves with as much tact, sound judgment, and good
sense as the men. While it would be claiming more than the facts
justify, to say that this experiment, in a limited field, has
demonstrated beyond a doubt the perfect fitness of woman, at all
times and under all circumstances, for taking a part in the
government, it furnishes at least reasonable presumptive evidence
in her favor, and she has a right to claim that, so long as none
but good results are made manifest, the law should remain
unrepealed."</p>

<p>These were no hastily formed conclusions, but the result of
deliberation and conviction, and my judgment to-day approves the
language I then used. For the first time in the history of our
country we have a government to which the noble words of our
<i>Magna Charta</i> of freedom may be applied,&mdash;not as a mere figure
of speech, but as expressing a simple grand truth,&mdash;for it is a
government which "derives all its just powers from the consent of
the governed." We should pause long and weigh carefully the
probable results of our action before consenting to change this
government. A regard for the genius of our institutions, for the
fundamental principles of American autonomy, and for the
immutable principles of right and justice, will not permit me to
sanction this change.</p>

<p>These reasons for declining to give my consent to the bill, I
submit with all deference for the consideration and judgment of
your honorable body.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">J. A. Campbell.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Republicans in the House made an ineffectual effort to sustain
the veto, but the party whip and the power of the saloons were too
strong for them, and the bill was passed over the veto by a vote of
9 to 4. It met a different and better fate, however, in the
Council, where it was sustained by a vote of 4 to 5, a strict party
vote in each case. Mr. Corlett, a rising young lawyer, at that time
in the Council and since then a delegate in congress, made an able
defense of the suffrage act and resisted its repeal, sustaining the
veto with much skill and final success. And there was much need,
for the Democrats had made overtures to one of the Republican
members of the Council (they lacked one vote) and had obtained a
promise from him to vote against the veto; but Mr. Corlett, finding
out the fraud in season, reclaimed the fallen Republican and saved
the law. It is due to Mr. Corlett to say that he has always been an
able and consistent supporter of woman's rights and universal
suffrage. He is now the leading lawyer of the territory.</p>

<p>Since that time the suffrage act has grown rapidly in popular
favor, and has never been made a party question. The leading men of
both parties, seeing its beneficial action, have given it an
unqualified approval; and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_745" id="Page_745">[Pg 745]</a></span> most, if not all, of its former enemies
have become its friends and advocates. Most of the new settlers in
the territory, though coming here with impressions or prejudices
against it, soon learn to respect its operation, and admire its
beneficial results. There is nowhere in the territory a voice
raised against it, and it would be impossible to get up a party for
its repeal.</p>

<p>The women uniformly vote at all our elections, and are exerting
every year a more potent influence over the character of the
candidates selected by each party for office, by quietly defeating
those most objectionable in point of morals. It is true they are
not now summoned to serve on juries, nor are they elected to
office; and there are some obvious reasons for this. In the first
place, they never push themselves forward for such positions, as
the men invariably do; and in the second place, the judges who have
been sent to the territory, since the first ones, have not insisted
on respecting the women's rights as jurors, and in some cases have
objected to their being summoned as such. But these matters will
find a remedy by and by. It used to be an important question in the
nominating caucuses, "Will this candidate put up money enough to
buy the saloons, and catch the loafers and drinkers that they
control?" Now the question is, "Will the women vote for this man,
if we nominate him?" There have been some very remarkable instances
where men, knowing themselves to be justly obnoxious to the women,
have forced a nomination in caucus, relying on their money and the
drinking shops and party strength to secure an election, who have
been taught most valuable lessons by signal defeat at the polls. It
would be invidious to call names or describe individual cases, and
could answer no necessary purpose. But I would ask particular
attention to the following articles, taken from recent newspapers,
as full and satisfactory evidence of the truth of these statements,
and of the wisdom of granting universal suffrage and equal rights
to the citizens of Wyoming territory.</p>

<p>The Laramie City <i>Daily Sentinel</i> of December 16, 1878, J. H.
Hayford, editor, has the following leading editorial:</p>

<blockquote><p>For about eight years now, the women of Wyoming territory have
enjoyed the same political rights and privileges as the men, and
all the novelties of this new departure, all the shock it carried
to the sensibilities of the old conservatives, have long since
passed away. For a long time&mdash;even for years past&mdash;we have
frequently received letters asking for information as to its
practical results here, and still more frequently have received
copies of eastern papers with marked articles which purported to
be written by persons who resided here, or had visited the
territory and witnessed the awful results or the total failure of
the experiment. We have usually paid no attention to these false
and anonymous scribblers, who took this method to display their
shallow wit at the sacrifice of truth and decency. But recently
we have received more than the usual number of such missives, and
more letters, and from a more respectable source than before, and
we take this occasion and method to answer them all at once, and
once for always, and do it through the columns of the <i>Sentinel</i>,
one of the oldest and most widely circulated papers in the
territory, because it will be readily conceded that we would not
publish here at home, false statements and misrepresentations
upon a matter with which all our readers are familiar, and which,
if false, could be easily refuted.</p>

<p>We assert here, then, that woman suffrage in Wyoming has been in
every particular a complete success.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_746" id="Page_746">[Pg 746]</a></span></p>

<p>That the women of Wyoming value as highly the political
franchise, and as generally exercise it, as do the men of the
territory.</p>

<p>That being more helpless, more dependent and more in need of the
protection of good laws and good government than are men, they
naturally use the power put into their hands to secure these
results.</p>

<p>That they are controlled more by principle and less by party ties
than men, and generally cast their votes for the best candidates
and the best measures.</p>

<p>That while women in this territory frequently vote contrary to
their husbands, we have never heard of a case where the family
ties or domestic relations were disturbed thereby, and we believe
that among the pioneers of the West there is more honor and
manhood than to abuse a wife because she does not think with her
husband about politics or religion.</p>

<p>We have never seen any of the evil results growing out of woman
suffrage which we have heard predicted for it by its opponents.
On the contrary, its results have been only good, and that
continually. Our elections have come to be conducted as quietly,
orderly and civilly as our religious meetings, or any of our
social gatherings, and the best men are generally selected to
make and enforce our laws. We have long ago generally come to the
conclusion that woman's influence is as wholesome and as much
needed in the government of the State as in the government of the
family. We do not know of a respectable woman in the territory
who objects to or neglects to use her political power, and we do
not know of a decent man in the territory who wishes it
abolished, or who is not even glad to have woman's help in our
government.</p>

<p>Our laws were never respected or enforced, and crime was never
punished, or life or property protected until we had woman's help
in the jury box and at the polls, and we unhesitatingly say here
at home that we do not believe a man can be found who wishes to
see her deprived of voice and power, unless it is the one "who
fears not God nor regards man," who wants to pursue a life of
vice or crime, and consequently fears woman's influence and power
in the government. We assert further that the anonymous
scribblers who write slanders on our women and our territory to
the eastern press, are either fools, who know nothing about what
they write, or else belong to that class of whom the poet says:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">"No rogue e'er felt the halter draw<br /></span>
<span class="i0">With good opinion of the law."<br /></span>
</div></div>

<p>We took some pains to track up and find out the author of one of
the articles against woman suffrage to which our attention was
called, and found him working on the streets of Cheyenne, with a
ball and chain to his leg. We think he was probably an average
specimen of these writers. And, finally, we challenge residents
in Wyoming who disagree with the foregoing sentiments, and who
endorse the vile slanders to which we refer, to come out over
their own signature and in their own local papers and take issue
with us, and our columns shall be freely opened to them. </p></blockquote>

<p>There are some obvious inferences to be drawn and some rather
remarkable lessons to be learned, from the foregoing narrative. In
the first place, the responsibilities of self government, with the
necessity of making their own laws, was delegated to a people,
strangers to each other, with very little experience or knowledge
in such matters, and composed of various nationalities, with a very
large percentage of the criminal classes. It is a matter of
surprise that they should have so soon settled themselves into an
orderly community, where all the rights of person and property are
well protected, and as carefully guarded and fully respected as in
any of our old eastern commonwealths. It is a still greater
surprise that a legislature selected by such a constituency, under
such circumstances as characterized our first election, and
composed of such men as were in fact elected, should have been able
to enact a body of laws containing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_747" id="Page_747">[Pg 747]</a></span> so much that was good and
practicable, and so little that was injudicious, unwise or vicious.</p>

<p>In the next place, it is evident that there was no public sentiment
demanding the passage of the woman suffrage law, and but few
advocates of it at that time in the territory; that its adoption,
under such circumstances, was not calculated to give it a fair
chance to exert a favorable influence in the community, or even
maintain itself among the permanent customs and laws of the
territory. The prospect was, that it would either remain a dead
letter, or be swept away under the ridicule and abuse of the press,
and the open attacks of its enemies. But it has withstood all these
adverse forces, and from small beginnings has grown to be a
permanent power in our politics, a vital institution, satisfactory
to all our people. The far-reaching benefits it will yet accomplish
can be easily foreseen. To make either individuals or classes
respected and induce them to respect themselves, you must give them
power and influence, a fair field and full enjoyment of the results
of their labors. We have made a very creditable beginning in this
direction, so far as woman is concerned, and we have no doubts
about the outcome of it. Wyoming treats all her citizens alike, and
offers full protection, equal rewards, and equal power, to both men
and women.</p>

<p>Again it is very evident that while our women take no active part
in the primary nomination of candidates for office, they exercise a
most potent influence by the independent manner in which they vote,
and the signal defeat they inflict on many unworthy candidates.
Their successful opposition to the power of the bar-rooms is a
notable and praiseworthy instance of the wise use of newly-acquired
rights. The saloon-keepers used to sell themselves to that party,
or that man, who would pay the most, and while robbing the
candidates, degraded the elections and debauched the electors. So
long as it was understood that in order to secure an election it
was necessary to secure the rum-shops, good men were left out of
the field, and unscrupulous ones were sought after as candidates.
The women have already greatly modified this state of affairs and
are likely to change it entirely in the end.</p>

<p>Another wonderful consequence which has attended the presence of
women at the polls, is the uniform quiet and good order on election
day. All the police that could be mustered, could not insure half
the decorum that their simple presence has everywhere secured. No
man, not even a drunken one, is willing to act like a rowdy when he
knows the women will see him. Nor is he at all anxious to expose
himself in their presence when he knows he has drank too much. Such
men quit the polls, and slink out of the streets, to hide
themselves from the eyes of the women in the obscurity of the
drinking shops.</p>

<p>Another fact of great importance is the uniform testimony as to
woman's success as a juror. It is true that there has been but a
limited opportunity, thus far, to establish this as a fact beyond
all doubt. But a good beginning has been made, a favorable
impression produced, and no bad results have accompanied or
followed the experiment. If our jury system of trying cases is to
be preserved, as a tolerable method of settling<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_748" id="Page_748">[Pg 748]</a></span> disputes and
administering justice in our courts, every one will admit that a
great improvement in the character of the jurors must be speedily
found. At present, a jury trial is generally regarded as a farce,
or something worse. The proof of this is seen in the fact that in
most of our courts the judges are required to try all cases without
a jury, where the parties to the action consent, and that in a
great portion of the cases the parties do consent.</p>

<p>Another notable observation is the rapid growth of opinion in favor
of woman suffrage among our people, after its first adoption; but
more particularly the change effected in the minds of the new
settlers, who come to the territory with old prejudices and fixed
notions against it. Neither early education, nor personal bias, nor
party rancor, has been able to withstand the overwhelming evidence
of its good effects, and of its elevating and purifying influence
in our political and social organization.</p>

<p>I must add, in conclusion, that the seventh legislature of our
territory has just closed its session of sixty days. It was
composed of more members than the earlier legislatures were, there
being thirteen in the Council and twenty-six in the House. Many
important questions came up for consideration, and a wide field of
discussion was traveled over, but not one word was at any time
spoken by any member against woman suffrage. </p></blockquote>

<p>Hon. M. C. Brown, district-attorney for the territory, confirms the
testimony given by the judges and Governor Campbell, in a letter to
the National Suffrage Convention held in Washington in 1884, which
will be found in the pamphlet report of that year.</p>



<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_491_491" id="Footnote_491_491"></a><a href="#FNanchor_491_491"><span class="label">[491]</span></a> Messrs. Wade, Anthony, Gratz Brown, Buckalew, Cowan,
Foster, Nesmith, Patterson, Riddle. See <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_90">
Vol. II., Chapter XVII.</a></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_492_492" id="Footnote_492_492"></a><a href="#FNanchor_492_492"><span class="label">[492]</span></a> Ex-Governor Hoyt in his public speeches frequently
gives this bird's-eye view of Bright's domestic and political
discussions: "Betty, it's a shame that I should be a member of the
legislature and make laws for such a woman as you. You are a great
deal better than I am; you know a great deal more, and you would
make a better member of the Assembly than I, and you know it. I
have been thinking about it and have made up my mind that I will go
to work and do everything in my power to give you the ballot. Then
you may work out the rest in your own way." So he went over and
talked with other members of the legislature. They smiled. But he
got one of the lawyers to help him draw up a short bill, which he
introduced. It was considered and discussed. People smiled
generally. There was not much expectation that anything of that
sort would be done; but this was a shrewd fellow, who managed the
party card in such a way as to get, as he believed, enough votes to
carry the measure before it was brought to the test. I will show
you a little behind the curtain, so far as I can draw it. Thus he
said to the Democrats: "We have a Republican governor and a
Democratic Assembly. Now, then, if we can carry this bill through
the Assembly and the governor vetoes it, we shall have made a
point, you know; we shall have shown our liberality and lost
nothing. But keep still; don't say anything about it." They
promised. He then went to the Republicans and told them that the
Democrats were going to support his measure, and that if <i>they</i> did
not want to lose capital they had better vote for it too. He didn't
think there would be enough of them to carry it, but the vote would
be on record and thus defeat the game of the other party. And they
likewise agreed to vote for it. So when the bill came to a vote it
went right through! The members looked at, each other in
astonishment, for they hadn't intended to do it, <i>quite</i>. Then they
laughed and said it was a good joke, but they had "got the governor
in a fix." So the bill went, in the course of time, to John A.
Campbell, who was then governor&mdash;the first governor of the
territory of Wyoming&mdash;and he promptly signed it! His heart was
right. He saw that it was long-deferred justice, and so signed it
as gladly as Abraham Lincoln wrote <i>his</i> name to the Proclamation
of Emancipation of the slaves. Of course the women were astounded!
If a whole troop of angels had come down with flaming swords for
their vindication, they would not have been much more astonished
than they were when that bill became a law and the women of Wyoming
were thus clothed with the habiliments of citizenship.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_493_493" id="Footnote_493_493"></a><a href="#FNanchor_493_493"><span class="label">[493]</span></a> No sooner had these gentlemen left than Mrs. Post
and Mrs. Arnold had a long interview with the governor, urging him
to sign the bill on the highest moral grounds; not only to protect
the personal rights of the women of the territory but to compel the
men to observe the decencies of life and to elevate the social and
political status of the people.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_494_494" id="Footnote_494_494"></a><a href="#FNanchor_494_494"><span class="label">[494]</span></a> In the summer of 1871 Mrs. Stanton and myself, <i>en
route</i> for California, visited Wyoming and met the women who were
most active in the exercise of their rights of citizenship. At
Cheyenne we were the guests of Mrs. M. B. Arnold and Mrs. Amalia B.
Post. Mrs. Arnold had a large cattle-ranch and Mrs. Post an equally
large sheep-ranch a few miles out of the city, which they
superintended, and from which each received an independent income.
They had not only served as jurors, but acted as foremen. At
Laramie we were the guests of Mr. J. H. Hayford, editor of the
<i>Laramie Sentinel</i>, and met Grandma Swain, who was the first woman
to cast her ballot in that city. We also met Judges Howe and
Kingman and Governor Campbell, and heard from them of the wonderful
changes wrought in the court-room and at the polls by the presence
of enfranchised women. We spoke in the very court-room in which
women had sat as jurors and felt an added inspiration from that
fact.&mdash;[S. B. A.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_495_495" id="Footnote_495_495"></a><a href="#FNanchor_495_495"><span class="label">[495]</span></a> The following is the list of the first grand jury at
Laramie City, composed of nine men and six women, as impanneled and
sworn: C. H. Bussard, foreman; Mrs. Jane E. Hilton, T. W. DeKay,
Jeremiah Boies, Mrs. H. C. Swain. Joseph DeMars, M. N. Merrill,
Mrs. M. A. Pierce, Mrs. C. Blake, Richard Turpin, G. W. Cardwell,
Mrs. S. L. Larimer, N. C. Worth, Mrs. Jane Mackle, W. H.
Mitchell.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_749" id="Page_749">[Pg 749]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LIII" id="CHAPTER_LIII"></a>CHAPTER LIII.</h2>

<h3>CALIFORNIA.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Liberal Provisions in the Constitution&mdash;Elizabeth T.
Schenck&mdash;Eliza W. Farnham&mdash;Mrs. Mills' Seminary, now a State
Institution&mdash;Jeannie Carr, State Superintendent of Schools&mdash;First
Awakening&mdash;<i>The Revolution</i>&mdash;Anna Dickinson&mdash;Mrs. Gordon
Addresses the Legislature, 1868&mdash;Mrs. Pitts Stevens Edits <i>The
Pioneer</i>&mdash;First Suffrage Society on the Pacific Coast,
1869&mdash;State Convention, January 26, 1870, Mrs. Wallis,
President&mdash;State Association Formed, Mrs. Haskell of Petaluma,
President&mdash;Mrs. Gordon Nominated for Senator&mdash;In 1871, Mrs.
Stanton and Miss Anthony Visit California&mdash;Hon. A. A. Sargent
Speaks in Favor of Suffrage for Woman&mdash;Ellen Clarke Sargent
Active in the Movement&mdash;Legislation Making Women Eligible to Hold
School Offices, 1873&mdash;July 10, 1873, State Society Incorporated,
Sarah Wallis, President&mdash;Mrs. Clara Foltz&mdash;A Bill Giving Women
the Right to Practice Law&mdash;The Bill Passed and Signed by the
Governor&mdash;Contest Over Admitting Women into the Law Department of
the University&mdash;Supreme Court Decision Favorable&mdash;Hon. A. A.
Sargent on the Constitution and Laws&mdash;Journalists and
Printers&mdash;mdash;Silk Culture&mdash;Legislative Appropriation&mdash;Mrs. Knox
Goodrich Celebrates July 4, 1876&mdash;Imposing Demonstration&mdash;Ladies
in the Procession. </p>
</div>

<p><span class="sc">The</span> central figure in the seal of California is the presiding
goddess of that State, her spear in one hand, the other resting on
her shield, the cabalistic word "Eureka" over her head and a bear
crouching quietly at her feet. She seems to be calmly contemplating
the magnificent harbor within the Golden Gate. The shadows on the
distant mountains, the richly-laden vessels and the floating clouds
indicate the peaceful sunset hour, and the goddess, in harmony with
the scene is seated at her ease, as if after many weary wanderings
in search of an earthly Paradise she had found at last the land of
perennial summers, fruits and flowers&mdash;a land of wonders, with its
mammoth trees, majestic mountain-ranges and that miracle of
grandeur and beauty, the Yosemite Valley. Verily it seems as if
bounteous Nature in finishing the Pacific Slope did her best to
inspire the citizens of that young civilization with love and
reverence for the beautiful and grand.</p>

<p>California, admitted to the Union in 1850, owing to the erratic
character of her early population, has passed through more
vicissitudes<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_750" id="Page_750">[Pg 750]</a></span> than any other State, but she secured at last social
order, justice in her courts and a somewhat liberal constitution,
as far as the personal and property rights of the "white male
citizen" were concerned. By its provisions&mdash;</p>

<blockquote><p>All legal distinctions between individuals on religious grounds
are prohibited; the utmost freedom of assembling, of speech and
of the press is allowed, subject only to restraint for abuse;
there is no imprisonment for debt, except where fraud can be
proved; slavery and involuntary servitude, except for crime, are
prohibited; wives are secured in their separate rights of
property; the exemption of a part of the homestead and other
property of heads of families from forced sale is recognized. </p></blockquote>

<p>So far so good; but while the constitution limits the franchise to
every "white male citizen" over twenty-one, who has been a resident
of the State six months, and thus makes outlaws and pariahs of all
the noble women who endured the hardships of the journey by land or
by sea to that country in the early days, who helped to make it all
that it is, that instrument cannot be said to secure justice,
equality and liberty to all its citizens. The position in the
constitution and laws of that vast territory, of the real woman who
shares the every-day trials and hardships of her sires and sons
inspires no corresponding admiration and respect, with the ideal
one who gilds and glorifies the great seal of the State.</p>

<p>For the main facts of this chapter we are indebted to Elizabeth T.
Schenck.<a name="FNanchor_496_496" id="FNanchor_496_496"></a><a href="#Footnote_496_496" class="fnanchor">[496]</a> She says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Out of the stirring scenes and tragical events characterizing the
early days of California one can well understand that there came
of necessity many brave and adventurous argonauts and many women
of superior mental force, from among whom in after years the
woman suffrage cause might receive most devoted adherents. For
nearly a score of years after the great incursion of gold-seekers
into this newly-acquired State no word was uttered by tongue or
pen demanding political equality for women&mdash;none at least which
reached the public ear. There were no preceding causes, as in the
older States, to stimulate the discussion of the question, and
even that mental amazon, Eliza W. Farnham who was one of the
distinguished pioneers of California, gathered her inspiration
from<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_751" id="Page_751">[Pg 751]</a></span> afar, and thought and wrote for the whole world of women
without once sounding the tocsin for woman's political
emancipation. Many of the women who braved the perils of the
treacherous deep, or still more terrible dangers of the weary
march over broad deserts, inhospitable mountains, and through the
fastnesses of hostile and merciless Indians, to reach California
in the early times, entertained broad views upon the intellectual
capacity and political rights of women, but their efforts were
confined to fields of literature. While this advanced guard of
progressive women was moulding into form a social system out of
the turbulent and disorganized masses thrown together by the
rapidly-increasing population from all parts of the globe, the
elements were aggregating which in after years produced powerful,
outspoken thought and earnest action in behalf of disfranchised
women.</p>

<p>Here as elsewhere women took the lead in school matters and were
the most capable and efficient educators from the days of "'49."
One of our permanent State institutions, Mills' Seminary, was
founded by a woman whose name it bears, and who, assisted by her
husband, Rev. Mr. Mills, conducted the school for nearly a
quarter of a century, until by an act of the legislature, she
conveyed it to the State. Several principals of the public
schools in San Francisco have held their positions for over
twenty consecutive years. Mrs. Jeanne Carr, deputy state
superintendent of public instruction from 1871 to 1875, was
succeeded by Mrs. Kate M. Campbell, who served most efficiently
for the full term. During Mrs. Carr's public service she visited
nearly every county in the State, attending teachers' institutes,
and lecturing upon educational topics with great ability. For
many years women have been eligible to school offices in
California and there is not a county in the State where women
have not filled positions as trustees or been elected to the
office of county superintendent.<a name="FNanchor_497_497" id="FNanchor_497_497"></a><a href="#Footnote_497_497" class="fnanchor">[497]</a> Mrs. Coleman has been
reëlected to that office in Shasta county, and Mrs. E. W.
Sullivan in Mono county has served for several terms.</p>

<p>The first attempt to awaken the public mind to the question of
suffrage for woman was a lecture given by Laura De Force Gordon
in Platt's Hall, San Francisco, February 19, 1868. Although the
attendance was small, a few earnest women were there<a name="FNanchor_498_498" id="FNanchor_498_498"></a><a href="#Footnote_498_498" class="fnanchor">[498]</a> who
formed the nucleus of what followed. Soon after Mrs. Gordon
addressed the legislature in the senate-chamber at Sacramento,
and made an eloquent appeal for the political rights of women.
Among the audience were many members of the legislature who
became very deeply impressed with the justice of her<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_752" id="Page_752">[Pg 752]</a></span> demand,
including the subsequent governor of the State, George C.
Perkins, then senator from Butte county. Soon afterwards Mrs.
Gordon removed to Nevada, and no more lectures on woman suffrage
were given until the visit of Anna Dickinson in the summer of
1869.</p>

<p>The way was being prepared however, for further agitation by the
appearance of <i>The Revolution</i> in 1868 in New York, which was
hailed by the women of California (as elsewhere) as the harbinger
of a brighter and better era. Its well filled pages were eagerly
read and passed from hand to hand, and the effect of its
startling assertions was soon apparent. Mrs. Pitts Stevens had
about that time secured a proprietary interest in the <i>San
Francisco Mercury</i>, and was gradually educating her readers up to
a degree of liberality to endorse suffrage. Early in 1869 she
became sole proprietor, changing the name to <i>Pioneer</i>, and threw
the woman suffrage banner to the breeze in an editorial of marked
ability.</p>

<p>The organization of the National Woman Suffrage Association in
New York, May, 1869, gave fresh impetus to the movement, and the
appointment of Mrs. Elizabeth T. Schenck as vice-president for
California by that association, met with the approval of all
those interested in the movement. Soon after this Mrs. Schenck
with her gifted ally, Mrs. Stevens, decided to organize a
suffrage society, and at an impromptu meeting of some of the
friends at the residence of Mrs. Nellie Hutchinson, July 27,
1869, the first association for this purpose on the Pacific coast
was formed. There were just a sufficient number of members<a name="FNanchor_499_499" id="FNanchor_499_499"></a><a href="#Footnote_499_499" class="fnanchor">[499]</a>
to fill the offices. This society grew rapidly and within a month
the parlors were found inadequate to the constantly increasing
numbers. Through the courtesy of the Mercantile Library
Association their commodious apartments were secured.</p>

<p>The advent of Anna Dickinson afforded the ladies an opportunity
to attest their admiration for her as a representative woman,
which they did, giving her a public breakfast, September 14.
Their honored guest appreciated the compliment; and in an earnest
and eloquent speech referred to it, saying that although she had
received many demonstrations of the kind, this was the first ever
given her exclusively by her own sex.<a name="FNanchor_500_500" id="FNanchor_500_500"></a><a href="#Footnote_500_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a></p>

<p>Soon after Miss Dickinson's departure, Mrs. Schenck, much to the
regret of the society, resigned the chair, and Mrs. J. W. Stow
was appointed to fill the vacancy. The ladies having for some
time considered the organizing of a State Society of great
importance, it was decided to hold a grand mass convention for
that purpose. There was need of funds to carry forward the work,
and a course of three lectures was suggested as a means to raise
money. This carried, on motion of Mrs. Stow, and her offer to
deliver the first lecture of the course was accepted. All the
members of the society devoted their energies to secure the
success of the undertaking. Many of them engaged in selling
tickets for the two weeks intervening,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_753" id="Page_753">[Pg 753]</a></span> and on November 2, Mrs.
Stow gave her lecture to a large and interested audience, taking
for her theme, "Woman's Work." The Rev. Mr. Hamilton followed,
November 9, with "The Parlor and the Harem," and the Rev. C. G.
Ames concluded the course, November 18, with "What Does it Mean?"
The lectures were well received, and though not particularly
directed to the right of suffrage for women, succeeded in
attracting attention to the society under whose auspices they
were given, and helped it financially. About this time Mrs.
Gordon returned from the East and took an active part in
canvassing the State, lecturing and forming county societies
preparatory to securing as large a representation as possible at
the coming convention. The following report of the proceedings is
taken from the San Francisco dailies: </p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 393px;">
<a name="v3_753" id="v3_753">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_753.jpg" width="393" height="500" alt="Laura deForce Gordon" title="" /></a>
</div>

<blockquote><p>The convention to form a State Woman Suffrage Society, held
its first meeting in Dashaway Hall, Wednesday afternoon,
January 26, 1870. The hall was well filled. Mrs. E. T.
Schenck, vice-president of the National Association, was
chosen president, <i>pro. tem.</i>, and Miss Kate Atkinson,
Secretary. A committee on credentials was appointed by the
chair, consisting of one member from each organization.<a name="FNanchor_501_501" id="FNanchor_501_501"></a><a href="#Footnote_501_501" class="fnanchor">[501]</a>
During the absence of the committee quite an animated
discussion arose as to the admission of delegates. Mrs.
Gordon said the greatest possible liberality should be
exercised in admitting persons to the right to speak and
vote; that all who signed the roll, paid the fee, and
expressed themselves in sympathy with the movement, should
be admitted. After some discussion, Mrs. Gordon's views
prevailed, and the names of those who chose to qualify
themselves were enrolled. About 120 delegates were thus
chosen from nine suffrage societies in different parts of
the State. Many counties were represented in which no
organizations had yet been formed. Some rather humorous
discussion was had as to whether the president should be
called Mrs. Chairman or Mrs. Chairwoman. The venerable Mr.
Spear arose and suggested the title be Mrs. President, which
was adopted. Mrs. Gordon said she had noticed that when
questions were put to the meeting not more than a dozen
timid voices could be heard saying "aye," or "no." The
ladies must not sit like mummies, but open their mouths and
vote audibly. This disinclination to do business in a
business-like way, is discreditable. (Cheers). Mrs. Gordon's
hint was taken, and unequivocal demonstration of voices was
made thereafter upon the taking of each vote. Long before
the time arrived for the evening session, the hall in every
part, platform, floor and gallery, was crowded, and large
numbers were unable to gain entrance.</p>

<p>The Committee on Permanent Organization presented the
following names for officers of the convention: President,
Mrs. Wallis of Mayfield; Vice-Presidents, J. A. Collins, C.
G. Ames, Mrs. Mary W. Coggins; Secretaries, Mrs. McKee, Mrs.
Rider, Mrs. Perry; Treasurer, Mrs. Collins. On motion, Mrs.
Haskell and Mrs. Ames escorted the president to the rostrum,
and introduced her to the convention. Mrs. Wallis is a lady
of imposing presence, and very earnest in the movement. Upon
being introduced she said:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Ladies and Gentlemen</span>&mdash;I thank you for this expression of
your high esteem and confidence in electing me to preside
over your deliberations. I regard this as a severe ordeal,
but, having already been tested in this respect, I do not
fear the trials to come. I shall persevere until the
emancipation of women is effected, and in order to fulfill
my duties successfully upon this occasion, I ask the hearty
coöperation of all. [Applause].</p>

<p>Mrs. Stow gave the opening address, after which
delegates<a name="FNanchor_502_502" id="FNanchor_502_502"></a><a href="#Footnote_502_502" class="fnanchor">[502]</a> from various localities made interesting
reports. An able series of resolutions was presented and
discussed<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_754" id="Page_754">[Pg 754]</a></span> at length by various members of the convention,
and letters of sympathy were read from friends throughout
the country.<a name="FNanchor_503_503" id="FNanchor_503_503"></a><a href="#Footnote_503_503" class="fnanchor">[503]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>From the first session, some anxiety was felt regarding the action
of the State Society in affiliating with one of the two rival
associations in the East. The Rev. C. G. Ames of San Francisco,
whose wife had been in attendance upon the Cleveland convention of
the American Association, was appointed vice-president for
California, while Mrs. E. T. Schenck had been appointed
vice-president by the National Association. In addition to the
names of officers of county societies appended to the call for this
convention, both Mrs. Schenck and Mrs. Ames signed in their
official capacity, as vice-president of their respective
Associations. Under these circumstances it was not strange that a
spirit of rivalry should manifest itself, but it was unfortunate
that it was carried so far as to breed disturbance in this infant
organization. The leading women looked upon Mrs. E. Cady Stanton
and Miss Susan B. Anthony as among the first who organized the
suffrage movement in the United States, and therefore felt that it
was due to them that our California Society which owed its
existence mainly to the efforts of Mrs. Schenck whom they had
appointed vice-president for California, should show its loyalty,
devotion and gratitude to them, by becoming auxiliary to the
National Association. On the other hand, Rev. C. G. Ames, being an
enthusiastic admirer of some of the leading spirits in the American
Association, desired it to be auxiliary to that. This conflict
having been foreshadowed, a letter was written to Miss Anthony in
relation to it. Her reply was received by Mrs. Schenck on the first
day of the convention, breathing a noble spirit of unselfishness,
advising us not to allow any personal feelings towards Mrs. Stanton
or herself to influence us in the matter, but rather to keep our
association entirely independent, free to coöperate with all
societies having for their object the enfranchisement of woman.
Accordingly, the following resolution was almost unanimously
adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the California Woman Suffrage Society remain
independent of all other associations for one year. </p></blockquote>

<p>The result was satisfactory to Mrs. Schenck and her sympathizers,
but Mr. Ames seemed loth to relinquish his preference for the
American, and the course taken had the effect of lessening his zeal
and that of his followers, until they gradually dropped from the
ranks. But the convention, despite the unfortunate schism, was a
grand success. The sessions were crowded, and so great was the
interest awakened in the public mind that a final adjournment was
not had until Saturday night, after four days of earnest,
profitable work. The press of the city gave full and fair reports
of the proceedings, though very far from endorsing woman's claim to
suffrage, and men and women of all classes and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_755" id="Page_755">[Pg 755]</a></span> professions took an
active part in the deliberations. But of the multitude who met in
that first woman suffrage convention on the Pacific coast but few
were prominent in after years.</p>

<p>The newly organized society immediately arranged to send a
delegation to Sacramento, to present to the legislature then in
session a petition for woman suffrage. The delegation consisted of
Laura DeForce Gordon, Caroline H. Spear and Laura Cuppy Smith, who
were accorded a hearing before a special committee of the Senate,
of which the venerable Judge Tweed, an able advocate of woman
suffrage, was chairman. The proceeding was without a parallel in
the history of the State. The novelty of women addressing the
legislature attracted universal attention, and the newspapers were
filled with reports of that important meeting.</p>

<p>During the year 1870 a general agitation was kept up. A number of
speakers<a name="FNanchor_504_504" id="FNanchor_504_504"></a><a href="#Footnote_504_504" class="fnanchor">[504]</a> held meetings in various parts of the State. The
newspapers were constrained to notice this all-absorbing topic,
though most of them were opposed to the innovation, and maintained
a bitter war against its advocates. Prominent among them was the
sensational San Francisco <i>Chronicle</i> followed by the <i>Bulletin</i>,
the <i>Call</i>, and in its usual negative style, the <i>Alta</i>, while the
<i>Examiner</i> mildly ridiculed the subject, and a score of lesser
journalistic lights throughout the State exhibited open hostility
to woman suffrage, or simply mentioned the fact of its agitation as
a matter of news. But the brave pioneers in this unpopular movement
received kindly sympathy and encouragement from some journals of
influence, first among which was the San Francisco <i>Post</i>, then
under the management of that popular journalist, Harry George,
afterwards distinguished as the author of "Progress and Poverty."
The San José <i>Mercury</i> was our friend from the first, and its
fearless and able editor, J. J. Owen, accepted the office of
president of the State woman suffrage society to which he was
elected in 1878. The Sacramento <i>Bee</i> also did valiant service in
defending and advocating woman's political equality, its veteran
editor, James McClatchy, being a man of liberal views and great
breadth of thought, whose powerful pen was wielded in advocacy of
justice to all until his death, which occurred in October, 1883.
There were several county journals that spoke kind words in our
behalf, and occasionally one under the editorial management of a
woman would fearlessly advocate political equality.</p>

<p>During the year of 1870, Mrs. Gordon traveled extensively over the
State, delivering more than one hundred lectures, beside making an
extended tour, in company with Mrs. Pitts Stevens, through Nevada,
where on the Fourth of July, at a convention held at Battle
Mountain, the first suffrage organization for that State was
effected. In February, 1871, Mrs. Gordon again lectured in Nevada,
remaining several weeks in Carson while the legislature was in
session. She was invited by that body to address them upon the
proposed amendment to the State constitution to allow women to
vote, which amendment was lost by a majority of only<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_756" id="Page_756">[Pg 756]</a></span> two votes,
obtained by a political trick, the question being voted upon
without a call of the House, when several members friendly to the
measure were absent. The author of the proposed amendment was the
Hon. C. J. Hillier, a prominent lawyer of Virginia City, who, in
bringing the bill before the legislature in 1869, delivered one of
the ablest arguments ever given in favor of woman suffrage.</p>

<p>In 1871 Mrs. Gordon again made an extended tour through California,
Oregon, and Washington Territory, traveling mostly by stage,
enduring hardships, braving dangers and everywhere overcoming
prejudice and antagonism to strong-minded women, by the
persuasiveness of her arguments. In September, while lecturing in
Seättle, a telegram informed her of her nomination by the
Independent party of San Joaquin county for the office of State
senator, requesting her immediate return to California. This
necessitated a journey of nearly a thousand miles, one-half by
stage-coach. Six days of continuous travel brought her to Stockton,
where she entered at once upon the senatorial campaign. Mrs. Gordon
spoke every night until election, and succeeded in awakening a
lively interest in her own candidacy and in the subject of woman
suffrage. Her eligibility to the office was vehemently denied,
particularly by Republicans, who were badly frightened at the
appearance of this unlooked-for rival. The pulpit, press, and stump
speakers alternated in ridiculing the idea of a woman being allowed
to take a seat in the Senate, even if elected. The Democratic
party, being in the minority, offered but little opposition, and
watched with great amusement this unequal contest between the great
dominant party on the one side, and the little Spartan band on the
other. The contest was as exciting as it was brief, and despite the
great odds of money, official power, political superiority, and the
perfect machinery of party organization in favor of her opponents,
Mrs. Gordon received about 200 votes, besides as many more which
were rejected owing to some technical irregularity. Among those who
took part in that novel campaign and deserving special mention, was
the venerable pioneer familiarly called Uncle Jarvis, who had voted
a straight Whig or Republican ticket for fifty years, and who for
the first time in his life scratched his ticket and voted for Mrs.
Gordon.</p>

<p>In July, 1871, California was favored by a visit from Mrs. Stanton
and Miss Anthony, who awakened new interest wherever their logical
and eloquent appeals were heard. Their advent was hailed with joy,
and they received marked attention from all classes, the clergy not
excepted. Every lecture given by them drew out large assemblies of
the most influential of the citizens. Indeed, they received a
continual ovation during their stay in San Francisco. After Mrs.
Stanton returned to New York, Miss Anthony remained and traveled in
California, Nevada, Oregon and Washington Territory several months,
speaking at conventions held in San Francisco and Sacramento,
besides lecturing in all the principal towns, winning for herself
great praise, and a deeper respect for the cause she so ably
represented. A complimentary banquet was tendered her in San
Francisco on the eve of her departure eastward, at which eighty
guests, distinguished in art, literature and social life, sat down
to a sumptuous collation spread in the Grand Hotel.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_757" id="Page_757">[Pg 757]</a></span></p>

<p>In the early part of that year, 1871, Hon. A. A. Sargent and wife
returned to California from Washington, his term as representative
having expired, and both took an active part in the work of woman's
political enfranchisement. Mr. Sargent, with commendable bravery,
which under the circumstances was indeed a test of courage,
delivered an address in favor of woman suffrage at a convention
held in San Francisco, just on the eve of an important political
campaign, in which he was a candidate for reëlection to congress,
and also to the United States Senate. Of course, those opposed to
woman suffrage tried to make capital out of it against him, but
without avail, for that able and distinguished statesman was
elected to both offices, his term as representative expiring before
he would be called upon to take his seat in the United States
Senate. His noble wife, Ellen Clark Sargent, took an active
interest in all the woman suffrage meetings, and in November, 1871,
was appointed, as was also Mrs. Gordon, to represent California in
the National convention to be held in Washington in January, 1872.</p>

<p>During the session of the California legislature in 1871-2 a
delegation from the State Society visited Sacramento and was
accorded a hearing in the Assembly-chamber before the Judiciary
Committee of that body. Addresses were made by Mrs. Pitts Stevens,
Mrs. A. A. Haskell, Mrs. E. A. H. DeWolf and Hon. John A. Collins.</p>

<p>During the session of 1873-4 a bill was passed by the legislature
making women eligible to school offices, and also one which
provided that all women employed in the public schools should
receive the same compensation as men holding the same grade
certificates.</p>

<p>Mrs. Laura Morton has filled and ably discharged the office of
assistant State librarian for the past ten years. Mrs. Mandeville
was deputy-controller during the Democratic administration of
Governor Irwin, and proved herself fully capable of discharging the
duties of that responsible office; while for several years women
have been elected to various positions in the legislature and
employed as clerks.</p>

<p>July 10, 1873, the Woman Suffrage Society was incorporated under
the laws of the State, with Mrs. Sarah Wallis, president. Mrs.
Clara S. Foltz, a brilliant young woman who had begun the study of
law in San José, knew the statutes permitted no woman to be
admitted to the bar, and early in the session of 1877 drafted a
bill amending the code in favor of women, and sent it to Senator
Murphy of Santa Clara to be presented. Five years before this,
however, Mrs. Nettie Tator had applied for admission to the bar at
Santa Cruz. A committee of prominent attorneys appointed by the
court examined her qualifications as a lawyer. She passed
creditably and was unanimously recommended by the committee, when
it was discovered that the law would not admit women to that
learned profession.</p>

<p>Following the presentation of Mrs. Foltz' bill, Mrs. Knox Goodrich,
Laura Watkins, Mrs. Wallis and Laura De Force Gordon were appointed
by the State Society a committee to visit Sacramento during the
session and use their influence to secure the passage of the
"Woman's Lawyer Bill," as it was termed, and to petition for
suffrage. Mrs. Gordon, who<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_758" id="Page_758">[Pg 758]</a></span> was also reading law, was in Sacramento
as editorial correspondent for her paper, the <i>Daily Democrat</i> of
Oakland, and had ample opportunity to render valuable service to
the cause she had so much at heart. The bill passed the Senate by a
vote of 22 to 9, being ably advocated by Senators N. Green Curtis,
Judge Niles Searles of Nevada county, Creed Haymond of Sacramento,
and Joseph Craig of Yolo. In the Assembly, after weeks of tedious
delay and almost endless debate, the bill was indefinitely
postponed by a majority of one. By the persistent efforts of
Assemblymen Grove L. Johnson of Sacramento, R. W. Murphy, Charles
Gildea and Dr. May of San Francisco, the bill was brought up on
reconsideration and passed by two majority. The session was within
three days of its close, and so bitter was the opposition to the
bill that an effort was made to prevent its engrossment in time to
be presented for the governor's signature. The women and their
allies, who were on the watch for tricks, defeated the scheme of
their enemies and had the bill duly presented to Governor Irwin,
but not till the last day of the session. Then the suspense became
painful to those most interested lest it might not receive his
approval. Mrs. Gordon, as editor of a Democratic journal, asserted
her claims to some recognition from that party and strongly urged
that a Democratic governor should sign the bill. Aided by a
personal appeal from Senator Niles Searles to his excellency, her
efforts were crowned with success; the governor's message sent to
the Senate, when the hands of the clock pointed to fifteen minutes
of twelve, midnight (at which hour the president's gavel would
descend with the words adjourning the Senate <i>sine die</i>), announced
that Senate bill number 66, which permitted the admission of women
to all the courts of the State, had received his approval. There
was great rejoicing over this victory among the friends everywhere,
though the battle was not yet ended.</p>

<p>The same legislature had passed a bill accepting the munificent
donation to the State of $100,000 from Judge Hastings to found the
Hastings College of Law, on condition that it be the law department
of the State University, and the college was duly opened for the
admission of students. At the beginning of the December term Mrs.
Foltz, who had been admitted to the District Court in San José
(being the first woman ever admitted to any court in the State),
came to San Francisco, and with Mrs. Gordon applied for admission
to the law college. The dean, Judge Hastings, himself opposed to
women being received as students, told them it was a matter that
must be laid before the board of directors, but that they could
attend the lectures <i>ad interim</i>. Three days later they were
informed that their application had been denied. Satisfied that the
law was in their favor, they immediately appealed to the courts. To
save time Mrs. Gordon applied to the Supreme Court and Mrs. Foltz
to the District Court, simultaneously, for a writ of mandamus to
compel the directors to act in obedience to the law which, the
petitioners claimed, did not discriminate against women in founding
the State University or its departments. The Supreme Court, wishing
perhaps to shirk the responsibility of acting in the first
instance, sent their petitioner, Mrs. Gordon, to the lower court,
which had in the meantime ordered the writ<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_759" id="Page_759">[Pg 759]</a></span> to issue for Mrs.
Foltz; so it was decided to make hers the test-case, and by the
courtesy of Judge Morrison, now chief-justice of the Supreme Court,
Mrs. Gordon was joined with Mrs. Foltz in the prosecution of the
cause. The board of directors of the college consisted of the
chief-justice of the Supreme Bench and seven other lawyers, among
the most distinguished and able in the State. The case attracted
great attention and deep interest was taken in the proceedings.
Judges Lake and Cope, who were ex-justices of the Supreme Court,
assisted by T. B. Bishop, another learned practitioner at the bar,
were arrayed as counsel for the defense against these comparatively
young students in the law, who appeared unaided in their own
behalf. After one of the most interesting legal contests in the
history of the State these women came off victors, and the
good-natured public, through the press, offered them
congratulations. But the defendants would not yield without a
stubborn resistance and carried their cause on appeal to the
Supreme Court; hence many months elapsed before the final struggle
came, but victory again rewarded the petitioners, the Supreme Court
deciding that women <i>should</i> be admitted to the law department of
the State University. Although excluded from the benefit of the
lectures in the college, Mesdames Gordon and Foltz had improved
their time in study, and in December, 1879, both were admitted to
the Supreme Court of the State, after a thorough examination.</p>

<p>Prior to this legal contest, in the summer of 1878, when delegates
to the constitutional convention were to be elected, Mrs. Gordon,
urged by her friends in San Joaquin county, became an independent
candidate only a week or two before the election. With Mrs. Foltz
she made a very brief though brilliant canvass, attracting larger
and more enthusiastic audiences than any other speaker. Mrs. Gordon
received several hundred votes for the office, and felt compensated
for the time and money spent by the great interest awakened in the
subject of woman suffrage.</p>

<p>As soon as the constitutional convention assembled in September,
Mrs. Gordon, although still pursuing her legal studies, was able as
a newspaper correspondent to closely watch the deliberations of
that body and urge the insertion of a woman suffrage clause in the
new organic law. The State Society delegated Mrs. Knox Goodrich,
Mrs. Sarah Wallis and Mrs. Watkins to join Mrs. Gordon in pressing
the claims of woman, but the opposition was too strong and the
suffrage clause remained declaring male citizens entitled to vote,
though a section in the bill of rights, together with other
provisions in the new constitution, renders it quite probable that
the legislature has the right to enfranchise women without having
to amend the organic law. At all events the new instrument is far
more favorable to women than the old, as will now be shown. The
agitation of the question of the admission of women to the Law
College, which began during the session of the convention, led that
body to incorporate the following provision in the constitution:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article II., Sec. 18.</span> No person shall be debarred admission to
any of the collegiate departments of the State University on
account of sex. </p></blockquote>

<p>Remembering the hard struggle by which the right to practice law
had been secured to women, and the danger of leaving it to the
caprice of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_760" id="Page_760">[Pg 760]</a></span> future legislatures, Mrs. Gordon drafted a clause which
protects women in all lawful vocations, and by persistent effort
succeeded in getting it inserted in the new constitution, as
follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article XX., Sec. 18.</span> No person shall, on account of sex, be
disqualified from entering upon or pursuing any lawful business,
vocation or profession. </p></blockquote>

<p>The adoption of this clause, so valuable to women, was mainly
accomplished by the skillful diplomacy of Hon. Charles S. Ringgold,
delegate from San Francisco, who introduced it in the convention
and worked faithfully for its adoption. Thus California stands
to-day one of the first States in the Union, as regards the
educational, industrial and property rights of women, and the
probability of equal political rights being secured to them at an
early day, is conceded by the most conservative.</p>

<p>About the time Mrs. Foltz and Mrs. Gordon were admitted to the bar,
they, as chief officers of the State W. S. S. (incorporated),
called a convention in San Francisco. It convened in February,
1880, and was well attended. Mrs. Sargent took an active part in
the meetings, occupied the chair as president <i>pro tem.</i>, and
subsequently spoke of the work done by the National Association in
Washington. Several prominent officials, unable to be present, sent
letters heartily endorsing our claims; among these were Governor
Perkins, State Senator Chace, and A. M. Crane, judge of the
Superior Court. Addresses were delivered by Judge Swift, Marian
Todd and Mrs. Thorndyke of Los Angeles, Judge Palmer of Nevada
city, and others. The newspapers of the city, though still hostile
to the object of the convention, gave very fair reports. In
September following, the annual meeting of the society was held,
and made particularly interesting by the fact that the proposed new
city charter, which contained a clause proscriptive of women, was
denounced, and a plan of action agreed upon whereby its defeat
should be secured, if possible, at the coming election. The women
worked assiduously against the adoption of the city charter, and
rejoiced to see it rejected by a large majority.</p>

<p>The following facts in regard to the constitution and statute laws
of California were sent us by the Hon. A. A. Sargent:</p>

<blockquote><p>In 1879, California adopted a new constitution, by means of a
constitutional convention. It was an unfortunate time for such
organic legislation, for the reason that the State was rife at
the time with the agitation of "sand-lotters," as they were
called, a violent faction which assailed property rights and
demanded extreme concessions to labor. The balance of power in
the constitutional convention was held by persons elected by this
element, and resulted in a constitution extraordinary in some of
its features, but which was adopted by the people after a fierce
contest.</p>

<p>Women fared badly at the hands of these constitution-makers, so
far as suffrage is concerned. Section 1, article 2, confirms the
right of voting to "every native male citizen," and "every male
naturalized citizen," although a heroic effort was made by the
friends of woman suffrage to keep out the word "male." But
section 18, article <span class="smcap">XX</span>., provides that "no person shall, on
account of sex, be disqualified from entering upon or pursuing
any lawful business, vocation or profession."</p>

<p>Some years before, the State had adopted a "civil code," which
was abreast of the world in liberality to women. This code
discarded the idea of any servility in the relation of the wife
to the husband. This code is still the law, and provides, in
effect, that husband and wife contract toward each other
obligations of mutual respect, fidelity and support. The husband
is the head of the family, and may choose any<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_761" id="Page_761">[Pg 761]</a></span> reasonable place
and mode of life, and the wife must conform thereto. Neither has
any interest in the property of the other, and neither can be
excluded from the other's dwelling. Either may enter into any
engagement or transaction with the other, or with any other
person, respecting property, which either might if unmarried.
They may hold property as tenants in common or otherwise, with
each other, and with others. All property of the wife owned by
her before marriage, and acquired afterwards by gift, devise,
bequest or descent, with the rents, issues and profit thereof, is
her separate property, and she may convey the same without his
consent. All property acquired after marriage is community
property. The earnings of the wife are not liable for the debts
of the husband. Her earnings, and those of minor children in her
custody, are her separate property. A married woman may dispose
of her separate property by will, without the consent of her
husband, as if she were single. One-half of the community
property goes absolutely to the wife, on the death of the
husband, and cannot be diverted by his testamentary disposition.
A married woman can carry on business in her own name, on
complying with certain formalities, and her stock, capital and
earnings are not liable to her husband's creditors, or his
intermeddling. The husband and father, as such, has no rights
superior to those of the wife and mother, in regard to the care,
custody, education and control of the children of their marriage,
while such husband and wife live separate and apart from each
other.</p>

<p>The foregoing exhibits the spirit of the California law. It is
believed by friends of woman suffrage that had the convention
been held under normal conditions, the word "male" might have
been eliminated from that instrument. </p></blockquote>

<p>Several creditable attempts were early made in journalism. In 1855
Mrs. S. M. Clark published the weekly <i>Contra Costa</i> in Oakland. In
1858, <i>The Hesperian</i>, a semi-monthly magazine, was issued in San
Francisco, Mrs. Hermione Day and Mrs. A. M. Shultz, editors. It was
quite an able periodical,<a name="FNanchor_505_505" id="FNanchor_505_505"></a><a href="#Footnote_505_505" class="fnanchor">[505]</a> and finally passed into the hands of
Elizabeth T. Schenck.</p>

<p>As journalists and printers, women have met with encouraging
success. The most prominent among them is Laura DeForce Gordon, who
began the publication of the <i>Daily Leader</i> at Stockton in 1873,
continued afterward at Oakland as the <i>Daily Democrat</i>, until 1878.
In Geo. P. Rowell's <i>Newspaper Reporter</i> for 1874, the <i>Stockton
Leader</i> is announced as "the only daily newspaper in the world
edited and published by a woman." Mrs. Boyer, known as "Dora
Darmoor," published different magazines and journals in San
Francisco during a period of several years, the most successful
being the <i>Golden Dawn</i>. Mrs. Theresa Corlett has been connected
with various leading journals of San Francisco, and is well known
as a brilliant and interesting writer. Miss Madge Morris has not
only made a place for herself in light literature, but has been
acting-clerk in the legislature for several sessions. Mrs. Sarah M.
Clark published a volume entitled "Teachings of the Ages"; Mrs.
Josephine Wolcott, a volume of poems, called "The World of Song."</p>

<p>Mrs. Amanda Slocum Reed, one of our most efficient advocates of
suffrage, has proved her executive ability, and capacity for
business, by the management of a large printing and publishing
establishment for several years. The liberal magazine called
<i>Common Sense</i>, was published by her and her husband&mdash;most of its
original contents the product of her pen;<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_762" id="Page_762">[Pg 762]</a></span> and when the radicalism
of her husband caused the suspension of that journal in 1878, Mrs.
Slocum began the publication of <i>Roll Call</i>, a temperance magazine
which was mainly edited by her gifted little daughter Clara, only
fifteen years old, who also set all the type. Among the earliest
printers of California was Lyle Lester. She established a printing
office in San Francisco in 1860, in which she employed a large
number of girls and women as compositors. Miss Delia Murphy&mdash;now
Mrs. Dearing&mdash;ranks with the best printers in San Francisco, and
several women in various portions of the State have taken like
standing. "Mrs. Richmond &amp; Son," is the novel sign which decorates
the front of a large printing establishment on Montgomery street,
San Francisco, known for many years as the "Woman's Coöperative
Printing Company," but which, in fact, was always an individual
enterprise. Mrs. Augusta DeForce Cluff has entered upon her seventh
year in practical journalism as publisher of a sprightly weekly,
the <i>Valley Review</i>, at Lodi, in which enterprise she has met with
remarkable success, being a superior business manager as well as a
facile and talented writer. Some of her little poems have great
merit. Mrs. Cluff and Mrs. Gordon have both filled official
positions in the Pacific Coast Press Association. Miss Mary
Bogardus, the gifted young daughter of that pioneer journalist, H.
B. Bogardus, editor of <i>Figaro</i>, is her father's main assistant in
all the business of his office. Mrs. Wittingham has been elected
postmaster of the State Senate several terms, and is at present
employed in the U. S. branch mint in San Francisco.</p>

<p>One of the most meritorious and successful enterprises occupying
the attention of the women of California, is the silk culture,
which promises to develop into one of the dominant industries of
the nation. Mrs. G. H. Hittel first brought the subject into public
notice by able articles on the cultivation of the mulberry tree,
published in various journals. In 1880 she formed the Ladies' Silk
Culture Society of California. This association like its
predecessor, the first Woman Suffrage Society, was organized and
held its meetings in private parlors for a time, but it soon
required more room. Men have been taken into membership since the
object for which the society was formed seemed to be feasible, and,
as a natural result, whatever of financial and honorary reward may
be accorded the self-sacrificing women who performed the arduous
and thankless labor of founding the institution, will be shared
with the men who now come into the work.</p>

<p>During the session of the legislature of 1883, a committee was
appointed to ask an appropriation from the State for the purpose of
establishing a Filature or free silk-reeling school. After
considerable delay the committee called to their aid Mrs. Gordon,
and asked her to visit the State capital and see what could be
done. The session was rapidly drawing to a close, and even the
warmest friends of the measure feared that it was too late to
accomplish anything. But happily the bill was got through both
branches of the legislature and sent to the governor the last hour
of the session. By its provisions a State Board of Silk Culture was
created consisting of nine members, five of whom were to be women,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_763" id="Page_763">[Pg 763]</a></span>
and the sum of $7,500 was appropriated. Thus women have begun and
are now fostering a great industrial enterprise which in the near
future will give to millions of hitherto unemployed or ill-paid
women and children an occupation peculiarly suited to them, and
which will add millions of dollars annually to the revenue of the
country. Mrs. Florence Kimball of San Diego county was appointed a
member of the State Board of Silk Commissioners by Governor
Stoneman in 1883.</p>

<p>Since the expiration of their term as superintendents of the public
schools of the State, Dr. and Mrs. James Carr have made their home
in that loveliest spot of southern California&mdash;Passadena, where,
overlooking rich orange groves and luxurious vineyards, they enjoy
the blessings of prosperity, and where Mrs. Carr, with her
ambitious, active nature, finds congenial employment in
demonstrating what woman can accomplish in silk-culture,
raisin-making, and the crystalizing of fruit.</p>

<p>Miss Austen, formerly a teacher in the public schools of San
Francisco, has a vineyard at Fresno, where she employs women and
girls to prepare all her considerable crop of raisins for market,
conceded to be of the best quality produced in the State. Mrs.
Ellen McConnell Wilson of Sacramento county, from the small
beginning, twenty years ago, of 320 acres of land, and less than
1,000 sheep, has now over 5,000 acres of rich farming land and
6,000 sheep. Mrs. H. P. Gregory of Sacramento, left a widow with a
large family of little children, succeeded her husband in the
shipping and commission business in which he was engaged on a small
scale. From such a beginning, Mrs. Gregory has built up one of the
largest trades in that city, and has by judicious investments in
real estate acquired property of a value exceeding $100,000,
besides having reared and educated her numerous family.</p>

<p>Mrs. Elizabeth Hill was one of the early settlers in Calaveras
county, where her husband located land on the Mokelumne river near
Camanche in 1855. Six years after she was left a widow with four
little children. The support of the family devolved upon the
mother, and she engaged in cultivating the land, adding thereto
several hundred acres. In 1877 Mrs. Hill began the cultivation of
the Persian-insect-powder plant, known to commerce as Buhach. So
successful has this venture proved that she has now over 200 acres
planted to that shrub, and manufactures each year about fifteen
tons of the Buhach powder, for which she finds a ready sale. The
number of women who have supported their families (often including
the husband), and acquired a competency in boarding and
lodging-house keeping, dressmaking, millinery, type-setting,
painting, fancy work, stock-dealing, and even in manufacturing and
mercantile pursuits, is legion.</p>

<p>In regard to the position of women in medicine, Miss Elizabeth
Sargent, M. D., writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>Women are admitted on equal terms with men to the medical and
dental departments of the State University, and to the Cooper
Medical College of San Francisco. Women are also eligible to
membership in the State and various county medical associations,
as well as in the dental association. There are in the State 73
women who have been recognized by the authorities as qualified to
practice. They may be classified as follows: Practitioners of
regular medicine, 30, 16 of whom are established in San
Francisco; eclectics, 22, 9 in San Francisco; hom&oelig;opathists,
21, 2 in San Francisco.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_764" id="Page_764">[Pg 764]</a></span> Among these physicians two make a
specialty of the eye and ear, one in San Francisco and one in San
José. Two women have been graduated from the State Dental
College, located in San Francisco. In April, 1875, the Pacific
Dispensary Hospital for women and children was founded by women.
In 1881 a training-school for nurses was added. The hospital
department, although admitting women, is intended especially for
children, and is the only children's hospital on the coast. The
dispensary is for out-patients, both women and children. The
board of ten directors, the resident and attending physicians of
the hospital, and five out of the seven connected with the
dispensary are women. From a small beginning the institution has
increased to importance, and bids fair to continue in its present
prosperity and capacity for good work. I have written thus
lengthily that you may see how energetic our women have been in
originating and carrying on such an institution. </p></blockquote>

<p>The most prominent literary woman of the coast is undoubtedly Miss
M. W. Shinn. She is a graduate of our State University and was the
medal scholar of her class. At present she is the editor of the
<i>Overland Monthly</i>, and the excellent prospects of the magazine are
largely the result of her own courage and the hard work she has
done.</p>

<p>The higher education in the State is being put upon a secure basis.
Hon. Leland Stanford and his wife, Jane Lathrop Stanford, have
recently given a great part of their vast fortune for the
establishment of a university which bids fair to be the foremost
educational institution on the continent. In a letter specifying
his views in regard to the management of the university, Governor
Stanford says:</p>

<blockquote><p>We deem it of the first importance that the education of both
sexes shall be equally full and complete, varied only as nature
dictates. The rights of one sex, political and other, are the
same as those of the other sex, and this equality of rights ought
to be fully recognized. </p></blockquote>

<p>There are many men and women throughout the State who have
faithfully advocated political equality for all citizens.<a name="FNanchor_506_506" id="FNanchor_506_506"></a><a href="#Footnote_506_506" class="fnanchor">[506]</a></p>

<p>Mendocino county has the honor of claiming as a citizen, one of the
earliest and ablest women in this reform, Clarina Howard Nichols,
who may be said to have sown the seeds of liberty in three States
in which she has resided, Vermont, Kansas and California. Since
1870, her home has been with a son in Pomo, where she finished her
heroic life January 11, 1885. Though always in rather straitened
circumstances, Mrs. Nichols was uniformly calm and cheerful, living
in an atmosphere above the petty annoyances of every-day life with
the great souls of our day and generation, keeping time in the
march of progress. She was too much absorbed in the vital questions
of the hour even to take note of her personal discomforts. Many of
her able articles published in magazines and the journals of the
day, and letters from year to year to our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_765" id="Page_765">[Pg 765]</a></span> conventions, were
written in such conditions of weakness and suffering, as only a
hero could have overcome. She was a good writer, an effective
speaker, and a preëminently brave woman, gifted with that rarest of
all virtues, common sense.</p>

<p>The advocacy of woman's rights began in Santa Cruz county, with the
advent of that grand champion of her sex, the immortal Eliza
Farnham, who braved public scorn and contumely because of her
advanced views, for many years before the suffrage movement assumed
organized form. Mrs. Farnham's work rendered it possible for those
advocating woman suffrage years later, to do so with comparative
immunity from public ridicule. A society was organized there in
1869, and Rev. D. G. Ingraham, E. B. Heacock, H. M. Blackburn, Mrs.
Georgiana Bruce Kirby, Mrs. Van Valkenburgh, W. W. Broughton and
wife, and Mrs. Jewell were active members.</p>

<p>Prominent in Santa Clara county is Mrs. Sarah Wallis of Mayfield.
From the first agitation of the subject in 1868, when she entered
heartily into the work of getting subscribers to <i>The Revolution</i>,
she has been untiring in her efforts to advance the interests of
women. A lady of fine presence, great energy and perseverance, Mrs.
Wallis has been able to accomplish great good for her sex. With a
large separate estate, when the statutes prevented her as a married
woman from managing it, she determined that the laws should be
changed, and never ceased her efforts until she succeeded in
getting an amendment to the civil code which enables married women
to make contracts. The most successful suffrage meetings ever held
in Santa Clara county have been at Mayfield. There Mrs. Wallis and
her husband, Judge Joseph S. Wallace, make their spacious and
luxurious home the rendezvous of lecturers and writers in the great
work of woman's emancipation.</p>

<p>Mrs. Sarah Knox Goodrich of San José, was among the first to see
the significance of the movement for woman's rights in 1868. Her
husband, William J. Knox, who shortly before his death had been
State senator, secured the passage of a bill, drafted by himself,
giving to married women the right to dispose of their own separate
property by will. Having been from her youth the cherished
companion of a man who believed in the equality of the sexes, and
being herself a thoughtful, clear-headed person, she naturally took
her place with those whose aim was the social and political
emancipation of woman, and has stood from the first a tower of
strength in this cause, giving largely of her wealth for the
propagation of its doctrines. Mrs. Knox Goodrich has for many years
paid her taxes, sometimes exorbitant, under protest, and at
important elections has also offered her vote, to have it refused.
The county suffrage society has had an untiring leader in Mrs.
Goodrich, and on all occasions she has nerved the weak and
encouraged the timid by her example of unflinching devotion. The
following extracts from a letter written by the lady will show how
effective her work has been:</p>

<blockquote><p>In 1872, our society was invited to take part in the Fourth of
July celebration, which we did, and had the handsomest carriages
and more of them than any other society in the procession. We
paid our own expenses, although the city had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_766" id="Page_766">[Pg 766]</a></span> made an
appropriation for the celebration. In 1876 we were not invited to
take part in the festivities, but some of us felt that on such a
day, our centennial anniversary, we should not be ignored.
Accordingly I started out to see what could be done, but finding
some of our most active friends ill and others absent from home,
I decided to do what I could alone. I had mottoes from the grand
declarations of the Fathers painted and put on my house, which
the procession would pass on two sides.</p>

<p>Some of our most prominent ladies seeing that I was determined to
make a manifestation, drove with me in the procession, our
carriage and horses decorated with flags, the ladies wearing
sashes of red, white and blue, and bearing banners with mottoes
and evergreens. A little daughter of Mrs. Clara Foltz, the
lawyer, dressed in red, white and blue, was seated in the center
of the carriage, carrying a white banner with silver fringe, a
small flag at the top with a silver star above that, with
streamers of red, white and blue floating from it, and in the
center, in letters large enough to be seen some distance, the one
word "Hope." On my flag the motto was: "We are Taxed without
being Represented"; Mrs. Maria H. Weldon's, "We are the
disfranchised Class"; Mrs. Marion Hooker's, "The Class entitled
to respectful Consideration"; and Miss Hannah Millard's, "We are
governed without our Consent." On the front of my house in large
letters was the motto: "Taxation without Representation is
Tyranny as much in 1876, as it was in 1776"; on the other side
was, "We are Denied the Ballot, but Compelled to Pay Taxes";
fronting the other side was, "Governments Derive their Just
Powers from the Consent of the Governed." Mrs. McKee also had the
last motto on her house. On the evening of July 3, after we had
all our preparations completed, we sent to one of the marshals
and asked him to give us a place in the procession <i>next to the
negroes</i>, as we wished to let our legal protectors have a
practical illustration of the position occupied by their mothers,
wives, sisters and daughters in this boasted republic. We <i>did</i>
want to go in, however, <i>ahead of the Chinamen</i>, as we considered
our position at present to be between the two. The marshal
willingly assigned us a place, but not the one we desired. "We
cannot allow you," said he, "to occupy such a position. You must
go in front, next to the Pioneer Association"; and being in part
members of that society we accepted the decision. Our carriage
was the center of attraction. Many, after reading our mottoes,
said: "Well, ladies, we will help you to get your rights"; "It is
a shame for you to be taxed and not have the right to vote."
Hundreds of people stood and read the mottoes on the house,
making their comments, both grave and gay: "Good for Mrs. Knox";
"She is right"; "If I were in her place I would never pay a tax";
"I guess one of the strong-minded lives here." </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Knox was married to Mr. Goodrich, the well-known architect, in
1878, in whom she has found a grand, noble-souled companion, fully
in sympathy with all her progressive views, and with whom she is
passing the advancing years of her well-spent life in luxury and
unalloyed happiness.</p>

<p>Mrs. Van Valkenburg tried to vote under the claim that the
fourteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States
entitled her to registration, and being refused, brought suit
against the registrars. The case was decided against her after
being carried to the Supreme Court of California. These cases
argued in the Supreme Court have been of inestimable value in the
progress of the movement, lifting the question of woman's rights as
a citizen above the mists of ridicule and prejudice, into the
region of reason and constitutional law. We cannot too highly
appreciate the bravery and persistence of the few women who have
furnished these test cases and compelled the highest courts to
record their decisions. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_496_496" id="Footnote_496_496"></a><a href="#FNanchor_496_496"><span class="label">[496]</span></a> Having spent several days with Mrs. Schenck, in her
cozy, artistic home surrounded with a hedge of brilliant geraniums,
I can readily testify to the many virtues and attractions her large
circle of friends has always accorded her. From all I had heard I
was prepared to find Mrs. Schenck a woman of remarkable cultivation
and research, and I was not disappointed. Refined, honorable in her
feeling, clear in her judgments of men and measures, just and
upright In all her words and actions, she was indeed the fitting
leader for the uprising of women on the Pacific Slope. The
preparation of this chapter occupied the last year of her life, her
one wish to live was to complete the task, but when her failing
powers made that impossible she charged her friend Mrs. Manning,
with whom she resided, to take up the work that had fallen from her
hands and make a fair record of all that had been done and said, by
her noble coädjutors, who had labored so faithfully to inaugurate
the greatest reform of the century.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_497_497" id="Footnote_497_497"></a><a href="#FNanchor_497_497"><span class="label">[497]</span></a> Among them are Laura Fowler, Kate Kennedy, Mary N.
Wadleigh, Trinity County; Anna L. Spencer, Alpine; Mrs. D. M.
Coleman, Shasta; Miss A. L. Irish, Mono; Los Angeles City Board of
Education has three women out of its five members, to-wit., Mrs. C.
B. Jones (chairman), Mrs. M. A. Hodgkins (secretary), Mrs. M.
Graham. Oakland Board, Miss A. Aldrich; Sacramento, Charlotte
Slater; San Jose, Mrs. B. L. Hollenbeck. Sister Mary Frances of the
order of "Sisters of Charity" came to California in 1849, and
devoted her great energies, and rare accomplishments, to the cause
of education up to the time of her demise in April, 1881. Annie
Haven, Miss Prince, Miss Austin, and a host of others have been
successful in the same field of labor, including Miss Merweidel,
founder of the kindergarten system in San Francisco.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_498_498" id="Footnote_498_498"></a><a href="#FNanchor_498_498"><span class="label">[498]</span></a> Among them were Mrs. Sarah Wallis of Mayfield, Mrs.
E. T. Schenck, Mrs. L. M. Clarke, Emily Pitts (afterwards Mrs.
Stevens of San Francisco).</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_499_499" id="Footnote_499_499"></a><a href="#FNanchor_499_499"><span class="label">[499]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Elizabeth T. Schenck; <i>Vice-President</i>,
Emily Pitts Stevens; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. Hutchinson;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Celia Curtis; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. S.
J. Corbett.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_500_500" id="Footnote_500_500"></a><a href="#FNanchor_500_500"><span class="label">[500]</span></a> The following persons were present: Mrs. E. T.
Schenck, president of Woman Suffrage Associasion of San Francisco;
Mrs. E. Pitts Stevens, Mrs. Celia Curtis, Mrs. Walton, Mrs. Watson,
Mrs. S. J. Corbett, M. D.; Mary Collins, Mrs. E. P. Meade, M. D.;
Mrs. Alpheus Bull, Mrs. James S. Bush, Mrs. S. M. Clarke, Mrs.
Judge Shafter, Mrs. Judge Burke, Mrs. Thomas Varney, Mrs. R. B.
Swain, Mrs. Carlton Curtis, Mrs. T. Richardson, Mrs. I. W. Hobson,
Mrs. Smythe, Mrs. J. W. Stow, Mrs. C. G. Ames, Mrs. Barry and 30
others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_501_501" id="Footnote_501_501"></a><a href="#FNanchor_501_501"><span class="label">[501]</span></a> Rev. C. G. Ames, San Francisco; Mrs. S. S. Allyn,
Oakland; Mrs. Sarah Wallis, Mayfield; Mrs. Bowman, Sacramento; Mrs.
Georgiana Bruce Kirby, Santa Cruz; Mrs. Fannie Kingsbury, San
Diego; Mrs. Elmira Eddy, Nevada; Mrs. A. A. Haskell, Petaluma;
Minnie H. McKee, Santa Clara.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_502_502" id="Footnote_502_502"></a><a href="#FNanchor_502_502"><span class="label">[502]</span></a> See Appendix to California chapter.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_503_503" id="Footnote_503_503"></a><a href="#FNanchor_503_503"><span class="label">[503]</span></a> At the close of the convention a State society was
organized, with the following officers: <i>President</i>, Mrs. A. A.
Haskell of Petaluma; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. J. W. McComb of San
Francisco, Mrs. Denio of Solano, Mrs. Kingsbury of San Diego, Mrs.
E. J. Hall of Los Angeles, Mrs. Eddy of Nevada, Mrs. Lewis of
Sacramento, Mrs. Kirby of Santa Cruz, Mrs. Agnes Eager of Alameda,
Mrs. Watkins of Santa Clara, Mrs. L. D. Latimer of Sonoma;
<i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. Minnie McKee of Santa Clara. <i>Board of Control</i>,
Mrs. C. H. Spear, Mrs. C. G. Ames, Mrs. Minnie Edwards, Mrs. Celia
Curtis, Miss Laura Fowler, Mr. John A. Collins, Miss Kate Atkinson,
Mrs. Pitts Stevens.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_504_504" id="Footnote_504_504"></a><a href="#FNanchor_504_504"><span class="label">[504]</span></a> Mrs. Kingsbury of San Diego, Mrs. H. F. M. Brown,
Addie L. Ballou, Paulina Roberts, Mrs. C. H. Spear, Laura Cuppy
Smith, Mrs. F. A. Logan, M. D., Mrs. C. M. Churchill, John A.
Collins, and a large number of local speakers, who aided in
organizing societies, or in keeping up the interest in those
already formed.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_505_505" id="Footnote_505_505"></a><a href="#FNanchor_505_505"><span class="label">[505]</span></a> Chief among its contributors were Eliza W. Farnham,
Sarah M. Clark, Amanda Simonton Page, Mrs. M. D. Strong, Fanny
Green, Annie K. Fader, Eliza A. Pittsinger, Mrs. James Neal, Mrs.
Elizabeth Williams.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_506_506" id="Footnote_506_506"></a><a href="#FNanchor_506_506"><span class="label">[506]</span></a> Among the many who have been active and faithful in
the movement for the political rights of women, whose names should
be mentioned, are: Mrs. Eliza Taylor, Mrs. O. Fuller, Elizabeth
McComb, Dr. Laura P. Williams, Mrs. Dr. White, Sallie Hart, Dr. R.
H. McDonald, Hon. Frank Pixley, and many others in <i>San Francisco</i>;
Fanny Green McDougal, <i>Oakland</i>; Mrs. Phebe Benedict, <i>Antioch</i>;
Mrs. Isabella Irwin, <i>San Rafael</i>; Mrs. Cynthia Palmer, Mrs. Emily
Rolfe, <i>Nevada City</i>; Mrs. Elizabeth Condy, <i>Stockton</i>; Miss E. S.
Sleeper, <i>Mountain View</i>; Mrs. Laura J. Watkins, Mrs. Damon, <i>Santa
Clara</i>; Mrs. Dr. Kilpatrick, <i>San Mateo</i>; Mrs. S. G. Waterhouse,
Drs. Kellogg and Bearby, Mrs. M. J. Young, Mrs. E. B. Crocker, and
others, <i>Sacramento</i>; Mrs. Mary Jewett, Mr. and Mrs. Howell,
<i>Healdsburgh</i>; Mrs. Lattimer, <i>Windsor</i>; Mr. and Mrs. Denio, Mrs.
E. L. Hale, <i>Vallejo</i>; Mrs. J. Lewellyn, Mrs. Potter, <i>St. Helena</i>;
Mr. and Mrs. J. Egglesson, <i>Napa</i>; Henry and Abigail Bush,
<i>Martinez</i>; Rowena Granice Steele, <i>Merced</i>; Mrs. Jennie Phelps
Purvis, Mrs. Lapham and daughter, <i>Modesto</i>.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_767" id="Page_767">[Pg 767]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LIV" id="CHAPTER_LIV"></a>CHAPTER LIV.</h2>

<h3>THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>The Long Marches Westward&mdash;Abigail Scott Duniway&mdash;Mary Olney
Brown&mdash;The First Steps in Oregon&mdash;Col. C. A. Reed&mdash;Judge G. W.
Lawson&mdash;1870&mdash;The New Northwest, 1871&mdash;Campaign, Mrs. Duniway and
Miss Anthony&mdash;They Address the Legislature in Washington
Territory&mdash;Hon. Elwood Evans&mdash;Suffrage Society Organized at
Olympia and at Portland&mdash;Before the Oregon Legislature&mdash;Donation
Land Act&mdash;Hon. Samuel Corwin's Suffrage Bill&mdash;Married Woman's
<i>Sole</i> Traders' Bill&mdash;Temperance Alliance&mdash;Women Rejected&mdash;Major
Williams Fights their Battles and Triumphs&mdash;Mrs. H. A.
Loughary&mdash;Progressive Legislation, 1874&mdash;Mob-Law in Jacksonville,
1879&mdash;Dr. Mary A. Thompson&mdash;Constitutional Convention,
1878&mdash;Woman Suffrage Bill, 1880&mdash;Hon. W. C. Fulton&mdash;Women
Enfranchised in Washington Territory, Nov. 15, 1883&mdash;Great
Rejoicing, Bonfires, Ratification Meetings&mdash;Constitutional
Amendment Submitted in Oregon and Lost, June, 1884&mdash;Suffrage by
Legislative Enactment Lost&mdash;Fourth of July Celebrated at
Vancouvers&mdash;Benjamin and Mary Olney Brown&mdash;Washington
Territory&mdash;Legislation in 1867-68 Favorable to Women&mdash;Mrs. Brown
Attempts to Vote and is Refused&mdash;Charlotte Olney French&mdash;Women
Vote at Grand Mound and Black River Precincts,
1870&mdash;Retrogressive Legislation, 1871&mdash;Abby H. Stuart in
Land-Office&mdash;Hon. William H. White&mdash;Idaho and Montana. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">In</span> the spring of 1852, when the great <i>furor</i> for going West was at
its height, in the long trails of miners, merchants and farmers
wending their way in ox-carts and canvas-covered wagons over the
vast plains, mountains and rivers, two remarkable women, then in
the flush of youth, might have been seen; one, Abigail Scott
Duniway, destined to leave an indelible mark on the civilization of
Oregon, and the other, Mary Olney Brown, on that of Washington
territory. What ideas were revolving in these young minds in that
long journey of 3,000 miles, six months in duration, it would be
difficult to imagine, but the love of liberty had been infused in
their dreams somewhere, either in their eastern homes from the
tragic scenes of the anti-slavery conflict, or on that perilous
march amidst those eternal solitudes by day and the solemn
stillness of the far-off stars in the gathering darkness. That this
long communion with great nature left its impress on their young
hearts and sanctified their lives to the best interests of humanity
at large, is clearly seen in the deeply interesting accounts they
give of their endeavors to mould the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_768" id="Page_768">[Pg 768]</a></span> governments of their
respective territories on republican principles. Writing of herself
and her labors, Mrs. Duniway says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I was born in Pleasant Grove, Tazewell county, Illinois, October
22, 1834, of the traditional "poor but respectable parentage"
which has honored the advent of many a more illustrious worker
than myself. Brought up on a farm and familiar from my earliest
years with the avocations of rural life, spending the early
spring-times in the maple-sugar camp, the later weeks in
gardening and gathering stove-wood, the summers in picking and
spinning wool, and the autumns in drying apples, I found little
opportunity, and that only in winter, for books or play. My
father was a generous-hearted, impulsive, talented, but
uneducated man; my mother was a conscientious, self-sacrificing,
intelligent, but uneducated woman. Both were devotedly religious,
and both believed implicitly that self-abnegation was the crowing
glory of womanhood. Before I was seventeen I was employed as a
district school teacher, received a first-class certificate and
taught with success, though how I became possessed of the
necessary qualifications I to this day know not. I never did,
could, or would study when at school.</p>

<p>In the spring of 1852 my father decided to emigrate to Oregon. My
invalid mother expostulated in vain; she and nine of us children
were stowed away in ox-wagons, where for six months we made our
home, cooking food and washing dishes around camp-fires, sleeping
at night in the wagons, and crossing many streams upon
wagon-beds, rigged as ferryboats. When our weary line of march
had reached the Black Hills of Wyoming my mother became a victim
to the dreadful epidemic, cholera, that devastated the emigrant
trains in that never-to-be-forgotten year, and after a few hours'
illness her weary spirit was called to the skies. We made her a
grave in the solitudes of the eternal hills, and again took up
our line of march, "too sad to talk, too dumb to pray." But ten
weeks after, our Willie, the baby, was buried in the sands of the
Burnt River mountains. Reaching Oregon in the fall with our
broken household, consisting of my father and eight motherless
children, I engaged in school-teaching till the following August,
when I allowed the name of "Scott" to become "Duniway." Then for
twenty years I devoted myself, soul and body, to the cares,
toils, loves and hopes of a conscientious wife and mother. Five
sons and one daughter have been born to us, all of whom are
living and at home, engaged with their parents in harmonious
efforts for the enfranchisement of women.</p>

<p>The first woman suffrage society ever formed in Oregon, was
organized in Salem, the capital of the State, in the autumn of
1870, and consisted of about a dozen members. Col. C. A. Reed was
chosen president and G. W. Lawson, secretary. This little society
which maintained a quiescent existence for a year or more and
then disbanded without ceremony, was, in part, the basis of all
subsequent work of its character in Oregon. In the winter of 1871
this society honored me with credentials to a seat in the woman
suffrage convention which was to meet in San Francisco the
following May. My business called me to the Golden City before
the time for the convention, and a telegraphic summons compelled<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_769" id="Page_769">[Pg 769]</a></span>
me to return to Oregon without meeting with the California
Association in an official way, as I had hoped. But my
credentials introduced me to the San Francisco leaders, among
whom Emily Pitts Stevens occupied a prominent position as editor
and publisher of the <i>The Pioneer</i>, the first woman suffrage
paper that appeared on the Pacific coast. Before returning to
Oregon I resolved to purchase an outfit and begin the publication
of a newspaper myself, as I felt that the time had come for
vigorous work in my own State, and we had no journal in which the
demands of women for added rights were treated with respectful
consideration.</p>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 393px;">
<a name="v3_769" id="v3_769">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_769.jpg" width="393" height="500" alt="&quot;Yours for Liberty, Abigail Scott Duniway&quot;" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>Soon after reaching my home in Albany I sold my millinery store
and removed to Portland, where, on May 5, 1871, the <i>New
Northwest</i> made its appearance, and a siege of the citadels of a
one-sexed government began, which at this writing is going on
with unabated persistency. The first issue of this journal was
greeted by storms of ridicule. Everybody prophesied its early
death, and my personal friends regarded the enterprise with
sincere pity, believing it would speedily end in financial
disaster. But the paper, in spite of opposition and burlesque,
has grown and prospered.</p>

<p>In August, 1871, Susan B. Anthony favored Oregon and Washington
territory with a visit. The fame of this veteran leader had
preceded her, and she commanded a wide hearing. We traveled
together over the country, visiting inland villages as well as
larger towns, holding woman suffrage meetings and getting many
subscribers for the <i>New Northwest</i>. During these journeyings I
became quite thoroughly initiated into the movement and made my
first efforts at public speaking. After a six weeks' campaign in
Oregon, we went to Olympia, the capital of Washington territory,
where the legislature was in session, and where, through a motion
of Hon. Elwood Evans, we were invited to address the Assembly in
advocacy of equal rights for all the people. From Olympia we
proceeded to Victoria, a border city belonging to a woman's
government, where we found that the idea of the ballot for woman
was even more unpopular than in the United States, though all, by
strange inconsistency, were intensely loyal to their queen. After
an interesting and profitable experience in the British
possessions we returned to Puget Sound, stopping over on our
route at the different milling towns that teem with busy life
upon the evergreen shores of this Mediterranean of the Pacific.
At Seättle we organized an association<a name="FNanchor_507_507" id="FNanchor_507_507"></a><a href="#Footnote_507_507" class="fnanchor">[507]</a> in which many of the
leading ladies and gentlemen took a prominent part; after which
we returned to Olympia, where a territorial organization was
effected.<a name="FNanchor_508_508" id="FNanchor_508_508"></a><a href="#Footnote_508_508" class="fnanchor">[508]</a></p>

<p>Returning to Portland, we called a convention, and organized the
Oregon State Woman Suffrage Association, with Harriet W.
Williams, a venerated octogenarian, president. This estimable
woman had been one of the earliest leaders of the woman suffrage
movement in the State<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_770" id="Page_770">[Pg 770]</a></span> of New York, and her presence at the head
of our meetings in Oregon was a source of genuine satisfaction to
the friends of the cause in the new State of her adoption.
Subsequently, Mrs. Williams was compelled to resign on account of
increasing infirmities, but her wise counsels are still cherished
by her successors, whom she regards with motherly solicitude as
she serenely awaits the final summons of the unseen messenger.
Many of those who early distinguished themselves in this
connection deserve special mention because of their
long-continued zeal in the work.<a name="FNanchor_509_509" id="FNanchor_509_509"></a><a href="#Footnote_509_509" class="fnanchor">[509]</a> If others failed us, these
were always ready to work the hardest when the fight was hottest.
And whatever might be our differences of opinion personally, we
have always presented an unbroken phalanx to the foe. The
original society at Salem having disbanded, its members joined
the new State Association organized at Portland, which has ever
since been regarded as the nucleus of all our activities.</p>

<p>In September of 1872, I visited the Oregon legislature, where I
went clothed by our association with discretionary power to do
what I could to secure special legislation for the women of the
State, who, with few exceptions, were at that time entirely under
the dominion of the old common law. The exceptions were those
fortunate women who, having come to Oregon as early as 1850 and
'52, had, by virtue of a United States law, known as the Oregon
Donation Land Act, become possessed of "claims," as they were
called, on equal shares with their husbands, their half, or
halves, of the original ground being set apart as their separate
property in realty and <i>fee simple</i>. This Donation Land Act
deserves especial mention, it being the first law enacted in the
United States which recognized the individual personality of a
married woman. It became a temporary law of congress in 1850,
mainly through the efforts of Hon. Samuel R. Thurston, delegate
from Oregon territory (which at that time included the whole of
Washington territory), aided by the eminent Dr. Linn of Missouri,
from whom one of the principal counties of the State of Oregon
derives its name.</p>

<p>My first experience in the capitol was particularly trying. I
spent two days among my acquaintances in Salem in a vain attempt
to find a woman who was ready or willing to accompany me to the
state-house. All were anxious that I should go, but each was
afraid to offend her husband, or make herself conspicuous, by
going herself. Finally, when I had despaired of securing company,
and had nerved myself to go alone, Mary P. Sawtelle, who
afterwards became a physician, and now resides in San Francisco
where she has a lucrative practice, volunteered to stand by me,
and together we entered the dominion hitherto considered sacred
to the aristocracy of sex, and took seats in the lobby, our
hearts beating audibly. Hon. Joseph Engle, perceiving the
innovation and knowing me personally, at once arose, and, after a
complimentary speech in which he was pleased to recognize my
position as a journalist, moved that I be invited to a seat
within the bar and provided with table and stationery as were
other members of the profession. The motion carried, with only
two<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_771" id="Page_771">[Pg 771]</a></span> or three dissenting votes; and the way was open from that
time forward for women to compete with men on equal terms for all
minor positions in both branches of the legislature&mdash;a privilege
they have not been slow to avail themselves of, scores of them
thronging the capitol in these later years, and holding valuable
clerkships, many of them sneering the while at the efforts of
those who opened the way for them to be there at all.</p>

<p>Hon. Samuel Corwin introduced a woman suffrage bill in the House
of Representatives early in the session; and while it was
pending, I was invited to make an appeal in its behalf, of which
I remember very little, so frightened and astonished was I,
except that once I inadvertently alluded to a gentleman by his
name instead of his county, whereupon, being called to order, I
blushed and begged pardon, but put myself at ease by informing
the gentlemen that in all the bygone years while they had been
studying parliamentary rules, I had been rocking the cradle.</p>

<p>One member who had made a vehement speech against the bill, in
which he had declared that no respectable woman in his county
desired the elective franchise, became particularly incensed, as
was natural, upon my exhibiting a woman suffrage petition signed
by the women he had misrepresented, and headed, <i>mirabile dictu</i>,
by the name of his own wife! The so-called representative of
women lost his temper, and gave vent to some inelegant
expletives, for which he was promptly reprimanded by the chair.
This offender has since been many times a candidate for office,
but the ladies of his district have always secured his defeat.
The woman suffrage bill received an unexpectedly large vote at
this session, and was favored in 1874 by a still larger one, when
it was ably championed by Hon. C. A. Reed, the before named
ex-president of the first woman suffrage society in the State.</p>

<p>In 1872 the Senate, the House concurring, passed a Married
Woman's Sole Trader bill, under the able leadership of Hon. J. N.
Dolph, who has since distinguished himself as our champion in the
Senate of the United States. This bill has ever since enabled any
woman engaged in business on her own account to register the fact
in the office of the county clerk, and thereby secure her tools,
furniture, or stock in trade against the liability of seizure by
her husband's creditors.</p>

<p>Perhaps I cannot better illustrate the general feeling of
opposition to women having a place in public affairs at that
time, than by describing the scenes in the State Temperance
Alliance in February of that year, when somebody placed my name
in nomination as chairman of an important committee. The
presiding officer was seized with a sudden deafness when the
nomination was made, and the Alliance was convulsed with
merriment. Ladies on all sides buzzed about me, and urged me to
resent the insult in the name of womanhood. And, as none of them
were at that time public speakers, I felt obliged to rise and
speak for myself.</p>

<p>"Mr. President," I exclaimed, "by what right do you refuse to
recognize women when their names are called? Are men the only
lawful members of this Alliance? And if so, is it not better for
the women delegates to go home?"</p>

<p>"Mr. President: The committees are now full!" shouted an excited<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_772" id="Page_772">[Pg 772]</a></span>
voter. Somebody, doubtless in ridicule, then nominated me as
vice-president-at-large, which was carried amid uproarious
merriment. I took my seat, half frightened and wholly indignant;
and the deliberations of the sovereign voters were undisturbed
for several hours thereafter by word or sign from women. At last
they got to discussing a bill for a prohibitory liquor law, and
the heat of debate ran high. During the excitement somebody
carried a note to the presiding officer, who read it, smiled,
colored, and rising, said: "We are hearing nothing from the
ladies, and yet they constitute a large majority of this
Alliance. Mrs. Duniway, will you not favor us with a speech?"</p>

<p>I was taken wholly by surprise, but sprang to my feet and said:
"Mr. President: I have always wondered what it was that consumed
so much time in men's conventions. I hope gentlemen will pardon
the criticism, but you talk too much, and too many of you try to
talk at once. My head is aching from the roar and din of your
noisy orators. Gentlemen, what does it all amount to? You are
talking about prohibition, but you overestimate your political
strength. Disastrous failures attend upon all your endeavors to
conquer existing evils by the votes of men alone. Give women the
legal power to combat intemperance, and they will soon be able to
prove that they do not like drunken husbands any better than men
like drunken wives. Make women <i>free</i>. Give them the power the
ballot gives to you, and the control of their own earnings which
rightfully belong to them, and every woman will be able to settle
this prohibition business in her own home and on her own account.
Men will not tolerate drunkenness in their wives; and women will
not tolerate it in husbands unless compelled to."</p>

<p>A prominent clergyman arose, and said: "Mr. President: I charge
the sins of the world upon the mothers of men. There are twenty
thousand fallen women in New York&mdash;two millions of them in
America. We cannot afford to let this element vote." Before I was
aware of what I was doing I was on my feet again. Shaking my
finger at the clergymen, I exclaimed: "How <i>dare</i> you make such
charges against the mothers of men? You tell us of two millions
of fallen women who, you say, would vote for drunkenness; but
what say you, sir, to the twenty millions of fallen men&mdash;all
voters&mdash;whose patronage alone enables fallen women to live? Would
you disfranchise them, sir? I pronounce your charge a libel upon
womanhood, and I know that if we were voters you would not <i>dare</i>
to utter it."</p>

<p>A gentleman from Michigan&mdash;Mr. Curtis&mdash;called me to order, saying
my remarks were personal. "You, sir, sat still and didn't call
this man to order while he stood up and insulted all womanhood!"
I exclaimed, vehemently. "Prohibition is the question before the
house," said the gentleman, "and the lady should confine herself
to the resolution." "That is what I am doing, sir. I am talking
about prohibition, and the only way possible to make it succeed."</p>

<p>The chair sustained me amid cries of "good!" "good!" but I had
become too thoroughly self-conscious by this time to be able to
say anything further, and, with a bow to the chairman whom I had
before forgotten to address, I tremblingly took my seat.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_773" id="Page_773">[Pg 773]</a></span></p>

<p>A resolution was passed, after a long and stormy debate,
declaring it the duty of the legislature to empower women to vote
on all questions connected with the liquor traffic; and I, as its
author, was chosen a committee to present the same for
consideration at the coming legislative session. Woman suffrage
gained a new impetus all over the Northwest through this victory.
Everybody congratulated its advocates, and the good minister who
had unwittingly caused the commotion seized the first opportunity
to explain that he had always been an advocate of the cause. I
was by this time so thoroughly advertised by the abuse of the
press that I had no difficulty in securing large audiences in all
parts of the Pacific Northwest.</p>

<p>I was chosen in April, 1872, as delegate to the annual meeting of
the National Association, held in New York the following month.
Horace Greeley received the nomination for the presidency at the
Cincinnati Liberal Republican Convention while I was on the way;
and when I reached New York I at first threw what influence I had
in the Association in favor of the great editor. But Miss
Anthony, who knew Mr. Greeley better than I did, caused me to be
appointed chairman of a committee to interview the reputed
statesman and officially report the result at the evening
session. Miss Anthony and Mrs. Jane Graham Jones of Chicago were
the other members of this committee. We obtained the desired
interview, of which it only needs to be said that it became my
humiliating duty to ask pardon in the evening for the speech in
advocacy of the illustrious candidate which in my ignorance I had
made in the morning. That Mr. Greeley owed his defeat in part to
the opposition of women in that memorable campaign, I have never
doubted. But he builded better than he knew in earlier years, for
he planted many a tree of liberty that shall live through the
ages to come, overshadowing in a measure his failure to recognize
the divine right of political equality for woman in his later
days.</p>

<p>The first annual convention of the Oregon State Association met
in Portland, February 9, 1873. Many ladies and several
gentlemen<a name="FNanchor_510_510" id="FNanchor_510_510"></a><a href="#Footnote_510_510" class="fnanchor">[510]</a> of more or less local prominence assisted at this
convention, but we were able to prevail upon but one gentleman,
Col. C. A. Reed of Salem, to occupy the platform with us. This
convention received favorable notice from the respectable press
of the State, and was largely attended by the best elements of
the city and country. Delegates were chosen to attend the
forthcoming State Temperance Alliance which held its second
annual meeting February 20, and to which a dozen of us went
bearing credentials. It was evident from the first that trouble
was brewing. The enemy had had a whole year to prepare an
ambuscade of which our party had no suspicion. A Committee on
Credentials was appointed with instructions to rule the woman
suffrage delegation out of the Alliance as a "disturbing
element." Hon J. Quinn Thornton was chairman of that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_774" id="Page_774">[Pg 774]</a></span> committee.
In his report he declared all delegations to be satisfactory
(including those from the penitentiary) except the women whom he
styled "setting hens," "belligerent females," etc., after which
he subsided with pompous gravity. All eyes were turned upon me,
and I felt as I fancy a general must when the success or failure
of an army in battle depends upon his word. "Mr. President," I
exclaimed, as soon as I could get the floor, "I move to so amend
the report of the committee as to admit the suffrage delegation."
The motion was seconded by a half-dozen voices. Then followed a
scene which beggars description. It was pandemonium broken loose.
When I arose again to address the chair that worthy ordered my
arrest by the sergeant-at-arms, saying: "Take that crazy woman
out of the house and take care of her." The officer came forward
in discharge of his duty, but he quailed before my uplifted
pencil, and several gentlemen stepped into the aisle and began
drawing off their coats to defend me, among them a veteran
minister of the gospel. I smiled and bowed my thanks, and as
nobody could hear a word amid the uproar I complacently took my
seat while the officer skulked away, crestfallen. All that day
and evening, and until one o'clock the next afternoon, a noisy
rabble of self-styled temperance men sought to prevent bringing
the question to a square and honorable vote. Major George
Williams, a brave man who had lost a limb in fighting for his
country, at last succeeded in wearying the chairman into a
semblance of duty. The result was a triumph for the advocates of
suffrage. A recess was then taken, during which my hand was so
often and enthusiastically shaken that my shoulder was severely
lamed. The first thing in order after resuming business was my
report as Legislative Committee. I advanced to the platform amid
deafening cheers and, as soon as I could make myself heard, said,
in substance, that the legislature had decided that it was an
insult to womanhood to grant women the right to vote on
intemperance and debar them from voting on all honorable
questions. I then offered a fair and unequivocal woman suffrage
resolution, which was triumphantly carried. The disappointed
minority seceded from the Alliance and set up a "Union" for
themselves; but their confederacy did not live long, and its few
followers finally returned to their <i>alma mater</i> and gave us no
further trouble.</p>

<p>Woman suffrage associations were formed in several counties
during the year 1874. Our strength was now much increased by the
able assistance of Mrs. H. A. Loughary, who suddenly took her
place in the front rank as a platform speaker. The editorial work
of the <i>New Northwest</i> received a valuable auxiliary in June of
this year in the person of Catharine A. Coburn, a lady of rare
journalistic ability, who held her position five years, when my
sons, W. S., H. R. and W. C. Duniway, having completed their
school duties and attained their majority, were admitted to
partnership in the business. Mrs. Coburn now holds a situation on
the editorial staff of the <i>Daily Oregonian</i>.</p>

<p>In the autumn of 1876 I was absent at the Centennial Exposition,
whither I had gone in the summer in response to an invitation
from the National Woman Suffrage Association to "Come over into
Macedonia<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_775" id="Page_775">[Pg 775]</a></span> and help." The work for equal rights made favorable
headway in the legislature of Oregon that year through the
influence of a convention held at Salem under the able leadership
of Mrs. H. A. Loughary and Dr. Mary A. Thompson.</p>

<p>In June, 1878, a convention met in Walla Walla, Washington
territory, for the purpose of forming a constitution for the
proposed new State of Washington, and in compliance with the
invitation of many prominent women of the territory I visited the
convention and was permitted to present a memorial in person,
praying that the word "male" be omitted from the fundamental law
of the incubating State. But my plea (like that of Abigail Adams
a century before) failed of success, through a close vote
however&mdash;it stood 8 to 7&mdash;and men went on as before, saying, as
they did in the beginning: "Women do not wish to vote. If they
desire the ballot let them ask for it." In September of that year
I was again at my post in the Oregon legislature circulating the
<i>New Northwest</i> among the law-makers, and doing what else I could
to keep the cause before them in a manner to enlist their
confidence and command their respect. An opportunity was given me
at this session to make an extended argument upon constitutional
liberty before a joint convention of the two Houses, which
occupied an hour in delivery and was accorded profound attention.
I was much opposed to the growing desire of the legislature to
shirk its responsibility upon the voters at large by submitting a
proposed constitutional amendment to them when the constitution
nowhere prohibits women from voting, and I labored to show that
all we need is a declaratory act extending to us the franchise
under the existing fundamental law. Dr. Mary A. Thompson followed
in a brief speech and was courteously received. The Married
Woman's Property bill, passed in 1874, received some necessary
amendments at this session, and an act entitling women to vote
upon school questions and making them eligible to school offices,
was passed by a triumphant majority.</p>

<p>I went to Southern Oregon in 1879, and while sojourning in
Jacksonville was assailed with a shower of eggs (since known in
that section as "Jacksonville arguments") and was also burned in
effigy on a principal street after the sun went down.
Jacksonville is an old mining town, beautifully situated in the
heart of the Southern Oregon mountains, and has no connection
with the outside world except through the daily stagecoaches. Its
would-be leading men are old miners or refugees from the
bushwhacking district whence they were driven by the civil war.
The taint of slavery is yet upon them and the methods of
border-ruffians are their hearts' delight. It is true that there
are many good people among them, but they are often over-awed by
the lawless crowd whose very instincts lead them to oppose a
republican form of government. But that raid of the outlaws
proved a good thing for the woman suffrage movement. It aroused
the better classes, and finally shamed the border ruffians by its
own reäction. When I returned to Portland a perfect ovation
awaited me. Hundreds of men and women who had not before allied
themselves with the movement made haste to do so. The newspapers
were filled with severe denunciations of the mob, and
"Jackson-villains,"<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_776" id="Page_776">[Pg 776]</a></span> as the perpetrators of the outrage were
styled, grew heartily disgusted over their questionable glory.</p>

<p>When the legislature met in the autumn of 1880 it was decided by
the Woman Suffrage Association that we could "raise the blockade"
and encourage agitation in the work by consenting to an attempt
to amend the State constitution. Pursuant to this decision a
resolution was offered in the Senate by Hon. W. C. Fulton of
Clatsop, and in the House by Hon. Lee Laughlin, which, after
considerable discussion <i>pro</i> and <i>con</i> in which I was graciously
invited to participate on the floor of both Houses, was passed by
the requisite two-thirds majority. The result was considered a
triumph for the cause. A grand ratification jubilee was held in
the opera-house in honor of the event, and resolutions of thanks
to the lawmakers were passed, accompanied by many expressions of
faith in the legislation of the future.</p>

<p>In the meantime the work was going steadily on in Washington
territory, my own labors being distributed about equally between
the two sections of the Pacific Northwest that had formerly been
united under one territorial government. In the autumn of 1881
the legislature of Washington met one afternoon in joint
convention to listen to arguments from Hon. William H. White and
myself, on which occasion I held the floor for nearly three
hours, in the midst of an auditory that was itself an
inspiration. Mr. White, a Democrat of the old school, and now
(1885) holding the office of United States marshal in the
territory, under commission from President Cleveland, based his
plea for woman suffrage upon the enfranchisement of the colored
men, urging it strongly as a means of Democratic retaliation. The
suffrage bill passed in the House on the following day by a
majority of two, but was defeated in the Council by a majority of
two, showing that the vote would have been a tie if taken under
the joint-ballot rule.</p>

<p>Returning to Oregon I renewed the contest, and in the autumn of
1882 we were all gratified by the passage of the pending
constitutional amendment by a very nearly unanimous vote of each
House. Then the Oregon campaign began in earnest. The question
had assumed formidable proportions and was no longer an ignored
issue. The work went on with accelerated speed, and as far as
could be ascertained there was little or no opposition to it. The
meetings were largely attended and affirmative speakers were
ready to assist at all times, the help of this kind representing
all grades of the professions, led by the best and most
influential men of the State everywhere.</p>

<p>Another year went by, and the time for assembling the Washington
territory legislature was again at hand. Immediately upon
arriving at Olympia I learned that a coterie of politicians,
finding open hostility no longer effectual, had combined to crush
the woman suffrage bill, which had passed the House triumphantly,
by lobbying a "substitute" through the Council. In pursuance of
this seemingly plausible idea they talked with the ladies of
Olympia and succeeded in convincing a few of them that all women,
and especially all leaders of the movement, must be kept away
from the capitol or the bill would certainly be defeated.
Several<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_777" id="Page_777">[Pg 777]</a></span> women who ought to have have known better were deceived
by these specious pleaders, and but for some years of experience
in legislative assemblies that had brought me to comprehend the
"ways that are dark and tricks that are vain," for which the
average politician is "peculiar," the ruse would have succeeded.
I remained at headquarters, enduring alike the open attacks of
the venal press and the more covert opposition of the saloons and
brothels, and, as vigilantly as I could, watched all legislative
movements, taking much pains to keep the public mind excited
through the columns of the <i>Daily Oregonian</i> and the weekly
issues of the <i>New Northwest</i>. The bill, which had been prepared
by Professor William H. Roberts, passed the House early in the
session; but it tarried long in the Council, and those most
interested were well-nigh worn out with work and watching before
the measure reached a vote. It came up for final passage November
15, 1883, when only three or four women were present. The Council
had been thoroughly canvassed before-hand and no member offered
to make a speech for or against it. The deathly stillness of the
chamber was broken only by the clerk's call of the names and the
firm responses of the "ayes" and "noes." I kept the tally with a
nervous hand, and my heart fairly stood still as the fateful
moment came that gave us the majority. Then I arose and without
exchanging words with any one left the state-house and rushed
toward the telegraph-office, half a mile distant, my feet seeming
to tread the air. Judge J. W. Range of Cheney, president of a
local woman suffrage society, overtook me on the way, bound on
the same errand. He spoke, and I felt as if called back to earth
with a painful reminder that I was yet mortal. A few minutes more
and my message was on the way to the <i>New Northwest</i>. It was
publication-day and the paper had gone to press, but my jubilant
and faithful sons opened the forms and inserted the news, and in
less than half an hour the newsboys were crying the fact through
the streets of Portland, making the <i>New Northwest</i>, which had
fought the fight and led the work to the point where legislation
could give a victory, the very first paper in the nation to
herald the news to the world. The rejoicing in Oregon, as well as
in Washington territory, was most inspiriting. A bloodless battle
had been fought and won, and the enemy, asleep in carnal
security, had been surrendered unawares. The women of Oregon
thanked God and took courage.</p>

<p>After passing the Council the bill passed leisurely, and some of
us feared perilously, through the various stages of clerical
progress till November 22, when it received the signature of
Governor William A. Newell, who used a gold pen presented him for
the purpose by women whom his act made free. And when at a given
signal the church bells rang in glad acclaim, and the loud boom
of minute-guns reverberated from the forest-clothed hills that
border Puget Sound and lost itself at last in the faint echoes of
the far-off hights, the scroll of the dead century unrolled
before my inner vision and I beheld in spirit another scene on
the further verge of the continent, when men in designing to ring
the bell at Independence Hall in professed honor of the triumph
of liberty, although not a woman in the land was free, had sought
in vain to force the loyal metal into glad<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_778" id="Page_778">[Pg 778]</a></span> responses; for the
old bell quivered in every nerve and broke its heart rather than
tell a lie!</p>

<p>An immense ratification jubilee was held in the evening of the
same day at the city hall in Olympia, with many distinguished
speakers.<a name="FNanchor_511_511" id="FNanchor_511_511"></a><a href="#Footnote_511_511" class="fnanchor">[511]</a> Similar meetings were subsequently held in all the
principal towns of the Pacific Northwest. The freed women of
Washington thankfully accepted their new prerogatives. They were
appointed as jurors in many localities, and have ever since
performed their duties with eminent satisfaction to judges,
lawyers and all clients who are seeking to obey the laws. But
their jurisdiction soon became decidedly uncomfortable for the
law-breaking elements, which speedily escaped to Oregon, where,
as the sequel proved, they began a secret and effective war upon
the pending constitutional amendment. We all knew we had a
formidable foe to fight at the ballot-box. Our own hands were
tied and our own guns spiked, while our foe was armed to the
teeth with ballots, backed by money and controlled by vice,
bigotry and tyranny. But the leading men of the State had long
been known to favor the amendment; the respectable press had
become mildly, and in a few cases earnestly acquiescent; no
opposition could be raised at any of our public meetings, and we
felt measurably sure of a victory until near election time, when
we discovered to our dismay that most of the leading politicians
upon whom we had relied for aid had suddenly been seized with an
alarming reticence. They ceased to attend the public meetings and
in every possible way ignored the amendment, lest by openly
allying themselves with it they might lose votes; and as all of
them were posing in some way for office, for themselves or
friends, and women had no votes with which to repay their
allegiance, it was not strange that they should thus desert us.</p>

<p>Our Republican senator in congress, Hon. J. N. Dolph, favored the
Woman Suffrage Association with an able and comprehensive letter,
which was widely circulated, urging the adoption of the amendment
as a measure of justice and right, and appealing to the voters to
make Oregon the banner State of the great reform. Leading
clergymen, especially of Portland, preached in favor of woman
suffrage, prominent among them being Rev. T. L. Eliot, pastor of
the Unitarian church; Chaplain R. S. Stubbs of the Church of Sea
and Land, and Rev. Frederic R. Marvin of the First Congregational
society. Appeals to voters were widely circulated from the pens
and speeches of many able gentlemen.<a name="FNanchor_512_512" id="FNanchor_512_512"></a><a href="#Footnote_512_512" class="fnanchor">[512]</a> Not one influential man
made audible objection anywhere.</p>

<p>We had carefully districted and organized the State, sparing
neither labor nor money in providing "Yes" tickets for all
parties and all candidates and putting them everywhere in the
hands of friends for use at the polls. But the polls were no
sooner open than it began to appear that the battle was one of
great odds. Masked batteries were opened in almost<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_779" id="Page_779">[Pg 779]</a></span> every
precinct, and multitudes of legal voters who are rarely seen in
daylight except at a general election, many of whom were refugees
from Washington territory, crowded forth from their hiding-places
to strike the manacled women down. They accused the earnest
ladies who had dared to ask for simple justice of every crime in
the social catalogue. Railroad gangs were driven to the polls
like sheep and voted against us in battalions. But, in spite of
all this, nearly one-third of the vote was thrown in our favor,
requiring a change of only about one-fourth of the opposing vote
to have given us a victory, and proving to the amazement of our
enemies that the strength of our cause was already
formidable.<a name="FNanchor_513_513" id="FNanchor_513_513"></a><a href="#Footnote_513_513" class="fnanchor">[513]</a> We were repulsed but not conquered. Before the
smoke of the battle had cleared away we had called immense
meetings and passed vigorous resolutions, thanking the lovers of
liberty who had favored us with their suffrages, and pledging
ourselves anew to the conflict.</p>

<p>We at once decided that we would never again permit the
legislature to remand us to the rabble in a vain appeal for
justice. We had demonstrated the impossibility of receiving a
fair, impartial vote at the hands of the ignorant, lawless and
unthinking multitude whose ballots outweigh all reason and
overpower all sense. In pursuance of this purpose I went to the
legislature of 1885 and found no difficulty in securing the aid
of friendly members of both Houses who kindly championed the
following bill:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Oregon:</i></p>

<p>That the elective franchise shall not hereafter be denied to any
person in this State on account of sex.</p>

<p>This act to be in force from and after its approval by the
governor. </p></blockquote>

<p>After much parliamentary fillibustering the vote of both Houses was
recorded upon this bill and stood conjointly 34 to 54. This vote,
coming so soon after our defeat at the polls, is regarded as the
greatest victory we have yet won. The ablest lawyers of the State
and of Washington territory are preparing elaborate opinions
showing the constitutionality of our present plan, and these are to
be published in the form of a standard work, with appropriate
references for convenient use. The movement exhibits a healthy,
steady and encouraging growth, and is much accelerated by its
success in Washington territory.</p>

<p>On the Fourth of July of this year a grand celebration was held at
Vancouver, on Washington soil, the women of Oregon having resolved
in large numbers that they would never again unite in celebrating
men's independence-day in a State where they are denied their
liberty. The celebration was a success from first to last. Boys and
girls in equal numbers rode in the liberty-car and represented the
age of the government. The military post at Vancouver joined
heartily in the festivities, headed by the gallant soldier, General
Nelson A. Miles, commander-in-chief of the department of the
Columbia. The fine Fourteenth Infantry Band furnished the
instrumental music, and a local choir rendered spirited choruses.
The New Declaration of Independence was read by Josie De Vore
Johnson, the oration was delivered by Mattie A. Bridge, and Louise<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_780" id="Page_780">[Pg 780]</a></span>
Lester, the famous <i>prima donna</i>, electrified the delighted crowd
by her triumphant rendition of the "Star-Spangled Banner." The
exercises closed with the announcement by the writer, who had
officiated as president of the day, that the Executive Committee of
the Oregon Woman Suffrage Association had, during the noon recess,
adopted the following resolutions:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That our thanks are due to General Nelson A. Miles of
the department of the Columbia for his valuable coöperation in
the exercises and entertainments of this historic day.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That we thank the citizens of Clarke County, and
especially of Vancouver, for their hospitality and kindness, so
graciously bestowed upon their less fortunate Oregon neighbors,
who have not yet achieved their full independence, and we shall
ever cherish their fraternal recognition in grateful remembrance.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That while we deplore the injustice that still
deprives the women of Oregon of the liberty to exercise their
right to the elective franchise, we rejoice in the record the
women of Washington are making as citizens, as voters and as
jurors. We congratulate them upon their newly-acquired liberties,
and especially upon the intelligent and conscientious manner in
which they are discharging the important public duties that in no
wise interfere with their home affairs. And we are further</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That if our own fathers, husbands, sons and brothers
do not at the next session of the Oregon legislature bestow upon
us the same electoral privileges which the women of Washington
already enjoy, we will prepare to cross the Columbia River and
take up our permanent abode in this "land of the free and home of
the brave." </p></blockquote>

<p>The resolutions evoked cheers that waked the echoes, and the
celebration, reported by the Oregon press, contributed largely to
the growth of the equal-rights sentiment among the people of the
State. Two stanzas of a spirited poem are subjoined, written for
the Woman Suffrage Association just after our defeat at the polls,
by a young man from Southern Oregon who has withheld his own name
but included the names of all the counties in his glorious
prophecy:</p>

<div class="poem"><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">From Clatsop and from Clackamas, from Linn and Tillamook;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">From Grant, Multnomah, Lane and Coos, and Benton, Lake and Crook;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">From Josephine, Columbia, and loyal Washington,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And Union, Baker and Yamhill, and proud old Marion;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">From where the Cascade mountain-streams their foaming waters pour,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">We're coming, mothers, sisters, dear, "ten times ten thousand more."<br /></span>
</div><div class="stanza">
<span class="i0">From Klamath's lakes and Wasco's plains, and Jackson's rolling hills;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">From Douglas with her mines of gold, and Curry with her mills;<br /></span>
<span class="i0">From Umatilla's burdened fields, and hills and dales of Polk,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">We're coming with our votes and songs to break the tyrant's yoke,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">And in the ears of Liberty this song of joy we'll pour,<br /></span>
<span class="i0">We're coming, mothers, sisters, dear, "ten times ten thousand more."<br /></span>
</div></div>

</blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Mary Olney Brown gives an amusing account of her attempts to
vote in Washington territory. The incidents related occurred
several years before the passage of the act specifically
enfranchising women. She says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I do not think there has ever been a session of our legislature
that has not had before it the subject of woman suffrage. It has
been my habit to write out, and send to all parts of the
territory, before the assembling of each legislature, petitions
to be signed, asking for a law guaranteeing to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_781" id="Page_781">[Pg 781]</a></span> women the
exercise of their right to vote. These petitions were not without
their effect, though no one knew who sent them out, or, when
returned, who selected the member to receive and present them to
the legislature. At the session of 1867, mainly through the
efforts of Edward Eldridge of Whatcom County, an act was passed
giving "all white American citizens above the age of twenty-one
years" the right to vote. This law is still on our statute books;
but, like the fourteenth amendment, is interpreted to mean only
male citizens. During the time between the passage of this law
and the next election, I wrote to some of the prominent women of
the principal towns, telling them of the law, and urging them to
go out and vote at the coming election, and also to induce as
many more to go as they could. But no notice was taken of my
letters. I was looked upon as a fanatic, and the idea of a woman
voting was regarded as an absurdity. The law seemed to be in
advance of the people. It needed lectures and organized societies
among us to educate the women into a just appreciation of their
rights and duties.</p>

<p>In the autumn of 1868, Dr. Smith wrote several articles on the
right of women to the ballot, as did also Mr. Eldridge. The
latter asserted that it was the intention of the law to give the
women of the territory the right to vote; that being a member of
the legislature he had purposely stated in his remarks, that if
the bill passed in that form, it would give the women the right
to vote; and a member from his seat cried out, "That is what we
want!" Mr. Eldridge urged the women to go out to the polls and
vote. These articles were published in the Olympia <i>Transcript</i>,
the Republican paper, J. N. Gale, one of the editors, being an
advocate of suffrage. Still not a woman made a move. Many wished
to vote; they knew it was the only way to secure their rights,
and yet they had not the courage to go to the polls in defiance
of custom.</p>

<p>Seeing this to be the case, and knowing that if anything was done
some one must take the initiative, I determined to cast aside my
timidity and set the ball rolling. Accordingly, several weeks
before the election of 1869 I gave out word that I was going to
the polls to vote. I had the previous year removed with my family
from Olympia, and was living on White River in King county. The
announcement that I would attend the election caused a great
commotion in White River precinct. A fearful hue and cry was
raised. The news reached Olympia and Seättle, and some of the
papers deprecated the idea that "a woman should unsex herself by
dabbling in the filthy pool of politics." But I was fully
committed. The law had been on our statute books for nearly three
years. If it was intended for our benefit, it was time we were
availing ourselves of it. So, nothing daunted, I determined to
repair to the polling place, the district school-house,
accompanied by my husband, my daughter (Mrs. Axtell) and her
husband&mdash;a little band of four&mdash;looked upon with pity and
contempt for what was called our "fanaticism."</p>

<p>For several days before the election the excitement in the
neighborhood and other settlements along the river was intense.
Many gentlemen called on me and tried to persuade me to stay at
home and save myself from insult. I thanked them for their
kindness, and told them I fully<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_782" id="Page_782">[Pg 782]</a></span> appreciated their good
intentions, but that I had associated with men all my life, and
had always been treated as a lady; that the men I should meet at
the polls were the same that I met in church and social
gatherings, and I knew they would treat me with respect. Then
they begged my husband not to allow me to go; but he told them
his wife had as good a right to vote as he had; and that no
citizen can legally deprive another of the right to vote.</p>

<p>On the morning of the election, just before we reached the
school-house, a man met us and said, "Mr. Brown, look here now!
If Mrs. Brown goes up to vote she will be insulted! If I was in
your place I wouldn't let her go any farther. She had better go
back." My husband answered, "Mr. Brannan, my wife has as good a
right to vote as I have, and I would not prevent her if I could.
She has a mind of her own and will do as she thinks best, and I
shall stand by her and see that she is well treated! Besides
[speaking with emphasis], she will not be insulted either!"
"Well," said the man, "if she was my wife she shouldn't go!
She'll be sure to be insulted!" I looked him full in the face,
and said with decision, "Mr. Brannan, a gentleman will be a
gentleman under all circumstances, and will always treat a lady
with respect." I said this because I knew the man, and knew that
if anyone offered any annoyance, it would be he, and so it
proved.</p>

<p>As we drove up to the school-house and alighted, a man in an
angry voice snapped out, "Well! if the women are coming to vote,
I'm going home!" But he did not go; he had too much curiosity; he
wanted to see the fun. He stayed and was converted. After
watching the sovereign "white male citizen" perform the laborious
task of depositing his vote in the ballot-box, I thought if I
braced myself up I might be equal to the task. So, summoning all
my strength, I walked up to the desk behind which sat the august
officers of election, and presented my vote. When behold! I was
pompously met with the assertion, "You are not an American
citizen; hence not entitled to vote." The great unabridged
dictionary of Noah Webster was opened, and the definition of the
word citizen read to me. They all looked to see me vanquished;
they thought I would have to retreat before such an overwhelming
array of sagacity. The countenances of the judges wore a pleased
expression that they had hit on so easy an expedient to put me
<i>hors du combat</i>, while the crowd looked astonished that I did
not sink out of sight. Waiting a moment, I said, "The definition
is correct. A citizen of the United States, is a <i>person</i> owing
allegiance to the government; but then all persons are not <i>men</i>;
and the definition of "citizeness" is a female citizen. I claim
to be an American citizen, and a native-born citizen at that; and
I wish to show you from the fourteenth amendment to the
constitution of the United States, that women are not only
citizens having the constitutional right to vote, but also that
our territorial election law gives women the privilege of
exercising that right."</p>

<p>When I commenced speaking, all the men, with the exception of
two&mdash;the one who had urged my husband not to let me go to the
school-house, and a low, degraded fellow, who had a squaw for a
wife&mdash;came and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_783" id="Page_783">[Pg 783]</a></span> ranged themselves around me and the judges before
whom I stood, and listened attentively. It was a new subject to
them. They had heard of woman suffrage, but only in ridicule. Now
it was being presented to them in a very different light. As I
proceeded there was a death-like stillness, so intent were they
to catch every word. Even the man who had declared he would go
home if the women were going to vote, was among the most
interested of the listeners. There was but one interruption; the
two men, of whom I have spoken, to make good their assertion that
I would be insulted, got behind a desk in the far corner of the
room, and began talking and laughing very loudly; but they were
promptly called to order. Silence being restored, I went on to
show them that the original constitution recognized women as
citizens, and that the word citizen includes both sexes, as is
proved by the phrases, "male citizen," and "female citizen"; that
women from the beginning had been unjustly deprived of the
exercise of their constitutional rights; that they had for years
been petitioning those in power to restore them to their
political freedom, when the emancipation of the Southern slaves
threw upon the country a class of people, who, like the women of
the nation, owed allegiance to the government, but whose
citizenship was not recognized. To settle this question, the
fourteenth amendment was adopted. Its first section declares
emphatically who are citizens, and guarantees to them the
exercise of all their natural rights under the equal protection
of the law. (Here I read to them the section.) No distinction is
made in regard to sex; the word "person" being used, which
includes both men and women.</p>

<p>"And now, honorable gentlemen," I said, in conclusion, "I am a
'person,' declared by the fourteenth amendment to be a citizen,
and still further, I am a native-born citizen of the same race
and color of these gentlemen by whom I am surrounded, and whose
votes you do not hesitate to receive; and, had our territorial
law failed to give me the right to vote, this amendment would
protect me in the exercise of it. I again offer my vote, and hope
you will not refuse it." No hand was extended to receive it; but
one of the judges threw himself back in his seat, and with great
dignity of manner and an immense display of ignorance, exclaimed,
"Women have no right to vote; and the laws of Congress don't
extend over Washington territory." This was too much for even the
strongest opponents. On every side was heard, "Oh, Mr. Alvord!
why, yes, they do!" "Mr. Alvord, you are mistaken, the laws of
congress do extend over our territory"; and some tried to explain
to him that the territory belonged to the United States and was
under the jurisdiction of the national government, and that of
course the laws of congress extended over it. But still more
pompously, he again declared, "It is no such thing, the laws of
congress don't extend over Washington territory." A look of
disgust and shame was depicted on nearly every countenance, and
the cause of woman suffrage had advanced perceptibly in the minds
of the audience.</p>

<p>Another of the judges arose, and said, he had never thought much
on the subject. He had no doubt but Mrs. Brown was right, woman
were<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_784" id="Page_784">[Pg 784]</a></span> citizens and had the right to vote; but as the courts had
not instructed the election officers to take the votes of women,
and as the precinct was a small one, he was afraid their whole
vote would be thrown out if they received the women's ballots.
So, although he should like to see the women have their rights,
he should have to refuse Mrs. Brown's vote. Here an Irishman
called out, "It would be more sensible to let an intelligent
white woman vote than an ignorant nigger." Cries of "Good for
you, Pat! good for you, Pat!" indicated the impression that had
been made. My daughter now went up and offered her vote, which
was, of course, rejected.</p>

<p>My going to the polls was noised abroad, and set men as well as
women thinking. They examined the law for themselves, and found
that women had a right to vote, so that before the next election
many were prepared to act. In May, 1870, I published an appeal to
the women of the territory, quoting to them the law, and urging
them to avail themselves of its provisions by going to the polls
and voting. My sister, Charlotte Olney French, living in Grand
Mound precinct, some twenty-five miles from Olympia, began
talking the matter up; and, being a woman of energy and
influence, she soon had the whole neighborhood interested. With
the assistance of an old lady, Mrs. Peck, she planned a regular
campaign. By the programme the women were to get up a picnic
dinner at the school-house where the election was to be held, and
directly after, while the officers of election were in good humor
(wives will understand the philosophy of this), they were to
present their votes. My sister, being a good talker and well
informed on all the constitutional, judicial and social phases of
the question as well as a good judge of human nature, was able to
meet and parry every objection, and give information where
needed, so that by the time dinner was over, the judges, as well
as everybody else, were in the best of spirits. When the voting
was resumed, the women (my sister being the first) handed in
their ballots as if they had always been accustomed to voting,
and everything passed off pleasantly. One lady, Mrs. Sargent,
seventy-two years old, said she thanked the Lord that He had let
her live until she could vote. She had often prayed to see the
day, and now she was proud to cast her first ballot.</p>

<p>It had been talked of for some days before the election in the
adjoining precinct&mdash;Black River&mdash;that Mrs. French was organizing
a party of women to attend the election in Grand Mound precinct;
but they were not sure the judges would let them vote. "If they
do," said they, "if the Grand Mound women vote, the Black River
women shall!" So they stationed a man on a fleet horse, at the
Grand Mound polls, with instructions to start as soon as the
women began to vote, and ride with all haste back to their
precinct and let them know. The moment the man rode in sight of
the school-house he swung his hat, and screeched at the top of
his voice, "They're voting! They're voting!" The teams were all
ready in anticipation of the news, and were instantly flying in
every direction, and soon the women were ushered into the
school-house, their choice of tickets furnished them, and all
allowed to vote as "American citizens."</p>

<p>While the women of these two precincts were enjoying the exercise
of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_785" id="Page_785">[Pg 785]</a></span> their political rights, the women of Olympia were suffering
the vexation of disappointment. I had been stopping there for
some weeks previous to the election, trying to induce the women
to go to the polls, and also to convince the men that women had a
legal right to vote, and that their right must be respected. The
day before election the judges were interviewed as to whether
they would take the votes of the women. They replied, "Yes; we
shall be obliged to take them. The law gives them the right to
vote, and we can not refuse." This decision was heralded all over
the city, and women felt as if their millennium had come.
To-morrow, for the first time, their voice would be heard in the
government through the ballot. All day long women met each other,
and asked: "Are you going to the election to-morrow?" Groups
gathered in parlors and discussed the matter, and everything
seemed auspicious.</p>

<p>But how true the saying: "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and
the lip!" Before nine o'clock the next morning, the word had been
communicated all over town that "the women need not come out to
the polls as the judges would not take their votes." They would
give no reason why, but said "they had decided not to take the
votes of the women." About a dozen of us gathered together to
consult what was best to be done; finding most of them inclined
to back out, I urged the necessity of our making an effort; that
whether the judges took our votes or not, it was not best to give
it up as the rest had done; if we did, it would be harder to make
an effort next time; that I had been to the polls once and had my
vote refused, and could be refused again; at any rate, I had the
right to vote, and I should go and offer it if I had to go alone.
Three of the number said they would go with me&mdash;Mrs. Patterson,
Mrs. Wiley and Mrs. Dofflemyer; these, with Mr. Patterson, my
husband and myself made our party. As we reached the court-house
where the election was held, Mr. Dofflemyer met us and took his
wife home, she meekly submitting.</p>

<p>Just before us a cart rattled up bearing a male citizen, who was
too drunk to know what he was doing, or even to do anything. He
was lying on his back in the cart, with feet and hands up,
hurrahing at the top of his voice. This disgusting, drunken idiot
was picked up out of the cart by two men, who put a ticket into
his hand, carried him to the window (he was too drunk to stand),
shoved him up and raised his arm into the aperture; his vote
received, he was tumbled back into the cart.</p>

<p>I then stepped up and offered my vote, and was answered with, "We
have decided not to take the votes of the women!" "On what
grounds do you refuse?" I asked. No answer. "Do you refuse it on
legal grounds?" Still no answer. I then said, "Under the election
law of this territory, setting aside my constitutional right as a
citizen of the United States, I have the right to vote at this
election. Have you the election law by you?" "No, we have not got
it here," they said. I knew they had, but did not dispute their
word. "Very well," I said, "I can quote it for you." I did so,
and then said, "Under this territorial law I claim my right, and
again I offer you my vote as an American citizen. If you doubt my
citizenship, I will insist on taking the oath. Will you receive
it?" The answer was, "No; we have decided not to take women's
votes, and we<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_786" id="Page_786">[Pg 786]</a></span> cannot take yours." "Then," said I, "it amounts to
this: the law gives women the right to vote in this territory,
and you three men who have been appointed to receive our votes,
sit here and arbitrarily refuse to take them, giving no reason
why, only that you have decided not to take the women's votes.
There is no law to sustain you in this usurpation of power. We
can claim legal redress. Are you willing to stand a legal
prosecution?" "Yes," was the response of each one separately. It
was now plain to see why the votes of the women were refused; the
judges had been hired to do the dirty work, and money pledged in
case of prosecution. They were men in moderate circumstances and
could not have stood the cost of a suit individually. The ready
assent they gave showed such a contingency had been thought of
and provided against by the opponents of woman suffrage. The
other two women then offered their votes, which were also
refused.</p>

<p>In the autumn of 1871 Susan B. Anthony came to Olympia and
attended the first woman suffrage convention ever held here. Our
legislature was in session, and a joint hearing before the two
Houses was extended to her. Her statesman-like argument clearly
proved the right of our women to vote under both the national
constitution and the territorial law. After Miss Anthony left,
there arose a rumor that the election law was to be repealed, and
a committee of women attended every session, determined if
possible to prevent it. They were at the capitol the last day,
prepared to stay until the adjournment; they were urged to go
home, but would not unless a solemn promise was made them that
the law should in no way be tampered with. This the members
refused to do, until a bright idea struck one of them, which was
that they need not disturb the law, but could make it inoperative
by enacting another statute. This being whispered among the
members, the promise was given, and the women retired.
Immediately after, the following act was passed by both Houses,
approved and signed by the governor:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory of
Washington:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Section</span> 1. That hereafter no female shall have the right of
ballot, or vote at any poll or election precinct in this
territory until the Congress of the United States of America
shall, by direct legislation, declare the same to be the supreme
law of the land.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 2. This act to take effect from and after its passage.</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Edward S. Solomon</span>, <i>Governor.</i></p>
<p class="ltr-to">Approved November 29, 1871.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>When the proclamation to hold a convention to form a constitution
preparatory to our admission into the Union as a State, was issued,
I recommended to the Territorial Woman Suffrage Association that we
make every effort to secure to the convention as many delegates as
possible in favor of woman suffrage, and then that we circulate
petitions asking them to leave out the word "male" from the
constitution. Failing to get the society to take any associated
action, I went to work individually, wrote and sent out petitions
into every town and country place where there was a post-office,
asking that the word "male" be left out of the constitution. With
each petition I sent a letter to the person whose name I had
procured from the postmaster of the place, stating the object,
urging a thorough circulation, and directing its return at a given
date to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_787" id="Page_787">[Pg 787]</a></span> Mary Olney Brown, President of the Washington Territorial
Woman Suffrage Association; thus giving the credit of the work to
the Society.</p>

<p>I could not get a member of our Association to circulate the
petition in Olympia, so every day that I could get away from home I
took my petition in hand and canvassed for signatures. If I went
shopping or on an errand I took it with me, and in that way I
procured over 300 names. My experience had taught me that the
principal opposition to woman's voting came from ignorance as to
her true position under the government. She had come to be looked
upon almost as a foreign element in our nation, having no lot nor
part with the male citizen, and I felt that it was necessary to
disabuse the minds of the people generally, and the delegates to
the convention particularly, of this notion. I therefore wrote five
articles on the "Equality of Citizenship," which Mrs. Duniway
kindly published in the <i>New Northwest</i>. The Olympia <i>Courier</i> also
printed them, and placed the paper on file in the city
reading-room; and when I met a man who had not made up his mind on
the subject I recommended him to the reading-room, and several
after perusing the articles were converted and signed the petition.</p>

<p>On the assembling of the legislature Mrs. A. H. H. Stuart and
myself watched a favorable opportunity to present an equal rights
bill. We let them talk up the matter pretty well over a petition
signed by fifty women of one of the upper counties, when one day
Mrs. Stuart came to me and said: "Now, Mrs. Brown, write out your
bill; the speaker of the House sent me word they were ready for
it." I sat down and framed a bill<a name="FNanchor_514_514" id="FNanchor_514_514"></a><a href="#Footnote_514_514" class="fnanchor">[514]</a> to the best of my ability,
which was duly presented and respectfully debated. Mrs. Duniway
came from Portland to urge its passage, and the day before it came
to a vote both Houses adjourned and invited her to speak in the
hall of representatives. She made one of her best speeches. The
members of both Houses were present, besides a large audience from
the city. The next day the House passed the bill by two majority,
and on the day following it was lost in the Council by two
majority. In the House the vote stood, ayes, 13; nays, 11. In the
Council, ayes, 5; nays, 7.</p>

<p>Saturday evening Mrs. Duniway made another telling speech in the
city hall, at the close of which Mr. White, a lobby member, made a
few remarks, in which he disclosed the cause of the defeat of the
bill in the Council. He said, after the bill passed the House the
saloon-keepers, alarmed lest their occupation would be gone if
women should vote, button-holed the members of the Council, and as
many of them as could be bought by drinks pledged themselves to
vote against the bill. The members of the Council were present, and
though an urgent invitation was given to all to speak, not one of
them denied the charge made by Mr. White. On the following Monday
an effort was made in the Council to reconsider the bill, but
failed. Thus stands our cause at present.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_788" id="Page_788">[Pg 788]</a></span> There will be a greater
effort than ever before put forth during the next two years to
secure an affirmative vote in our legislature. </p></blockquote>

<p>As Mrs. Brown wrote the above in 1881, the promise in the closing
sentence was really quite prophetic, since the legislature of 1883
passed a law enfranchising the women of the territory.<a name="FNanchor_515_515" id="FNanchor_515_515"></a><a href="#Footnote_515_515" class="fnanchor">[515]</a> Mrs.
Duniway concludes her account with a brief reference to the work in
neighboring territories:</p>

<blockquote><p>In addition to all that is being done in Oregon and Washington,
we are actively engaged in pushing the work in Idaho and Montana
territories, where the <i>New Northwest</i> has been thoroughly
circulated in many localities and many spirited public meetings
have been held. The Idaho legislature seriously considered and
came near adopting a woman suffrage bill last winter, and the
women of the territory are confidently awaiting a triumph at the
next biënnial session. Remembering Dakota's set-back through the
governor's veto in 1885, they are carefully planning to avoid a
like calamity in their own territory. In Montana the cause has
made less apparent progress, but there is much quiet and
constantly increasing agitation in its favor. Popular feeling is
steadily ripening for the change, and let the rest of the world
wag as it will, there cannot be much longer hindrance to the
complete triumph of liberty in the Pacific Northwest. </p>
</blockquote>

<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_507_507" id="Footnote_507_507"></a><a href="#FNanchor_507_507"><span class="label">[507]</span></a> Hon. H. L. Yesler, the city's founder and mayor;
Mrs. Yesler, Rev. John F. Damon, Mrs. Mary Olney Brown, Rev. Daniel
Bagley and others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_508_508" id="Footnote_508_508"></a><a href="#FNanchor_508_508"><span class="label">[508]</span></a> Its leaders being Mrs. Abble H. H. Stuart, Mrs. P.
C. Hale, Hon. Marshall Blinn, Hon. Elwood Evans, and Mr. J. M.
Murphy, editor of the <i>Washington Standard</i>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_509_509" id="Footnote_509_509"></a><a href="#FNanchor_509_509"><span class="label">[509]</span></a> Mr. D. W. Williams, Mr. and Mrs. W. T. Shanahan, Mr.
and Mrs. A. B. Gibson, Rev. T. L. Eliot, Mr. B. C. Duniway, Dr.
Mary A. Thompson, Rev. Isaac Dillon and Hon. and Mrs. G. W. Brown.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_510_510" id="Footnote_510_510"></a><a href="#FNanchor_510_510"><span class="label">[510]</span></a> Addresses were made in advocacy of the cause by Col.
Reed, Mrs. J. Devore Johnson, Miss V. M. Olds, Rev. T. L. Eliot,
Mrs. C. A. Coburn, Mrs. Beatty (colored), and the writer. The
celebrated McGibeney family furnished the music, and the Portland
press gave favorable reports of the proceedings. Valuable aid was
also contributed by Mr. and Mrs. D. H. Hendee, Mr. and Mrs. J. W.
Peters, and Mrs. M. J. Foster.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_511_511" id="Footnote_511_511"></a><a href="#FNanchor_511_511"><span class="label">[511]</span></a> Governor Newell, Judge Orange Jacobs, Judge B. F.
Dennison, Mrs. Pamela Hale, Hon. Philip D. Moore, Mr. W. S.
Duniway, Captain William H. Smallwood, the writer, and a large
number of the members of the legislature.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_512_512" id="Footnote_512_512"></a><a href="#FNanchor_512_512"><span class="label">[512]</span></a> S. F. Chadwick, United States Representative M. C.
George, ex-United States Senator J. H. Mitchell, United States
District Judge M. P. Deady, Hon. H. W. Scott, editor of the
<i>Oregonian</i>, ex-Governor A. C. Gibbs, District-Attorneys J. F.
Caples and T. A. McBride, and various ex-members of the
legislature.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_513_513" id="Footnote_513_513"></a><a href="#FNanchor_513_513"><span class="label">[513]</span></a> The official vote of the State was 11,223 for the
amendment, and 28,176 against.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_514_514" id="Footnote_514_514"></a><a href="#FNanchor_514_514"><span class="label">[514]</span></a> <i>Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Territory
of Washington:</i>
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Section</span> 1. All female citizens of the age of twenty-one years shall
be entitled to vote at all elections in the territory, subject only
to such regulations as male citizens.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 2. Any officer of election who shall refuse to take the vote
of a woman citizen (otherwise qualified to vote), shall be liable
to a fine of not less than $100 nor more than $500.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 3. All laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 4. This act to be in force on and after its passage.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_515_515" id="Footnote_515_515"></a><a href="#FNanchor_515_515"><span class="label">[515]</span></a> The bill was introduced in the Washington House by
Representative Coply, and was supported in speeches by Messrs.
Coply, Besserer, Miles, Clark and Stitzel, while Messrs. Landrum
and Kincaid spoke against it. The vote was: <i>Ayes</i>&mdash;Besserer,
Brooks, Clark, Coply, Foster, Goodell, Hungate, Kuhn, Lloyd,
Martin, Miles, Shaw, Stitzel and Speaker Ferguson&mdash;14.
<i>Noes</i>&mdash;Barlow, Brining, Landrum, Ping, Kincaid, Shoudy and
Young&mdash;7. <i>Absent</i>&mdash;Blackwell, Turpin and Warner&mdash;3. The bill was
favorably reported in the Council, November 15, by Chairman Burk of
the Judiciary Committee. No one offered to speak on it. The vote
stood: <i>Ayes</i>&mdash;Burk, Edmiston, Hale, Harper, Kerr, Power and
Smith&mdash;7. <i>Noes</i>&mdash;Caton, Collins, Houghton, Whitehouse and
President Truax&mdash;5. Governor W. A. Newell approved the bill
November 22, 1883.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_789" id="Page_789">[Pg 789]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LV" id="CHAPTER_LV"></a>CHAPTER LV.</h2>

<h3>LOUISIANA&mdash;TEXAS&mdash;ARKANSAS&mdash;MISSISSIPPI.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>St. Anna's Asylum, Managed by Women&mdash;Constitutional Convention,
1879&mdash;Women Petition&mdash;Clara Merrick Guthrie&mdash;Petition Referred to
Committee on Suffrage&mdash;A Hearing Granted&mdash;Mrs. Keating&mdash;Mrs.
Saxon&mdash;Mrs. Merrick&mdash;Col. John M. Sandige&mdash;Efforts of the Women
all in Vain&mdash;Action in 1885&mdash;Gov. McEnery&mdash;The <i>Daily
Picayune</i>&mdash;Women as Members of the School-Board&mdash;Physiology in
the Schools&mdash;Miss Eliza Rudolph&mdash;Mrs. E. J. Nicholson&mdash;Judge
Merrick's Digest of Laws&mdash;Texas&mdash;Arkansas&mdash;Mississippi&mdash;Sarah A.
Dorsey. </p>
</div>


<h4 class="sc">I.&mdash;Louisiana.</h4>

<p>Mrs. Caroline E. Merrick has furnished the following interesting
facts from her native State, for which we feel ourselves deeply
indebted:</p>

<blockquote><p>Like the children of one family the States have a common
resemblance, but they are various in character as in geographical
outline. In Louisiana the Anglo-American finds himself
side-by-side with inhabitants of French or Spanish descent, and
in many of the country parishes the African freedmen outnumber
all the rest.</p>

<p>St. Anna's Asylum in New Orleans is controlled and managed by a
board of directors composed entirely of women. Among the inmates
in 1878 was a German woman who had resided in the institution for
many years. Finding herself in ill-health and fearing the
approach of the end, she confided to the ladies of the board that
she had a thousand dollars in bank which she wished to bequeath
to the home where she had been provided for and sheltered so
long. At her earnest request a will was drawn up in accordance
with her wishes, and signed by members of the board who were
present as witnesses. Shortly after, the woman died and her will
was submitted to the proper authority for admission to probate.
When the ladies were duly informed that the will was null and
void, they naturally asked why, and were told that under
Louisiana law women were not lawful witnesses to a will. Had they
only called in the old darkey wood-sawyer, doing a day's work in
the asylum yard, and had him affix his mark to the paper, the
money would have accrued to the asylum; as it was, it went to the
State.</p>

<p>Early in 1879, when a convention to make a new State
constitution<a name="FNanchor_516_516" id="FNanchor_516_516"></a><a href="#Footnote_516_516" class="fnanchor">[516]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_790" id="Page_790">[Pg 790]</a></span></a> had been called and was about to assemble in
New Orleans, Mrs. Merrick tried to arouse the ladies of the
board, representing to them that in the controlling power they
exercised over St. Anna's Asylum they were only children
<i>playing</i> they were a part of the people and citizens of the
State, when in reality they were legally powerless to perform any
free and independent act. The ladies were mortified by the
position in which they found themselves but were not willing to
take any step to remedy their pitiful case, not even to sign the
petition which was afterwards drawn up by Mrs. Saxon and Mrs.
Merrick to present to the constitution-makers to have these
disabilities removed. The petition was as follows:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To the Honorable President and Members of the Convention of
Louisiana, convened for the purpose of framing a new
Constitution:</i></p>

<p>The undersigned, citizens of the State of Louisiana, respectfully
represent:</p>

<p>That up to the present time all women, of whatever age or
capacity, have been debarred from the right of representation,
notwithstanding the burdensome taxes which they have paid.</p>

<p>They have been excluded from holding any office save in cases of
special tutorships in limited degree, or of administration only
in specified cases.</p>

<p>They have been debarred from being witnesses to wills or notarial
acts, even when executed by their own sex.</p>

<p>They look upon this condition of things as a grievance proper to
be brought before your honorable body for consideration and
relief.</p>

<p>As a question of civilization, we look upon the enfranchisement
of women as an all-important one. In Wyoming, where it has been
tried for ten years, the law-makers and clergy unite in declaring
that this influx of women voters has done more to promote
morality and order than thousands of armed men could have
accomplished.</p>

<p>Should the entire franchise seem too extended a privilege, we
most earnestly urge the adoption of a property qualification, and
that women may be allowed a vote on school and educational
matters, involving as they do the interests of women and children
in a great degree.</p>

<p>So large a proportion of the taxes of Louisiana is paid by women,
many of them without male representatives, that in granting
consideration and relief for grievances herein complained of, the
people will recognize justice and equity. To woman as well as man
"taxation without representation is tyranny," she being "a
person, a citizen, a freeholder, a tax-payer," the same as man,
only government has never held out the same fostering, protecting
hand to all alike, nor ever will, until women are directly
represented.</p>

<p>Wherefore, we, your petitioners, pray that some suitable
provision remedying these evils be incorporated in the
constitution you are about to frame. </p></blockquote>

<p>While this petition was being circulated, favorable articles
appeared from time to time in the public prints. The following,
signed "Fatima," the <i>nom de plume</i> of Clara Merrick Guthrie,
appeared in the <i>Democrat</i>:</p>

<blockquote><p>A well-known notary signed this petition with a flourish,
remarking that "few women and not over half the men were aware of
the disabilities of wives and daughters."</p>

<p>If the convention should invest women of property with the
elective franchise it<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_791" id="Page_791">[Pg 791]</a></span> would give to the respectable side of
politics a large body of sensible voters which would go far
toward neutralizing the evil of unlimited male suffrage. The
policy in the Northern States has been to demand unrestricted
suffrage, but the women of Louisiana may with propriety exhibit
certain variations in the nature of their appeal. This subject in
all its phases inspires my enthusiasm, but I dare not be as
eloquent as I might, lest a messenger should be sent to me with
an urgent request to address the convention next Monday evening.
* * * *</p>

<p><i>On dit.</i>&mdash;Other ladies beside our brave Mrs. Saxon are desired
to give their views. Now surely the convention would not ask
these quiet house-mothers, who are not even remotely akin to
professional agitators, to do such violence to their old-time
precedents if the prospect of some reward were not encouraging
and immediate. Nothing could induce me to make personal
application save the solemn obligation of the whole august body
to accede to my timid proposal simultaneously and by acclamation.
Fortunately for us there are women in Louisiana more sacrificing
of their naturally shrinking disposition, who perhaps take the
cause more seriously than your correspondent, who would make a
most persuasive enrolling-officer but not so gallant a general
for active service. </p></blockquote>

<p>After securing over 400 influential names<a name="FNanchor_517_517" id="FNanchor_517_517"></a><a href="#Footnote_517_517" class="fnanchor">[517]</a> the petition was
sent in to the convention and was referred to the Committee on
Suffrage, Mr. Felix P. Poché, chairman, now judge of the Supreme
Court. On May 7, the committee invited the ladies to a conference
at Parlor P, St. Charles Hotel. Mr. and Mrs. Saxon, Colonel and
Mrs. John M. Sandige and Mrs. Mollie Moore Davis were present. Mrs.
Saxon spoke for an hour and replied to questions from the
committee. She made a very favorable impression and was highly
commended for her argument. On June 16 the friends of the petition
were notified that a hearing would be granted them at the evening
session of the convention. Mrs. Harriette C. Keating and Mrs.
Elizabeth L. Saxon had consented to speak if such a hearing were
granted.</p>

<p>Col. John M. Sandige, who had occupied prominent positions in the
political affairs of the State, gave much encouragement and
assistance. He did not hesitate to urge the importance of this
movement, and the necessity that the women who were most interested
should cheerfully assume their responsibility in relation to it.
While Mrs. Saxon was known already as a fearless and able reformer,
and Dr. Harriette C. Keating as a noble representative of woman in
professional life, he thought it was desirable to have a voice from
the home and from society, and Mrs. Caroline E. Merrick was
solicited to come forward and endorse what her colleagues<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_792" id="Page_792">[Pg 792]</a></span> would
say, in a few words at the close of the proceedings. Mrs. Merrick
finally agreed that she should see her duty in the light in which
it was presented if Judge Merrick, who constituted her court of
last resort, should leave her entirely free to act in the case.
After a consultation, to her great surprise and consternation the
judge said, "You have always desired to help women&mdash;here is an
opportunity; go forward and do your share in this work."</p>

<p>The surprise could hardly have been greater if a procession of
slaves twenty-five years ago had come up in force to the lordly
mansion of their master with several spokesmen chosen from their
ranks, for the avowed purpose of asking for their freedom. The
ladies were treated with a delicate courtesy and kindness on this
unusual occasion, which they can never forget. Judge Poché, with
the tact of a true gentleman, endeavored to smooth a difficult way,
reassuring the failing courage of the ladies while assisting them
to mount the platform. The <i>Daily Picayune</i> of June 17, 1879, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The usually prosaic and unimpressive appearance of the convention
hall assumed for the occasion an entire change last evening. When
the convention closed its forenoon's labors, it took a recess
until half-past 7 o'clock for the purpose of affording the female
suffragists an opportunity to plead their cause before a full
meeting. The scene before the convention was called to order was
interesting and amusing. As the minutes rolled on the crowd of
ladies commenced to pour in, and by 8 o'clock the hall contained
some fifty representatives of the gentler sex of the Crescent
City. Every age of womanhood and every class of beauty found a
representative upon the floor. About half a dozen "society girls"
occupied a retired corner of the room, while a number of the
notables, including Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines, took possession of
the middle of the hall.</p>

<p>Promptly at 8 o'clock President Wiltz climbed to his seat and
called the convention to order in a tone slightly husky from
nervous excitement. Secretary Harris, having summoned up his
spare courage, called the roll in a determined voice. Of the 134
members 106 responded to their names. After the usual
preliminaries Mr. Poché announced that a committee of ladies were
in attendance, prepared to address the convention upon the
question of woman suffrage. He then introduced Mrs. Dr. Keating.
The fair speaker had scarcely begun before it was seen that she
possessed a clear, slow enunciation and perfect confidence in her
ability to enforce the doctrines of the cause she was to
advocate. She read from manuscript and showed no little knowledge
of the rules of oratory.</p>

<p>Mrs. Saxon was greeted with a burst of applause, which was
gracefully acknowledged by the recipient; her address was earnest
and made a deep impression.</p>

<p>Mr. Robertson of St. Landry then offered the following
resolution, which lies over under the rules:</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That the committee on elective franchises be directed
to embody in the article upon suffrage reported in this
convention, a provision giving the right of suffrage to women
upon the same terms as to men.</p>

<p>After some talk the resolution was laid aside to allow another
speech to be made. Mrs. E. T. Merrick was introduced by Mr.
Poché, as the wife of ex-Chief-Justice Merrick, and a shower of
applause followed the appearance of the lady. She said:</p>

<p><i>Mr. President and Delegates of the Convention:</i>&mdash;We have met
with such unexpected kindness in the reception which you have
accorded us to-night, that we find it hard to give expression to
anything but thanks. When we remember the persistent and
aggressive efforts which our energetic sisters of the North put
forth before they could obtain a hearing before any legislative
assembly, we find ourselves lost in a pleasing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_793" id="Page_793">[Pg 793]</a></span> astonishment at
the graciousness which beams upon us here from all quarters.
Should we even now be remanded to our places and have our
petitions met with an utter refusal, we should be grieved to the
heart, we should be sorely disappointed, but we never could
cherish the least feeling of rebellious spite toward this
convention of men, who have shown themselves so respectful and
considerate toward the women of Louisiana.</p>

<p>Perhaps some of the gentlemen thought we did not possess the
moral courage to venture even thus far from the retirement in
which we prefer to dwell; perhaps they thought we would not dare
to appear in person before this formidable body and speak for our
own cause. Be assured that a resolute and conscientious woman can
put aside her individual preferences at the call of duty, and act
unselfishly for the good of others. You are our witnesses that we
have not wearied you by our importunities, nor have we sought in
any disingenuous manner to influence you in our favor. We are
simply here in response to your own courteous invitation to
explain our ideas and opinions on the great question of woman's
enfranchisement. The ladies who have already addressed you have
given you our arguments, and in eloquent language have made their
appeal, to which you could not have been insensible. It only
remains for me to give you some of my own individual views in the
few words which are to conclude this interview.</p>

<p>We assure you we are not cherishing any ambitious ideas of
political honors and emoluments for women. We do not wish to
become governors or legislators, nor have we any inordinate
desire to obtain seats in congress. I have seen but one woman who
ever expressed even a wish to be president of these United
States. But we do ask with most serious earnestness that you
should give us the ballot, which has been truly called the
expression of allegiance and responsibility to the government.
All over the world this same movement is advancing. In many
countries earnest, thoughtful, large-hearted women are working
day and night to elevate their sex; to secure higher education;
to open new avenues for their industrious hands; trying to make
women helpers to man, instead of being millstones round his neck
to sink him in his life struggle. Ah, if we could only infuse
into your souls the courage which we, constitutionally timid as
we are, now feel on this subject, you would hasten to perform
this act of justice, and inaugurate the beginning of the end
which all but the blind can see is surely and steadily
approaching. We are willing to accept anything. We have always
been in the position of beggars, as now, and cannot be choosers
if we wished. We will gladly accept the franchise on any terms,
provided they be wholly and entirely honorable. If you should see
proper to subject us to an educational test, even of a high
order, we should try to attain it; if you require a considerable
property qualification, we would not complain. We would be only
too grateful for any amelioration of our legal disabilities.
Allow me to ask, are we less prepared for the intelligent
exercise of the right of suffrage than were the freedmen when it
was suddenly conferred upon them? Has not this right been to them
a beneficial stimulant, inducing them to use exertions to promote
their improvement, and has it not raised them to a superior
place, above the disfranchised classes, such as the Chinese,
Indians and women?</p>

<p>Perhaps you think only a few of us desire the ballot. If that
were so, we think it would not be any sufficient reason for
withholding it. In old times most of our slaves were happy and
contented. Under the rule of good and humane masters, they gave
themselves no trouble to grasp after a freedom which was beyond
their reach. So it is with us to-day. We are happy and kindly
treated (as witness our reception here to-night), and in the
enjoyment of the numerous privileges which our chivalrous
gentlemen are so ready to accord; many of us who feel a wish for
freedom, do not venture even to whisper a single word about our
rights. For the last twenty-five years I have occasionally
expressed a desire to vote, and it was always received as a
matter of surprise, but the sort of effect produced was as
different as the characters of the individuals with whom I
conversed. <span class="spacious">* * * *</span></p>

<p>Gentlemen of the convention, we now leave our cause in your
hands, and commend it to your favorable consideration. We have
pointed out to you the signs of the dawning<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_794" id="Page_794">[Pg 794]</a></span> of a better day for
woman, which are so plain before our eyes, and implore you to
reach out your hand and help us up, that we may catch the first
glimpse of its glory before it floods the world with noon-day
light.<a name="FNanchor_518_518" id="FNanchor_518_518"></a><a href="#Footnote_518_518" class="fnanchor">[518]</a></p>

<p>Col. John M. Sandidge read a letter from Mrs. Sarah A. Dorsey:</p>

<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">June</span> 11, 1879.</p>

<p><i>Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:</i>&mdash;Too weak from
recent illness and suffering to appear personally before you by
the side of the women of Louisiana who are asking for the
privilege and responsibility of political suffrage, I am forced
to use this mode of indorsing their movement.</p>

<p>Being left by the fiat of God entirely alone in the world, with
no man to represent me, having large interests in the State and
no voice either in representation or taxation while hundreds of
my negro lessees vote and control my life and property, I feel
that I ought to say one word that may perhaps aid many other
women whom fate has left equally destitute. It is doubtful
whether I shall rise from my couch of pain to profit by the gift
should the men of Louisiana decide to give the women of the State
the right which is the heritage of the Anglo-Saxon
race&mdash;representation for taxation. But still I ask it for my
sisters and for the future of the race. We women of Louisiana
have always been treated before the law as civil partners of our
husbands. In every respect our rights have been protected.</p>

<p>It needs but one more step to make us civilly free, and this we
ask you to embody in your new constitution. Many men are not
opposed to the fact of female suffrage, but to its mode at
present; that could be corrected, and women need not be exposed
to the coarseness and strife of the polls as they are now
conducted. There is no man among you who does not believe his
wife or his daughter intelligently capable of taking a voice in
the government. If my lessees are capable of being citizens of
Louisiana, it is because for thirty years of my life and for five
generations of my ancestors we have interested ourselves in their
civilization and in their instruction. Gentlemen, we ask nothing
that would unsex ourselves. We do not expect to do man's work; we
can never pass the limits which nature herself has set. But we
ask for justice; we ask for removal of unnatural restrictions
that are contrary to the elemental spirit of the civil law; we do
not ask for rights, but for permission to assume our natural
responsibilities.</p>

<p>Praying that the hearts and minds of the men of Louisiana may be
moved toward this act of justice, I am, with profound respect,
your obedient servant,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">Sarah A. Dorsey.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The Webster <i>Tribune</i>, Mr. Scanland, editor, of June 25, 1879,
shows the sensation created in the remotest parishes of Louisiana
by this hearing before the convention:</p>

<blockquote><p>The ladies, it seems, are about walking up and demanding enlarged
liberties. We were under the impression that women generally had
about as much latitude as they wanted, but if they desire more,
the <i>Tribune</i> says, in the name of gallantry if not justice, let
them have all they wish. There is an element throughout the Union
agitating the proposition that they are entitled to vote because
they are taxed. The Constitution of the United States provides
that no one shall be taxed without representation. Representation
is based on population, and, of course, the ladies are
enumerated; and the "horrid men" claim that the ladies are
represented through them. This a great many repudiate, and their
heads are about level. When a man assumes to represent a woman,
he undertakes a larger contract than he imagines&mdash;something we
would not dream of attempting in a political or any other sense.</p>

<p>The ladies who advocate female suffrage claim that as they are
governed by the laws<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_795" id="Page_795">[Pg 795]</a></span> they have a right to a voice in making
them. Many of the ablest women of this country hold that belief,
and of all our noble statesmen, not one has advanced an answer to
this demand&mdash;reasonable, if it does come from women. A French
essayist held that as women are a part of society, they have a
right to be judges of its members, assist in making its laws, and
condemn and punish transgressors. They have their influence, but
that is not so effective as power. <span class="spacious">* * * *</span> Some of the brightest
intellects that adorn the social circles throughout this country
and State hold these views and ably advance them. Among them in
this State are Mrs. E. L. Saxon, Mrs. Merrick, wife of
ex-Chief-Justice Merrick, and Mrs. Dr. Harriette Keating. When
our convention was discussing the suffrage question, these ladies
petitioned to be heard. Of course the request was allowed. Last
Tuesday evening the above-mentioned ladies addressed the congress
at length. Their speeches were able, and the ideas they advanced
were sound logic; but if carried into effect may prove
beneficial, and may not. Woman suffrage is an experiment. Like
everything else, we will never know its effects until after it is
tried. We only wish that there were a few more men in that
convention who could make as able speeches as did these
ladies&mdash;notwithstanding the Utopian ideas advanced. </p></blockquote>

<p>When the new constitution finally went forth, it contained, as the
result of all our arguments and appeals, but one little concession:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 232. Women twenty-one years of age and upwards, shall be
eligible to any office of control or management under the school
laws of the State. </p></blockquote>

<p>Judge I. F. Marshall of Catahoula parish, an accomplished gentleman
and able lawyer, suggested this article, and it was presented and
championed by Hon. F. L. Claiborne<a name="FNanchor_519_519" id="FNanchor_519_519"></a><a href="#Footnote_519_519" class="fnanchor">[519]</a> of Pointe Coupée. The women
of Louisiana have never realized any advantage from this law. All
school offices are filled by appointment of the governor, and there
was no serious agitation for the enforcement of this clause in the
new constitution until the autumn of 1885, when, in response to the
demand that women should be appointed on the school-board of New
Orleans, Gov. McEnery, through a correspondent of the
<i>Times-Democrat</i>, gave his opinion as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>If a married woman occupied an office under the school laws, in
which it was necessary to bring a suit to enforce some right
connected with it, she would have to get the consent of her
husband to bring the suit and join him with her. There are only a
few exceptional cases where the married woman can legally act
independently of her husband. Our code so recognizes the
paramount control of the husband that when a widow, who is the
tutor of her minor children, wishes to marry, and gets the
consent of a family meeting to be retained in the tutorship, the
code, article 255, says: Her second husband becomes of necessity
the co-tutor, and, for the administration of the property
subsequently to his marriage, becomes bound <i>in solido</i> with his
wife. And so it would be in the appointment of a married woman to
a public office. Her husband, of necessity, would share it with
her; would, in fact, be the officer. And as to unmarried women,
Article 232 does not repeal any of their disabilities. It does
not repeal the laws creating the essential differences between
men and women. It, as I stated, simply asserts a right, and is
inoperative until there is legislation to enforce it. </p></blockquote>

<p>The <i>Daily Picayune</i> of November 16, under the head lines of "Women
as Members of School Boards," "The Law and the Facts in the Case
Presented by Mrs. Merrick," gives the following: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_796" id="Page_796">[Pg 796]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>Last Thursday evening, November 12, a special meeting or
reception was held by the women's club at their rooms on Baronne
street. On this occasion the club was addressed by Mrs. Caroline
E. Merrick, a good and practical-minded friend of the cause of
woman. The 12th was the seventieth birthday of Mrs. Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, and a decorated picture of the famous woman hung in
the rooms. Mrs. Merrick read a sketch of the life of Mrs.
Stanton, but devoted the first part of the evening to reading the
following paper, the matter of which is, of the keenest interest
to all thinking men and women in the State:</p>

<p>More than eighty thousand children attend the public schools in
Louisiana, and of this number one-half are girls, and of the 389
teachers employed in the public schools of New Orleans, 368 are
women. It cannot be denied that these are of equal concern and
importance to the State with any like number of boys and men, nor
does it require any argument to prove that mothers are best
qualified to superintend and look after the welfare of their own
children. In view of this fact the convention of 1879 embodied
the following article in the constitution of the State:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 232. Women 21 years of age and upward shall be eligible
to any office of control or management under the school laws of
this State.</p>

<p>Notwithstanding the absolute right conferred by this article on
women over twenty-one years of age, the chief executive of the
State, with his present views, is apparently unwilling to make
any appointment of women to such management without further
legislation. The views of the Governor on all questions are
always entitled to great respect. The question is one of
interpretation, and many of the best lawyers in Louisiana do not
hesitate to hold and declare a different view.</p>

<p>I am told that there are in the various constitutions of the
States and general government two classes of provisions, the one
self-executing and absolute, and the other requiring legislative
action before they can be exercised. For example of the first
class, article 59 of the constitution declares that "the supreme
executive power of the State shall be vested in a chief
magistrate, who shall be styled the Governor of Louisiana."
Nobody would ever undertake to say that the governor was
dependent on any more legislation to carry this into effect so as
to enable him to fill his office. If he were, it would then
become necessary to legislate about every other article, and so
the constitution would be worthless, everything being required to
be done over by the legislature before the constitution could
have any effect.</p>

<p>Article 232 of the constitution is imperative. It declares that
women over twenty-one years of age shall be eligible to any
office of control or management under the school laws of the
State. Can the legislature repeal or modify this mandate? Of
course not. Could the absoluteness of this right be expressed in
plainer or more energetic terms? No, indeed. We are told and have
been made to understand that it is a right conferred by the
constitution of the State, which cannot be defeated or enlarged,
or even abridged in any way by the legislature; neither by
modification, repeal, or inaction. That this article being
paramount law, itself repeals all legislation inconsistent with
it. The constitution, I am told, prescribes the legal and other
qualifications for our judges of the courts. Nobody ever thought
legislative action was needed when their qualifications are
according to that instrument, to enable them to take their places
on the bench.</p>

<p>Article 185 of the constitution prescribes the qualifications of
voters or electors, and we are instructed that all conflicting
laws on that point are annulled by the sovereign will of the
people in convention assembled. In fact, good lawyers have given
us innumerable examples, illustrations and decisions to this
effect; and even women, who are for the most part ignorant of the
laws of their State, begin to understand that they have a right
to a place on the school-board for some one of their own sex here
in Louisiana. True, it has been said that there are other
articles which are in conflict with article 232, but we are told
the other provisions of the constitution relate to other and more
general subjects, and on this very subject the framers of the
constitution have in very positive and unmistakable terms
declared its precise will, and it is wasting time to try to
explain it away. These wise jurists do not fear to tell us
further, that special<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_797" id="Page_797">[Pg 797]</a></span> laws or provisions in a constitution or
statute abrogate or limit the general provisions in the same
instrument.</p>

<p>We are sorry that our governor apprehends any difficulty would
arise in regard to married women being school directors. He says
the husband might change his domicile and the wife would be
obliged to follow him, and if bond were required she could not
sign it without his consent, and finally the fact was she could
not do <i>anything</i> without the husband's consent. Then "the
husband would share the office with her." I have heard that it
was difficult to prevent outside influences from operating upon
the minds of men in office. We have certainly heard some
complaints of this sort, but it seems that there would be no
great danger encountered from this source. The duties which this
article of the constitution permits women to perform are not
generally remunerative, and would be probably more a labor of
love than of reward. As to the other objections, perhaps the
husband <i>would</i> sign his wife's bond, and perhaps he would <i>not</i>
move away while she held the office. I have heard that sheriffs
sometimes run away after giving bond, and people are sometimes
elected to office and unable to qualify, and others disappoint
the public by resigning. Moreover we have ascertained the fact
that a tutrix may subsequently marry, and that act does not
prevent her from filling the office of tutrix, neither does the
fact of being already married prevent her from discharging the
duties of tutrix. But I see no harm done if the husband should
become the assistant of his wife in this office. Is it not
manifest that the two together would have a superior official
knowledge of the needs and exigencies of the girls sent to the
public schools and the women who teach them daily, than the
husband could possibly attain by himself? But the whole
difficulty, it seems to us, might be obviated. Let the governor
appoint unmarried women. A woman who has been so unfortunate as
to be a widow would not be objectionable.</p>

<p>The article says: "Women over twenty-one years shall be eligible"
to these offices. It does not say the legislature may make them
"eligible." By its own inherent force it declares them eligible.
If they are really eligible, then why not have them selected and
appointed? They have every requisite for the office, and as the
dictionary says, are "proper to be chosen." They are "qualified
to be elected." They are "legally qualified." They are eligible.
It is not at all likely that the legislature will ever do the
vain thing of affirming a constitutional right so explicitly
given.</p>

<p>The opposition of the executive, therefore, seems to be a bar not
only to this provision being carried out, but also to the raising
of any question under it for the consideration of the judiciary.
It is confidently hoped and expected that he will consent to
reconsider the whole question. We feel sure the governor will not
intentionally be guilty of any injustice to the women of
Louisiana, and will not desire to withhold any benefit from them
which has already been conferred by the State constitution. Women
all over the Union rejoiced when this generous concession was
granted here in Louisiana. In many other States they enjoy the
same, and greater privileges, and letters and inquiries have come
from distant States, asking why this law has not gone into
effect. We are aware that any reform changing existing conditions
must move slowly, and is apt to be unpopular with men in
authority; then it also antagonizes the inertia of women, who are
too modest to thrust themselves forward, saying, "I am ready to
serve the State"; yet they know all the time they can do good
service in relation to the schools. Only give them a kindly
helping hand, and we feel sure that a valuable coöperating
influence will be felt, of which no one has ever dreamed in the
past. We leave this matter to the governor, to the citizens of
Louisiana, and to the fathers who take a deep interest in the
welfare of their daughters as well as of their sons. </p></blockquote>

<p>Our legislature passed a law requiring physiology to be taught in
the public schools, while the vast majority of the teachers of the
State are women, and no college in which that science is taught is
open to them. In 1885, Dr. Chaillé gave a course of free lectures
on physiology and anatomy for the benefit of the New Orleans
teachers, who, while they are doing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_798" id="Page_798">[Pg 798]</a></span> the most important-public work
in training the rising generation in the rudiments of learning, are
denied the advantages of the higher education that would fit them
for the duties of their profession. A fitting precedent for the
action of our rulers may be found in Shakespeare's, "Titus
Andronicus," in which rude men seize the king's daughter, cut out
her tongue and cut off her hands, and then bid her go call for
water and wash her hands.</p>

<p>The State Pharmaceutical Association, formed in 1882 with 110
members, unanimously elected Miss Eliza Rudolph a member. Miss
Rudolph was then the only woman in the drug business. Having been
refused admission to the medical college of the State University,
she perfected herself in pharmacy by a course of private lectures.
In 1884 she was elected corresponding secretary of the association.</p>

<p>The <i>Daily Picayune</i>, in closing its half-century, gives the
following of Mrs. E. J. Nicholson, its chief owner and manager
since January, 1876:</p>

<blockquote><p>"Pearl Rivers," the lady's <i>nom de plume</i>, was already well known
in the republic of letters before she became, as she now is, the
most eminent female journalist in the world, largely owning and
successfully directing for years a great daily political journal.
The fact is unique. The fame of Mrs. Nicholson belongs to the
world of letters and her biography may be found in any dictionary
of Southern authors, nevertheless a history of the <i>Picayune</i>
would not be complete without some notice of one who has had so
much to do with its destiny. Miss Eliza J. Poltevent is a native
of Hancock county, Mississippi. She was born on the banks of one
of the most beautiful streams in the South, Pearl river. She
wrote over the name of "Pearl Rivers," and her poems made her a
conspicuous niche in the temple of Southern letters. She wrote
much for the <i>Picayune</i> and wrote herself into love as well as
fame. She was married to Col. Holbrook, the proprietor of the
paper, and after his death in 1876, she succeeded to the
ownership. This was a trying position for a woman. The South had
not recovered from the devastation of the war, and the <i>Picayune</i>
was involved in embarrassments. Friends even advised her to
dispose of the property and not to undertake so formidable a task
as the conduct of a daily paper under existing complications.
Brave and true-hearted, with a profound and abiding conviction of
her duty in the matter, she assumed the control of the paper. She
wisely surrounded herself with able and devoted assistants, and
with their help has gallantly and successfully surmounted many
formidable obstacles, until she has seen the <i>Picayune</i>
reëstablished on a sound and prosperous basis. Mr. George
Nicholson had acquired a proprietorship in it, and when Mrs.
Holbrook assumed control the firm name was E. J. Holbrook &amp; Co.
On June 28, 1878, the interests of the two copartners were
further consolidated by marriage. Since then the <i>Picayune</i> has
been published under the firm name of Nicholson &amp; Co., and the
columns daily attest the energy, enterprise and ability with
which it is conducted, while its advertising patronage speaks for
itself. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Martha R. Field is a member of the editorial staff of the
<i>Picayune</i>. She has charge of the Sunday woman's column, besides
her regular column over the <i>nom de plume</i> of Catherine Cole.</p>

<p>The <i>Times-Democrat</i> is owned by Mrs. Burke, who however leaves its
management to her husband, Col. Burke. Miss Bessie Bisland, under
the name of B. L. R. Dane, contributes to the Sunday paper, and
edits the "<i>Bric-a-Brac</i> column" which consists of criticisms and
reviews of the leading magazines. This paper boasts the most clever
"Society column" in the country; it is edited by Mrs. Jennie
Coldwell Nixon who is now, 1886, superintendent of the Woman's
Department of the Exposition.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_799" id="Page_799">[Pg 799]</a></span></p>

<p>Mrs. J. Pinkney Smith edits the "Social Melange" of the <i>States</i>.
Among the regular Sunday contributors are Miss Corrinne
Castillanos, who buzzes as the Society Bee, and Mrs. Mollie Moore
Davis, known as the "Texas Song Bird." Mrs. Ada Hilderbrand, editor
of the <i>Courier</i> at Gretna, did the printing for the Woman's
Exposition.</p>

<p>New Orleans has a Woman's National Press Association of which Mrs.
E. J. Nicholson is president; a Christian Woman's Exchange, Mrs. R.
M. Wamsley, president, doing a business of $45,000 a year,<a name="FNanchor_520_520" id="FNanchor_520_520"></a><a href="#Footnote_520_520" class="fnanchor">[520]</a> a
Southern Art Union and Woman's Industrial Association, with Mrs. J.
H. Stauffer and others on the auxiliary executive committee, and a
Woman's Club,<a name="FNanchor_521_521" id="FNanchor_521_521"></a><a href="#Footnote_521_521" class="fnanchor">[521]</a> originated by Miss Bessie Bisland who was the
president of the club for the first year, 1885.</p>

<p>The laws of Louisiana relating to women have been given by Judge E.
T. Merrick, a well-known legal authority and for ten years the
chief-justice of the Supreme Court of the State:</p>

<blockquote><p>The rights of married women to their estates are probably better
secured in Louisiana than in any other of these United States.
The laws on this subject are derived from Spain. Certain
provinces of that kingdom were conquered and for centuries held
by the Visigoths, among whom, as among the Franks at Paris, the
institution called the community of aquets and gains between
husband and wife, prevailed. In Spain, as in France, there were
certain provinces in which the ancient Roman law continued in
force, and they were called the provinces of the written law. In
these (called also the countries of the <i>dotal regime</i>) there was
no community between the spouses of their acquisitions. Both of
these systems are recognized by the Louisiana civil code, but if
the parties marry without any marriage settlement the law implies
that they have married under the <i>regime</i> of the community. To
prevent error it is proper to observe that there have been three
civil codes adopted in Louisiana, viz., in 1808, 1825 and 1870.
The marriage laws are substantially the same in all, but bear
different numbers in each code. The following references are to
the code of 1870. Except in a very limited number of cases the
husband and wife are incapable of making binding contracts with
each other during the marriage. Hence all settlements of
property, to be binding, must be executed before marriage and in
solemn form, that is, before a notary and two male witnesses
having the proper qualifications. The betrothed are granted
considerable liberty over the provisions of their marriage
contract, as the following quotations show:</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 2,325. In relation to property, the law only regulates the
conjugal association in default of particular agreements, which
the parties are at liberty to stipulate as they please, provided
they be not contrary to good morals and under the modifications
hereafter prescribed.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 2,326. Husband and wife can in no case enter into any
agreement or make any renunciation the object of which would be
to alter the legal order of descents, either with respect to
themselves, in what concerns the inheritance of their children,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_800" id="Page_800">[Pg 800]</a></span>
posterity, or with respect to their children between themselves,
without prejudice to the donations <i>inter vivas</i> or <i>mortis
causa</i>, which may take place according to the formalities and in
the cases determined by this code.</p>

<p>The parties are also "prohibited from derogating from the power
of the husband over the person of his wife and children which
belongs to the husband as the head of the family, or from the
rights guaranteed to the surviving husband or wife" (C. C., Art.
2,327).</p>

<p>If the parties adopt the <i>dotal regime</i> in their marriage
contract the dotal effects are (except under some circumstances)
inalienable during marriage; and at the dissolution of the
marriage, they are to be replaced or returned to the wife, or her
heirs, and to secure this, the wife has a mortgage on her
husband's lands, and a privilege on his movables, including those
of the community (C. C., Art. 2376; Art. 2347). "The dower is
given to the husband, for him to enjoy the same as long as the
marriage shall last." Strong as is this language, the dowry is
given by the wife or her father or mother or other relations or
friends, simply to support the marriage.</p>

<p>Under the <i>regime</i> of the community, the individual property of
the husband or wife, and all property either may acquire
afterwards by inheritance or donations re-remain separate
property. The conjugal partnership is defined by C. C., Art.
2402. "This partnership, or community, consists of the profits of
all the effects of which the husband has the administration and
enjoyment, either of right or in fact, of the produce of the
reciprocal industry and labor of both husband and wife, and the
estates which they may acquire during marriage, either by
donations made jointly to them both, or by purchase, or in any
other similar way, even should the purchase be in the name of one
of the two, and not of both, because in that case the period of
time when the purchase is made is alone attended to, and not the
person who made the purchase."</p>

<p>During the marriage the husband has the management of the
community, and he can sell or exchange the same, but he cannot
give away the real estate without binding his estate to
recompense the wife or her heirs, for the one-half so given away.
All the income of his estate must enter into the community. On
the other hand the wife may at her pleasure take her own estate
from the management of the husband into her own control and
discretion (C. C. 2384). But in this contingency she must
contribute to the family expenses (C. C. 2389 and 2435).</p>

<p>If the affairs of the husband become embarrassed, the wife can
sue the husband for a separation of property, and get a judgment
against him for all indebtedness, on account of money or property
used or disposed of by him, and sell him out under execution, and
buy in the property herself if she sees fit. Thus she stands in a
more favorable position toward the community than the husband,
who is bound for all its debts, for she can stand by and choose.
If the community becomes prosperous, she has the absolute right,
as owner, to one-half of it after payment of debts, and a right
to the income of the other half until she dies, or marries a
second time.</p>

<p>By causing her claims on account of her separate or paraphernal
estate to be recorded, she secures a mortgage against her
husband's lands and the lands of the community. If a husband or
wife dies affluent, leaving the survivor in necessitous
circumstances, the latter can claim one-fourth of the estate of
the deceased. This is called "the marital fourth." The wife,
also, if she or the children do not possess one thousand dollars
in their own right, can claim as a privilege and against the
creditors, one thousand dollars, or a sum which, with her own
estate, shall equal that amount.</p>

<p>The wife cannot appear in court, or dispose of, or mortgage, or
acquire real estate, without the consent of the husband, but the
judge of the court of the domicil may authorize the wife to sue,
or be sued. If the husband refuses to empower the wife to
contract, she may cite him into court and have the property of
the proposed contract settled by an order of the judge. The wife
has full power to make a will without any authorization from her
husband or the court.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 2,398. The wife, whether separated in property, by contract,
or by judgment, or not separated, cannot bind herself for her
husband, nor conjointly with him, for debts contracted by him
before or during the marriage.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_801" id="Page_801">[Pg 801]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 119. The husband and wife owe to each other mutual fidelity,
support and assistance.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Art.</span> 120. The wife is bound to live with her husband, and follow
him wherever he chooses to reside; the husband is obliged to
receive her, and furnish her with whatever is required for the
convenience of life in proportion to his means and condition.</p>

<p>It is provided that the domicil for granting divorces of such
marriages as have been solemnized in Louisiana, shall be in that
State so that the courts of Louisiana may grant divorces for
causes and faults committed in foreign countries. For abandonment
and other causes, a final divorce cannot be granted until one
year after a decree of separation from bed and board has elapsed
without a reconciliation. In other particulars the law is similar
to that of the other States. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 360px;">
<a name="v3_801" id="v3_801">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_801.jpg" width="360" height="500" alt="Caroline E. Merrick" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>One day in 1842, the New Orleans <i>Delta</i> had this item: "Myra Clark
Gaines argued her own case in court in this city; the only instance
of a lady appearing as counsel in the courts." Mrs. Gaines was a
remarkable woman. She carried on a suit for many years against the
city of New Orleans to recover property that belonged to her, and,
through untold difficulties and delays, triumphed at last. She
preserved her youth, beauty and vivacity until late in life. All
who knew her can readily recall her bright, sparkling face, and
wonderful powers of conversation. In her long experience in
litigation, she became well versed in the laws regarding real
estate and the right of descent. Mrs. Gaines was a generous woman
and did not desire to rob the poor; to many such she gave a
quit-claim title to the property which she had secured under her
suits.</p>

<p>In 1869, the New Orleans <i>Republican</i> had an excellent editorial
fully endorsing the demand for woman's enfranchisement. In 1870 the
<i>Livingston Herald</i>, published in Ponchatoula parish, by J. O. and
J. E. Spencer, advocated suffrage for women.</p>

<p>In 1874, the secretary of the treasury rendered a decision that
when a woman owns a steamboat she may be named in the papers as the
master of the same. This decision, despite the opposition of
Solicitor Raynor, received confirmation in case of Mrs. Miller, in
1883, from Secretary Charles J. Folger.</p>


<h4 class="sc">II.&mdash;Texas.</h4>

<p>In the adoption of the first constitution of Texas, woman had some
representatives in the convention to remind the legislators of that
State of her existence, and to demand that the constitution be so
framed as to secure the right of suffrage alike to both sexes. On
the resolution of Mr. Mundine, to extend suffrage to women, in the
constitutional convention of Texas, January, 1869, Hon. L. D. Evans
said:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_802" id="Page_802">[Pg 802]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>I do not favor the adoption of this measure at the present time,
because the country is not yet prepared, yet it is entitled to
our respectful consideration&mdash;therefore I thank the convention
for allowing me the opportunity to state the ground on which the
friends of woman suffrage place their advocacy, so far as I may
be able under the five-minute rule. It does not comport with the
dignity of a representative body engaged in forming a
constitution of government to thrust aside the claim of woman to
the right of suffrage,&mdash;a claim that is advocated by some of the
ablest statesmen and political philosophers of Europe and
America, and is destined to a sure and speedy triumph.</p>

<p>Aristotle, the profoundest thinker of antiquity, in his treatise
on politics, defines a citizen to be "one who enjoys a due share
in the government of that country of which he is a member." If he
does not enjoy this right, then he is no citizen, but a subject.
Every citizen, therefore, is entitled to a voice&mdash;a vote&mdash;a due
share in the government of his country. I am aware that the
courts and politicians in democratic America have not so defined
citizenship. The reason is that politics is not yet a positive
science, and they have failed to analyze this question. Had they
a clear conception of the constituent elements&mdash;the anatomy, so
to speak, of the body politic, they would perceive that
suffrage&mdash;a voice in the government&mdash;is an essential condition of
citizenship. Aristotle, in his treatise, which is perhaps the
ablest yet given to the world, pointed out that families, not
individuals, are the constituent units of a State.</p>

<p>A family&mdash;a household&mdash;exists and is held together by natural
laws, independent of the State, and an aggregation of these
constitute the State. The head of the family, whoever that may
be, according to its structure, is the representative in the
State. All the constituent members of the family, consisting, in
its most perfect form, of husband, wife, children and domestics,
are subject to the authority of the head, and have no voice, no
vote, no share in the government, except through their head or
representative. In societies where the common law obtains, which
in this respect is a transcript of the Bible, the wife, like the
child, is subordinated to the authority of the husband, and on
principle, has no voice, no vote. On the decease of the husband,
the widow becomes the head of the family, and on principle is
entitled to a voice, a vote. But in countries where the civil law
governs, the wife is the partner, and not the subject of her
husband, and on principle ought to have her due share in the
government.</p>

<p>When the children in a family, whether male or female, attain the
age fixed by law for the control of their own affairs, and do
control them, they are free, independent, and on every principle
are entitled to a due share in the government&mdash;to a vote. Every
member of society who is free and independent&mdash;capable of
managing his own affairs, or making his own living, and does make
it, should have the same right of choice in the selection of his
political agents that he has to select his legal or business
agents. But all persons, no matter from what cause, who are
unable to maintain themselves, and are dependent for their
support upon others, are incapable of any share in the
government, and should have no voice&mdash;no vote. As soon as the
principle of citizenship comes to be thoroughly understood, woman
suffrage must be adopted throughout the United States, in
England, and in every country where representative government
exists. </p></blockquote>

<p><i>The Revolution</i> of August 20, 1868, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>We have received from Loring P. Haskins, esq., a delegate to the
convention, the following excellent report and declaration made
and signed by a majority of the committee to whom the subject of
woman suffrage was referred. We need scarcely bespeak attentive
reading:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>Report of the Committee on State Affairs upon Female Suffrage,
with accompanying Declaration:</i></p>

<p>July 30, 1868&mdash;Introduced and ordered to be printed.</p>

<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Committee Room, Austin</span>, Texas, July 10, 1868.
</p>

<p><i>To the Hon. E. J. Davis, President of the Convention:</i></p>

<p>A majority of your Committee on State Affairs, to whom was
referred the declaration<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_803" id="Page_803">[Pg 803]</a></span> introduced by the Hon. T. H. Mundine of
the county of Burleson, to extend the right of suffrage to all
citizens of the State over the age of twenty-one years,
possessing the requisite qualifications for electors, have
examined with much care said declaration and considered the
object sought to be accomplished, and have arrived at the
conclusion that said declaration ought to be a part of the
organic law.</p>

<p>It was said by George Washington that the safety of republican
government depends upon the virtue and intelligence of the
people. This declaration is not a new theory of government for
the first time proposed to be made a part of our republican
institutions. The idea of extending the elective franchise to
females has been discussed both in Great Britain and in the
United States. Your committee are of the opinion that the true
base of republican government must ever be the wisdom and virtue
of the people.</p>

<p>In this State our system of jurisprudence is a combination of
civil and Spanish law, intermixed with the common law of England;
and this peculiar system, just in all its parts for the
preservation of the rights of married and unmarried women, is
likely to be continued. The time was when woman was regarded as
the mere slave of man. It was believed, in order to perpetuate
the pretended divine right of kings to rule, that the mass of the
people should be kept in profound ignorance and that woman was
not entitled to the benefits of learning at all. It is not
remarkable that as the benign principles of Christianity have
been promulgated, free government has steadily progressed and the
divine rights of woman have been recognized.</p>

<p>The old constitution of the republic of Texas, the constitution
of the State of Texas of 1845, the laws enacted for the
protection of married women, the many learned decisions of the
Supreme Courts of Texas and Louisiana, and other courts, clearly
indicate that the march of intelligence is onward and that our
advanced civilization has approximated to the period when other
and more sacred rights are to be conceded. Is it just that woman,
who bears her reasonable portion of the burdens of government,
should be denied the right of aiding in the enactment of its
laws?</p>

<p>The question of extending the freedom of the ballot to woman may
well claim the attention of the law-maker, and in view of the
importance of the subject a majority of your committee earnestly
recommend the passage of the declaration.</p>



<div class="center">
<table width="80%" summary="Authors">
<tr><td align="center" colspan="2"><span class="smcap">H. C. Hunt</span>, <i>Chairman</i>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">T. H. Mundine</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Benj. Watrous</span>,</td></tr>
<tr><td align="left"><span class="smcap">Wm. H. Fleming</span>,</td><td align="left"><span class="smcap">L. P. Harris</span>.</td></tr>
</table></div>



<h4><span class="smcap">A Declaration.</span></h4>

<p>Be it declared by the people of Texas in convention assembled,
that the following shall be a section of the constitution of the
State of Texas, known as section &mdash;&mdash; of article &mdash;&mdash;: Every
person, without distinction of sex, who shall have arrived at the
age of twenty-one years, and who shall be a citizen of the United
States, or is at the time of the adoption of this constitution by
the congress of the United States a citizen of the State of
Texas, and shall have resided in this State one year next
preceding an election, and the last six months within the
district, county, city or town in which he or she offers to vote,
shall be an elector. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>The <i>Woman's Journal</i> of December 4, 1875, contains a letter from
Mrs. Sarah W. Hiatt, who presented a memorial to the constitutional
convention. The memorial was referred to the Committee on Suffrage.
In regard to the effect, she says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Since the presentation of the memorial I have had some very
interesting letters on the subject from a few of our leading men;
some for, others against woman suffrage, but all treating the
subject respectfully. I copy below a portion of one just
received. I should like to give it entire with the writer's name,
but have not his permission to do so: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_804" id="Page_804">[Pg 804]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>As you apprehended, the question of suffrage had been definitely
settled in the convention before the reception of your letter. It
remains as heretofore, unrestricted manhood suffrage. That all
the rabble, the very <i>débris</i> of society, should be allowed a
voice in government, and yet intelligent, highly-cultivated women
who are amenable to the laws of the State and who own and pay
taxes on property, should be debarred from a voice in making the
laws which are to affect their persons and property equally with
that of the men, is to my mind simply an outrage on reason and
justice. * * * The fear of ignoring the right of petition, and
gallantry towards your sex on the part of a few, prevented the
memorial from being summarily rejected. Outside of &mdash;&mdash; and &mdash;&mdash;
I know of no member of the convention who openly favors woman
suffrage in any form. It is true there are a number of gentlemen
who, in private conversation, will admit the justice of your
plea, but avoid it by saying that ladies generally neither demand
nor desire the right to vote. The truth is, these men (and
society is full of them) have not the moral courage to do simple
justice. </p></blockquote>

<p>Thus you see that, so far as the action of this convention is
concerned, our cause is defeated. Yet I do not feel discouraged. I
think there is hardly a State in the Union that has such just and
excellent laws concerning the property rights of women as Texas.
There is also great liberality of sentiment here concerning the
avocations of women. But the right of women to the ballot seems to
be almost a new idea to our people. I have never lived in a
community where the women are more nearly abreast of the men in all
the activities of life than here in this frontier settlement. In
our State a woman's property, real or personal, is her own, to
keep, to convey, or to bequeath. The unusual number of widows here,
due to the incursions of the Indians during and since the war, has
made the management as well as the ownership of property by women
so common a thing as to attract no notice. I might give interesting
instances, but that would take time, and my point is this, that the
laws which have enabled, and the circumstances which have driven
women to rely upon and to exert themselves, have been educational,
not only to them, but also to the community. The importance of this
education to the future&mdash;who can measure it? It is true that many
of them can neither read nor write, but in this the men are not in
advance of them. It as often happens that the woman can read while
the man cannot, as the reverse. And they are almost universally
resolved that their children shall not grow up in the ignorance
that has been their portion. If the women could vote, our
convention would not think of submitting a constitution that did
not secure to the State a liberal free school system. </p></blockquote>

<p>The legislature of 1885, after a hard struggle, enacted a law
making it compulsory on the heads of all departments to give at
least one-half of the clerical positions in their respective
offices to women. The action has extraordinary interest, and is
regarded as a victory for the woman's rights party. Mrs. Jenny
Bland Beauchamp of Dennison writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>Texas claims to be a woman's State, in that her laws are
unusually just and lenient to women. A woman who has property at
marriage can keep it. She can even claim any property that she
can prove was bought with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_805" id="Page_805">[Pg 805]</a></span> that money. The wife is entitled to
half the community whether she owned any of the original stock or
not. She has a life interest in the homestead; no deed of trust
can be put upon it, nor can it be mortgaged. It can only be
conveyed from her by actual sale with her written consent. Under
our latest revised statutes women have the right of suffrage, but
have never exercised it; nor is the subject agitated to any great
extent.</p>

<p>Three years ago, when the State University was built, it was
decided that it should be coëducational, and young women are now
being educated there side by side with young men. Texas has many
liberal men and women. It is generally remarked that the women of
the State are better educated than the men.</p>

<blockquote><p>Miss Julia Pease, a Vassar graduate and daughter of the late
ex-Governor Pease, has charge of 6,000 acres of land. She lives
in the family mansion at Austin with her mother, and in addition
to her other duties superintends the education of the three
children of her deceased sisters.</p>

<p>Mrs. Rogers, the "cattle queen" of Texas, inherited from her
first husband a herd of 40,000 cattle. The widow managed the
business, and in due time married a preacher twenty years younger
than herself, who had seven children. She attends to her estate
herself, rides among her cowboys on horseback, and can tell just
what a steer or cow is worth at any size or age.</p>

<p>The largest individual sheep-owner is a woman, known all over the
State as the "Widow Cullahan." Her sheep, more than 50,000 in
number, wander over the ranges of Uvalda and Bandern counties, in
the southwestern part of the State. Their grade is a cross
between the hardy Mexican sheep and the Vermont merino. They are
divided into flocks of 2,000 head each, with a "bossero" and two
"pastoras" in charge of each flock. At the spring and fall
shearings long trains of wagons transport the "widow's" wool to
the market at San Antonio.</p>

<p>Texas has two female dentists. Mrs. Stocking is one of the most
successful dental surgeons in the State. The other, Miss Emma
Tibler, went from Kentucky to Texas for the purpose of teaching.
Finding this profession full, she studied dentistry and is now a
successful practitioner of Cleburne.</p>

<p>The youngest telegrapher in the world is probably Hattie
Hutchinson, in charge of an office in Texas. She is only ten
years old. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<h4 class="sc">III.&mdash;Arkansas.</h4>

<p>Under date of March, 1868, Miles L. Langley writes from
Arkadelphia, Arkansas, in regard to the efforts for equality in the
constitutional convention:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Arkadelphia</span>, Ark., March 5, 1868.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Susan B. Anthony</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Friend</i>: With a sad heart but an
approving conscience, I will give you some information relative
to the action of our constitutional convention on the franchise
question.</p>

<p>The new constitution&mdash;a copy of which I send you&mdash;makes no
difference between men, on account of race or color and contains
other excellences; but alas! it fails to guarantee to woman her
God-given and well-earned rights of civil and political equality.</p>

<p>I made a motion to insert in the constitution a section to read
thus: "All citizens twenty-one years of age, who can read and
write the English language, shall be eligible to the elective
franchise, and be entitled to equal political and legal rights
and privileges." The motion was seconded<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_806" id="Page_806">[Pg 806]</a></span> and I had the floor,
but the House became so clamorous that the president could not
restore order, and the meeting adjourned with the understanding
that I was to occupy the floor next morning. But next morning,
just as I was about to commence my speech, some of the members
tried to "bully" me out of the right to speak on that question. I
replied that I had been robbed, shot, and imprisoned for
advocating the rights of the slaves, and that I would then and
there speak in favor of the rights of women if I had to fight for
the right! I then proceeded to present arguments of which I am
not ashamed. I was met with ridicule, sarcasm and insult. My
ablest opponent, a lawyer, acknowledged in his reply that he
could not meet my argument. The motion was laid on the table.</p>

<p>The Democrats are my enemies because I assisted in emancipating
the slaves. The Republicans have now become my opponents, because
I have made an effort to confer on the women their rights. And
even the women themselves fail to sympathize with me.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF sc">Miles L. Langley.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully,</p>


<p class="ltr-clear">The Arkansas <i>Ladies' Journal</i> says:</p>

<blockquote><p>They tell us that women are not fit for politics. This may be
true; and as it is next to impossible to change the nature of a
woman, why wouldn't it be a good idea to so change politics that
it shall be fit for women? </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1885, Arkansas formed its first woman suffrage society at Eureka
Springs through the efforts of Miss Ph&oelig;be Couzins, Mrs. Lizzie
D. Fyler, president. The association numbers some fine speakers.
The press is not in opposition, one or two papers favor the cause.</p>

<p>Misses Pettigrew and Sims have been elected clerks of the
legislature. Several other ladies were candidates for the
positions, and the contest was quite exciting. Mrs. Simonson and
Miss Emily Thomas are members of the board of directors of a lumber
company at Batesville, and Miss Thomas is also bookkeeper of the
firm. </p></blockquote>

<p>A very able report<a name="FNanchor_522_522" id="FNanchor_522_522"></a><a href="#Footnote_522_522" class="fnanchor">[522]</a> of what has been done in Arkansas for the
elevation of woman was presented by Mrs. Lizzie D. Fyler at the
annual Washington convention in March, 1884.</p>


<h4 class="sc">IV.&mdash;Mississippi.</h4>

<p>Mississippi secures to a married woman her own separate estate, and
enables her to contract with her husband, or others, and carry on
business in her own name. She may sue her husband, or others, and
be sued, and has practically most of her civil rights; but her
political rights are denied as in all other States.</p>

<blockquote><p>In 1877 a law was passed by which henceforth no one can legally
sell liquor in Mississippi unless he can obtain the written
consent of a majority of the adult citizens of both sexes
resident in the township.</p>

<p>The Mississippi Industrial College for Women held its formal
opening October 22, 1885, at Columbus. Students had come from all
parts of the State. More than 300 had already entered. The
occasion was a brilliant<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_807" id="Page_807">[Pg 807]</a></span> one. Speeches were made by Senator E.
T. Sykes, Senator J. McMcartin of Claiborne county, Col. J. L.
Power of Jackson, Hon. James T. Harrison, Governor Lowry, and Dr.
Jones. Mrs. E. G. Peyton of Hazelhurst, to whose efforts the
founding of the Industrial College is largely due, was called
upon, and in a few well-chosen remarks expressed the pride she
felt in the State and in the college, feeling sure, she said,
that Mississippi's daughters were now in safe hands.</p>

<p>Miss Lilian Light, the eight-year-old daughter of Mr. Jere Light
of Hayneville, when only five or six years old began to make
figures in clay, and now (1885) has a large collection of mud
cats, hogs, dogs, cows, horses, and men. The figures are declared
to be not childish imitations, but remarkably acute likenesses.
Her best piece represents a negro praying, and is said to be very
clever.</p>

<p>Miss C. F. Boardman of Elmore's Point, two miles from Biloxi, on
the Bock Bay, has received the chief premiums awarded for oranges
grown on the Gulf coast outside of Florida. This lady has 1,000
bearing orange trees of the choicest varieties, and has devoted
her attention to the production of these and other tropical
fruits, with great success. She came to the South for health a
few years ago, and has not only found that, but has established
for herself a pleasing and profitable industry in fruit culture.
Her oranges were exhibited among numerous fine competing
specimens, and were chosen for high excellence.</p>

<p>Miss Eliza A. Dupuy for many years contributed copiously to Mr.
Bonner's <i>Ledger</i>. Miss Dupuy, who was descended from prominent
Virginia families, was in her youth a teacher. The first story
written by her was produced when she was only fourteen years old.
More fortunate than the majority of authors, she leaves behind
her a considerable sum earned by her ever-busy pen. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Sarah A. Dorsey was perhaps the most remarkable woman that
Mississippi can boast. She was the niece of Mrs. Warfield, the
author of the "Household of Bouverie," who had great influence in
forming her literary tastes. The New Orleans Monthly <i>Review</i>
contains many able articles on abstruse questions from her pen.
One, in the February number for 1876, on the "Origin of the
Species," is exceptionally able and interesting. It was read in
October, 1875, before the New Orleans Academy of Sciences by Mrs.
Dorsey herself. This article shows extensive reading in scientific
questions. She was made corresponding member of the Academy, an
honor she appreciated more highly for her sex than for herself. She
was a large-souled, noble woman, devoted to what she considered
Southern interests. She bequeathed to Jefferson Davis the estate,
called Beauvoir, on which he now resides.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_516_516" id="Footnote_516_516"></a><a href="#FNanchor_516_516"><span class="label">[516]</span></a> Emily P. Collins of Ponchatoula, Louisiana, wrote
Miss Anthony: "Our State is to form a new constitution this spring.
I feel that now if ever is the time to strike for woman's
emancipation. 'We, the people' includes women as well as men, and
regardless of former legislative enactments we should be allowed to
vote and be voted for as delegates to the constitutional
convention. If I only had some one to aid me, or had your moral
courage, I would proclaim myself a candidate for the constitutional
convention. The colored people ought to sustain me for I have ever
been their steadfast friend, and they themselves owe their
emancipation chiefly to women. They cannot elect a colored man
here, but could I have their support I have personal friends enough
to secure my election. The parish ought to be stumped in support of
some candidate whose efforts should be pledged to the insertion of
a clause in the new constitution to prohibit future legislatures
making sex a qualification for voting."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_517_517" id="Footnote_517_517"></a><a href="#FNanchor_517_517"><span class="label">[517]</span></a> The following letter from Mrs. Saxon to Mrs. Minor
gives the reason why she could not be present at the National
Convention held in St. Louis:
</p><p>
"Almost entirely unaided I have gained 300 names in five weeks.
Among them two Presbyterian ministers, wives of three others, seven
of the most prominent physicians, all of the city administrators,
two distinguished judges, several lawyers and many leading business
men. I have begged Mrs. Emily P. Collins to urge upon the
Association to meet here next year. I feel that now and before this
convention is our most important work, so I must stay and try and
influence the members all in my power. I was unaware of the action
I was to take here, and if I get before the convention it will not
be before the morning of the 7th, or I would come anyway as I have
been offered a free passage by both rail and river. Mrs. Collins
was with me for a few days and will assure you of my untiring
efforts in the cause here. God knows I would be willing to buy
fifteen minutes before the whole convention, the day they vote on
that bill, by the sacrifice of my life; for remembering the grand
women I have seen sacrificed along life's path, I think from their
memory a power and eloquence would spring that might win hearts of
steel and force justice to women from them. I will write again in a
few days and report progress.
</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF sc">E. L. Saxon."</p>
<p class="ltr-left">"Very sincerely your friend,</p>
<p class="ltr-to">"<i>May 5, 1879.</i>"</p>
</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_518_518" id="Footnote_518_518"></a><a href="#FNanchor_518_518"><span class="label">[518]</span></a> Of her speech Mrs. Merrick writes: "Fearing that I
could not be heard, I proposed to my son-in law, Mr. Guthrie, that
he should read it for me, but Mrs. Saxon objected, saying, 'No
matter if they do not hear a word you say! You do not wish a man to
represent you at the polls; represent yourself now, if you only
stand up and move your lips.' 'I will,' said I, 'you are
right.'&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Editors.</span></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_519_519" id="Footnote_519_519"></a><a href="#FNanchor_519_519"><span class="label">[519]</span></a> The Claibornes are a distinguished Virginia family,
but belong to the history of Mississippi and Louisiana since
territorial times. Mr. Claiborne now regrets that he did not go
farther, for he is satisfied that women may be trusted with powers
that have long been withheld. He says he was led to reflect
seriously on the subject by the able addresses of Mrs. Keating,
Mrs. Saxon and Mrs. Merrick, who made a profound impression on the
convention.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_520_520" id="Footnote_520_520"></a><a href="#FNanchor_520_520"><span class="label">[520]</span></a> The officers of the Christian Woman's Exchange for
1885, were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. R. M. Walmsley; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>,
Mesdames T. G. Richardson, M. W. Bartlett, Albert Baldwin, John R.
Juden, J. H. Allen; <i>Recording Secretary</i>, Mrs. Theo. Auze;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. E. J. Wharton; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. S.
H. Davis; <i>Acting Treasurer</i>, Mrs. F. N. Griswold; <i>Board of
Managers</i>, Mesdames S. Landrum, M. C. Jennings, B. D. Wood, A.
Brittin, Percy Roberts, S. Delgado, F. N. Griswold, E. L. Wood, Wm.
Muller, E. Ranlett, G. W. Pritchard, L. P. Wayne, T. H. Holmes, J.
B. Wallace, Albert Baldwin, P. N. Strong, K. Fuhri, S. H. Kennedy,
H. J. Leovy, John Parker, R. M. Walmsley, T. G. Richardson, Theo.
Auze, E. J. Wharton, S. H. Davis. M. W. Bartlett, D. A. Given, John
R. Juden, J. H. Allen, Fred. Wing.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_521_521" id="Footnote_521_521"></a><a href="#FNanchor_521_521"><span class="label">[521]</span></a> The original members of the Woman's Club were: Miss
Bessie Bisland, Mrs. Elizabeth W. Baker, Miss C. Farrar, Mrs. J. M.
Ferguson, Miss M. E. Hagan, Miss J. E. Linsler, Miss H. D. Pickens,
Miss M. Siebold, Mrs. M. J. C. Swayze, Miss E. Schrieves, Miss M.
Manning, Miss P. Teiltebaum.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_522_522" id="Footnote_522_522"></a><a href="#FNanchor_522_522"><span class="label">[522]</span></a> See Report Washington Convention, 1884.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_808" id="Page_808">[Pg 808]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LV_Continued" id="CHAPTER_LV_Continued"></a>CHAPTER LV. (<span class="smcap">Continued</span>).</h2>

<h3>DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA&mdash;MARYLAND&mdash;DELAWARE&mdash;KENTUCKY&mdash;TENNESSEE&mdash;VIRGINIA&mdash;WEST
VIRGINIA&mdash;NORTH CAROLINA&mdash;SOUTH
CAROLINA&mdash;FLORIDA&mdash;ALABAMA&mdash;GEORGIA.</h3>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Secretary Chase&mdash;Women in the Government Departments&mdash;Myrtilla
Miner&mdash;Mrs. O'Connor's Tribute&mdash;District of Columbia Suffrage
Bill&mdash;The Universal Franchise Association, 1867&mdash;Bill for a
Prohibitory Law Presented by Hon. S. C. Pomeroy, 1869&mdash;A Bill for
Equal Wages for the Women in the Departments, Introduced by Hon.
S. M. Arnell, 1870&mdash;In 1871 Congress Passed the Organic Act for
the District Confining the Right of Suffrage to Males&mdash;In 1875 it
Withdrew all Legislative Power from the People&mdash;Women in Law,
Medicine, Journalism and the Charities&mdash;Dental College Opened to
Women&mdash;Mary A. Stuart&mdash;The Clay Sisters&mdash;The School of
Pharmacy&mdash;Elizabeth Avery Meriwether&mdash;Judge Underwood&mdash;Mary
Bayard Clarke&mdash;Dr. Susan Dimock&mdash;Governor
Chamberlain&mdash;Coffee-Growing&mdash;Priscilla Holmes Drake&mdash;Alexander H.
Stephens. </p>
</div>


<h4 class="sc">I.&mdash;District of Columbia.</h4>

<p><span class="sc">The</span> District covers an area of 64 square miles, and contains a
population of 200,000. It was originally a portion of Maryland, and
was ceded to congress by that State for the exclusive use of the
Federal government. Hon. Salmon P. Chase, secretary of the treasury
under Abraham Lincoln, seeing that most of the gifted young men had
been drafted or had enlisted in the army, introduced young women as
clerks in the government departments. The experiment proved
successful, and now there are about six thousand women in the
various departments. Mr. Chase often alluded to this afterwards as
one of the most important acts of his life. The war brought many
bright, earnest women to Washington, led thither by patriotism,
ambition, or the necessity of finding some new employment. This new
vital force, this purer element, infused into the society at the
capitol, has been slowly introducing more liberal ideas into that
community.</p>

<p>The first specific work for woman in the District of Columbia of
which we find any record was that of Myrtilla Miner of New York,
who opened a Normal School for colored girls, December 3, 1851. She
began with six pupils in a small room in a private<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_809" id="Page_809">[Pg 809]</a></span> house, but soon
had more offered than could be accommodated. Through much ridicule
and untold difficulties she struggled alone, but successfully, for
ten years, when Miss Emily Howland came to her aid. The heroism of
this noble woman has been told by Mrs. Ellen O. Connor in a little
volume<a name="FNanchor_523_523" id="FNanchor_523_523"></a><a href="#Footnote_523_523" class="fnanchor">[523]</a> which is a beautiful tribute to the memory of Miss
Miner. The Miner Normal School of Washington is now a thorough and
popular school for colored girls.</p>

<p>For a brief report of what has been accomplished in the District of
Columbia, we are indebted to Belva A. Lockwood:</p>

<blockquote><p>In 1866, the women of Washington were first aroused to the
consideration of the suffrage question, by the discussion of "The
District of Columbia suffrage bill" proposing to strike out the
word "white" in order to extend the franchise to colored men. Mr.
Cowan, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, offered an amendment to
strike out the word "male" also, and thus enfranchise the women
of the District. It was said his proposition was not made in good
faith, but simply to embarrass Republican legislation. However it
served a good purpose for all disfranchised classes, as the
amendment called out a notable debate,<a name="FNanchor_524_524" id="FNanchor_524_524"></a><a href="#Footnote_524_524" class="fnanchor">[524]</a> lasting three days,
and received the votes of nine influential senators in its favor.
The voting of the newly enfranchised negroes at the May election,
1867, brought out in strong color the beauties of masculine
legislation, and immediately after there was a movement among the
friends of woman's enfranchisement. A meeting was called by James
and Julia Holmes at their residence, where the "Universal
Franchise Association" was organized.<a name="FNanchor_525_525" id="FNanchor_525_525"></a><a href="#Footnote_525_525" class="fnanchor">[525]</a> As soon as their
meetings, regularly held, took on a serious air, the combined
power of the press was brought to bear upon them with the
determination to break them up. But the meetings were continued,
notwithstanding the opposition; and although most of the speeches
were good, they were often interrupted with hisses and yells, and
the police, when appealed to, failed to keep order, seeming
rather to join hands with the mob. In order to put a check on the
rabble, contrary to the spirit of the society, a fee was charged
at the door. Strangely enough, so great had the interest become,
the crowd increased instead of lessening, and night after night
Union League Hall was crowded, until the coffers of the
association contained nearly $1,000. The press of the city in the
meantime had kept up a fusilade of ludicrous reports, in which
the women were caricatured and misrepresented, all of which they
bore with fortitude, and without any attempt at reply. The
meetings continued through the year notwithstanding the cry of
the timid that the cause was being injured and fair reputations
blighted.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_810" id="Page_810">[Pg 810]</a></span></p>

<p>June 25, 1868, a deputation from the District Franchise
Association appeared, by appointment, before the House Committee
of the District, to urge the passage of the bill presented in the
House of Representatives by Hon. Henry D. Washburn, accompanied
by a petition signed by eighty women of the District:</p>

<blockquote><p>"Be it enacted, etc., That from and after the passage of this
act, no person shall be debarred from voting or holding office in
the District of Columbia by reason of sex."</p>

<p>Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing began by saying that the friends of
equal freedom for women in the District had thought the revision
of the local government a fit time to present their claims and
submit a memorial, setting forth the justice of passing the bill
before the committee to remove the restrictions that forbid women
to vote in the District. The movement was not wholly new, and was
known by those active in the work to be approved by a large mass
of women who were not prepared to express themselves openly. The
enfranchisement of woman is needful to a real reconstruction.</p>

<p>Mr. Wilcox read a memorial, signed by a committee of residents of
the district, consisting of eleven ladies and eleven gentlemen,
including Mrs. Griffing, Mrs. E. D. E. N. Southworth, Miss Lydia
S. Hall (formerly of Kansas), Mrs. Annie Denton Cridge, Judge A.
B. Olin and Mrs. Olin, recalling the fact that congress had freed
3,000 slaves, and enfranchised the 8,000 colored men of the
district, both of which experiments had worked well,
notwithstanding conservative predictions to the contrary; and
showing that, while the former experiments, on a small scale
comparatively, had yielded rich results, so the enfranchisement
of half the adult population would produce vast good. He
incidentally answered the usual arguments against suffrage, and
affirmed that those who possess neither the power of wealth nor
of knowledge wherewith to protect themselves, most need political
power for that purpose. He remarked that the competition for
votes among politicians was a tremendous educating force, and
that laws would not be certain of enforcement unless those for
whose benefit they were made were clothed with power to compel
such enforcement.</p>

<p>Mrs. Mary T. Corner presented a number of points as to the laws
of the district relating to women, of some of which Judge Welker
took notes with a view to their speedy investigation by the
committee. As to suffrage, she pointed out that women do not come
under the head of paupers, minors, felons, rebels, idiots or
aliens, and that the reasons existing for the disfranchisement of
such persons do not apply to native-born, loyal women. She showed
that women are not represented in the government of the district,
though taxed by it, and by law cannot properly protect
themselves, their children, or their property, nor hold municipal
office, however fit. A wife cannot hold property in the district
except by proxy. Women understand their needs and condition
better than men, and should be free to regulate them. The swarms
of foreigners who are freely admitted to the polls know less of
our institutions than the masses of our women. Women have voted
and held the highest offices in other countries with great
success. Are our women less capable than these? At the conclusion
Mrs. Corner returned thanks to the committee for their attention;
and the latter, without expressing an opinion on the matter,
complimented the speakers on the ability and eloquence with which
their views had been presented. It was also stated that a large
number of petitions would be presented in support of the bill.
The committee expressed themselves as unable, by reason of the
lateness of the session and the pressure of other business, to
promise an early report. The interview lasted about an hour, and
was very cordial and pleasant on both sides. </p></blockquote>

<p>September 25, 1868, the Universal Franchise Association held its
first annual meeting<a name="FNanchor_526_526" id="FNanchor_526_526"></a><a href="#Footnote_526_526" class="fnanchor">[526]</a> at Union League Hall, Mrs. Josephine S.
Griffing presiding.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_811" id="Page_811">[Pg 811]</a></span> A letter was read from Senator Pomeroy,
stating that he was willing to act as president of the society. In
closing he said:</p>

<blockquote><p>I trust the friends will unite in one association. We have but
one object in view, and should all labor together to accomplish
this end, viz.: the enfranchisement of every citizen, with no
partiality for race or sex. The American citizen is the only safe
depository for the ballot, and the only safeguard for individual
and national liberty. Let us labor to realize, even in our day
and time, this true type of republican government. The rights and
safety of individuals and of the nation demand it. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1869, the executive committee passed a resolution to expend the
money that had been accumulated at the meetings of the association
in a series of lectures for the purpose of enlightening the public
mind upon the question of equal political rights for women. Among
the speakers engaged were Anna Dickinson, Mrs. Stanton, Miss
Anthony, D. R. Locke (Nasby), Theodore Tilton. From that time the
women of the district were permitted to speak their minds freely.</p>

<p>In the House of Representatives, March 21, 1870, Mr. Arnell, on
leave, introduced the following bill:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>A bill to do justice to the female employees of the Government,
and for other purposes.</i></p>

<p>Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter
all clerks and other employes in the civil service of the United
States shall be paid, irrespective of sex, with reference to the
character and amount of services performed by them.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 2. And be it further enacted, That, in the employment of
labor, clerical or other, in any branch of the civil service of
the United States, no discrimination shall be made in favor of
either sex.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 3. And be it further enacted, That where examinations of
candidates for positions in the civil service of the United
States are prescribed by law, or by the heads of departments,
bureaus, or offices, said examinations shall be of the same
character for persons of both sexes.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 4. And be it further enacted, That the designations, chief
clerk, chief or head of division, chief or head of section, clerk
of the fourth class, clerk of the third class, clerk of the
second class, clerk of the first class, copyist, messenger,
laborer, and all other designations of employes, in existing acts
of Congress, or in use in any branch of the civil service of the
United States, shall be held, hereafter to apply to women as well
as to men; and that women shall be regarded equally eligible with
men to perform the duties of the afore-designated clerks and
employes, and shall receive the compensation therefor prescribed
by law.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 5. And be it further enacted, That this act shall not be so
construed as to require the displacement of any person now
employed, but shall apply to all vacancies hereafter occurring,
for any cause.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Sec.</span> 6. And be it further enacted, That all acts and parts of
acts, in conflict with any of the provisions of this act be, and
the same are hereby, expressly repealed. </p></blockquote>

<p>Thousands of petitions for this bill were circulated. Mrs. Lockwood
went to New York, and secured seven hundred signatures, visiting
both of the suffrage conventions then in session in that city, the
National and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_812" id="Page_812">[Pg 812]</a></span> the American. The bill was shortly afterward passed
in a modified form, and has ever since been in force in all of the
government departments.</p>

<p>In February, 1871, congress passed the organic act for the
district, making of it a territory and granting suffrage to the
male members of the commonwealth. There was also granted under this
bill a right to a delegate in congress. In the meetings which
followed for the nomination of delegates a number of women took
part. Mrs. Lockwood often broke the monotony with a short speech,
and on one occasion only lacked one vote of an election to the
general convention for the nomination of a delegate to congress.</p>

<p>The women of the district were not permitted to vote under the
organic act, but soon after the organization of its legislature,
bills to provide for this were introduced into both Houses. Mrs.
Lockwood prepared an exhaustive address upon these pending bills,
and was granted a hearing before both Houses of the legislature,
but they were finally lost. In 1875 congress withdrew the
legislative power from the people of the District of Columbia.</p>

<p>It was also in 1871 that the National University Law School, then
principally under the control of Prof. Wm. B. Wedgewood, organized
a law class for women, in which fifteen matriculated. Mrs. Lockwood
had been denied admission the previous year to the law class of
Columbia College for the reason, as given by the trustees, "that it
would distract the attention of the young men." About this time a
young colored woman, Charlotte Ray of New York, was graduated from
the law class of Howard University and admitted to the bar with the
class. Of the fifteen women who entered the National University
only two completed the course, viz., Lydia S. Hall, and Belva A.
Lockwood. The former never received her diploma. The latter, after
an appeal to President Grant, received her diploma, and was
admitted to the district bar, September 23, 1873. Since that period
Emma M. Gillett, Marilla M. Ricker, and Laura DeForce Gordon have
been admitted to the district bar, and there seems to be no longer
any hindrance to such admissions. The above-named have all appeared
in court, and a number of other ladies have been graduated in the
district. Women have also been appointed notaries public, and
examiners in chancery.</p>

<p>In the profession of medicine there has been more liberality. Dr.
Susan A. Edson and Dr. Caroline B. Winslow have been in full
practice here since the close of the war. Dr. Mary Parsons and Dr.
Cora M. Bland and others, are practicing with marked success. Last
year there were fourteen women duly registered with the health
department, and they all seem to be in good standing. Howard
University has admitted women to its medical classes for some
years, and both white and colored women have availed themselves of
the privilege. Last year Columbia College opened its doors in the
medical department, with a suggestion that the classes in law and
theology may soon be opened also.</p>

<p>Many women in the district within the last few years have entered
into business for themselves, as they are now permitted to do under
the law of 1869, and are milliners, merchants, market-women,
hucksters. In the art of nursing, which has been reduced to a
science, they have free course.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_813" id="Page_813">[Pg 813]</a></span></p>

<p>In 1871, a large number of ladies tried to register in the city of
Washington. They marched in solid phalanx some seventy<a name="FNanchor_527_527" id="FNanchor_527_527"></a><a href="#Footnote_527_527" class="fnanchor">[527]</a> strong
to the registrar's office, but were repulsed. They tried afterwards
to vote, but were refused, whereupon Mrs. Spencer sued the
inspectors, and Mrs. Webster sued the registrars, so testing their
rights in two suits in the Supreme Court of the District.<a name="FNanchor_528_528" id="FNanchor_528_528"></a><a href="#Footnote_528_528" class="fnanchor">[528]</a></p>

<p>In 1866 Jane G. Swisshelm commenced the publication of a liberal
sheet in the District of Columbia, known as <i>The Wasp</i>. This was
the continuation of a paper formerly published by her in Pittsburg,
Pa., and in St. Cloud, Minn., called <i>The Visitor</i>. Many other
papers by women have been since published in the District. Perhaps
the most voluminous author in this country is Mrs. E. D. E. N.
Southworth, who has written a volume for each year of her life, and
is now sixty-five years of age. Her authorship has been confined to
romances, which have been very popular. A large proportion of the
teachers of the public schools in the District are women, some of
them of very marked culture. Many of the most noted and successful
private schools, some with collegiate courses, are conducted by
women. Among these, Mrs. Margaret Harover who taught in the
District during the war, is worthy of mention, also Mrs. Ellen M.
O'Connor, president of the Miner school. Mrs. Sarah J. Spencer, as
associate principal of the Spencerian business college whence large
classes of young women have been graduated for many years past, is
deservedly popular. She was at one time prominent in the woman
suffrage movement, acting as corresponding secretary of the
National Association. She is now engaged in one of the large
charity organizations of the city. Many colored women who have been
graduated from Howard University, have become quite successful as
teachers, and some have studied medicine. All of the copyists in
the office of registrar of deeds are women. A goodly number are
short-hand reporters for the courts, among whom Miss Camp, daughter
of the assistant clerk, is notably skillful.</p>

<p>The number of women who hold property in the District is large and
rapidly increasing. A woman may now enter into almost any honorable
profession that she chooses, and maintain her respectability. All
of the professions are open to her, and the sphere of trades is
rapidly widening. The progress made in this regard in the last
quarter of a century amounts almost to a revolution. The first
women ever admitted to the reporter's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_814" id="Page_814">[Pg 814]</a></span> gallery of the Senate and
House were Abigail Dodge (Gail Hamilton), and Helen M. Barnard,
both political writers of great power; the former as a reporter for
the New York <i>Times</i>, and the latter for the New York <i>Herald</i>.
Mrs. Barnard, during Grant's administration, was sent as
commissioner of immigration to Liverpool, visiting England, Ireland
and Scotland. Returning in the steerage of an ocean steamer, she
gave one of the finest reports ever made upon this question. This
resulted in the passage by the legislature of New York of a bill
for the better protection of emigrants on shipboard, and the
appointment by the United States government of an inspector of
immigration for every out-going steamer.</p>

<p>Women were first appointed as clerks in the government departments
in 1861 by Secretary Chase, at the earnest solicitation of
Treasurer Spinner. They were employed at temporary work at $50 a
month&mdash;one-half the lowest price paid to any male clerk&mdash;until they
were recognized by an act of congress in which their salary was
fixed at $900 a year, in the general appropriation bill of July 23,
1866. The men doing the same work were of four classes, receiving,
respectively, $1,000, $1,400, $1,600, $1,800. Treasurer Spinner, in
his report of October, 1866, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The experiment of employing females as clerks has been, so far as
this office is concerned, a success. For many kinds of
office-work, like the manipulation and counting of fractional
currency, they excel, and in my opinion are to be preferred to
males. There is, however, quite as much difference in point of
ability between female clerks as there is between the several
classes of male clerks, whose equals some of them are. Some are
able to accomplish twice as much as others, and with greater
accuracy. So, too, some of them incur great risks, being
responsible for making mistakes in count, and for counterfeits
overlooked. Such should, by every consideration of justice and
fair dealing, be paid according to their merits, and the risks
and liabilities they incur. </p></blockquote>

<p>And in 1868, Mr. Spinner urged the committee of which Mr. Fessenden
of Maine was the chairman, to so amend the bill providing for the
reorganization of the treasury department as to increase the salary
of the female clerks who have the handling of money, stating that
cases had occurred in which women had lost more than half their
monthly pay by reason of being short in count, or of allowing
counterfeit notes to pass their hands.</p>

<p>Secretary M'Cullough asserted that women performed their clerical
duties as creditably as men, and stated that he had three ladies
who performed as much labor, and did it as well as any three male
clerks receiving $1,800 a year. It is now a quarter of a century
that women have served the government in these responsible
positions, and still, with but few exceptions, they receive only
the allotted $900. Mrs. Fitzgerald, the expert in the redemption
bureau of the treasury, who has for fifteen years deciphered
defaced currency, in which no man has ever yet proved her equal,
receives $1,400. In 1886 she subjected herself to an examination
for an increase to $1,600, but, failing to answer some questions
foreign to her art, she was compelled to content herself with the
former salary. </p></blockquote>


<h4 class="sc">II.&mdash;Maryland.</h4>


<p><i>The Revolution</i> of February 26, 1868, shows an effort in the
direction of progress on this question in Maryland. A correspondent
says:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_815" id="Page_815">[Pg 815]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>Notwithstanding the present ascendancy of conservatism in
Maryland, the progressive element is not wholly annihilated; in
proof of which, we send information of the working of this
leaven, as developed in an association lately organized in the
city of Baltimore, under the name of the "Maryland Equal Rights
Society." For nearly a year past it has been in contemplation to
form a society based upon the principle of equal chance to all
human kind, irrespective of sex or color, through the mediumship
of the elective franchise. The first public meeting of the
friends of the movement was held on the afternoon of November 12,
1867, at the Douglass Institute, at which twelve persons, white
and colored, were present. Some steps were taken towards
organization in the framing and adopting of a constitution based
upon the principle afore-mentioned; but further business was
deferred in hope of securing a larger attendance at a subsequent
meeting. Two weeks later a second meeting was called, when the
constitution was signed by fourteen persons, ten of whom were
white and four colored. Officers were chosen, consisting of a
president, a vice-president, a secretary and a treasurer,
together with eight other members to act as an executive
committee. The last meeting, held January 29, was attended by
Alfred H. Love and Rachel Love of Philadelphia. To Mr. Love the
society is indebted for many valuable suggestions as to the best
means of becoming an effective co-worker in the cause of human
progress.</p>

<p>Our colored friends, who have control of the Douglass Institute,
have testified their good will toward the movement in giving the
society the use of an apartment in the building, free of charge.
This is the one instance in which we have met with encouragement
in our own community. We have sought it in high places, among
those we supposed to be friends, and found it not. It appears to
be the nature of fine linen to dread the mud splashes of the
pioneer's spade and pick-ax, and for silk and broadcloth to
shrink from contact with the briers of an uncleared thicket;
hence our sole recourse is to appeal to those only who are
dressed for the service. We are conscious that we have entered
upon no easy task; but, ashamed of having so long left our
Northern sisters to toil and endure alone in a cause which is not
one of section but of humanity, we come forward at last to assume
our share of the hardship, trusting that what we have lost in our
tardiness may be made up in earnestness and activity. </p></blockquote>

<p>From various papers we clip the following items:</p>

<blockquote><p>At the election in Baltimore, January 20, 1870, there were three
women who applied to be registered as voters at the third-ward
registry office. Their names were Mrs. L. C. Dundore, Mrs. A. M.
Gardner and Miss E. M. Harris. Their cases were held under
advisement by the register.&mdash;&mdash;In 1871, a Maryland young lady,
Miss Middlebrook, raised over 5,000 heads of cabbage. On
Christmas, she sold in the Baltimore market 500 pounds of turkey
at 20 cents per pound.&mdash;&mdash;Mrs. H. B. Conway of Frederick county,
has established a reputation as a contractor for "fills" and
"cuts." She has filled several contracts in Pennsylvania, been
awarded a $100,000 job on the Western Maryland railroad, and now,
1885, is engaged in the work of excavating a tract in Baltimore
for building-sites. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss R. Muller has for several years been engaged as subscription
and general correspondence clerk for the Baltimore <i>Daily
American</i>. She was the first woman to be employed in that city on
newspaper work during the present century. In the chapter on
newspapers it will be seen that Anna R. Green established the first
newspaper in the Maryland colony one hundred and nineteen years
ago, doing the colony printing; and that Mary R. Goddard not only
published a paper, writing able editorials, but was also the first
postmaster after the revolution. And from the following item it
would seem that the first woman to claim her right to vote must be
credited to Maryland:</p>

<blockquote><p>At the regular meeting of the Maryland Historical Society in
Baltimore, December, 1885, Hon. J. L. Thomas read a paper on
"Margaret Brent, the first woman in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_816" id="Page_816">[Pg 816]</a></span> America to claim the right
to vote." She lived at St. Mary's city on the river of the same
name two hundred and forty years ago, and was related to Lord
Baltimore. She was the heir of Leonard Calvert, Lord Baltimore's
brother and agent, and as such she claimed not only control of
all rents, etc., of Lord Baltimore, but also the right to two
votes in the assembly as the representative of both Calvert and
Baltimore. The first claim the courts upheld, but the second was
rejected. </p></blockquote>

<p>On March 20, 1872, Hon. Stevenson Archer made an exhaustive speech
on the floor of the House of Representatives, entitled, "Woman
Suffrage not to be tolerated, although advocated by the Republican
candidate for vice-presidency." The speech was against Senator
Wilson's bill to enfranchise the women of the territories. The
honorable representative from Maryland may have been moved to enter
his protest against woman's enfranchisement by the fact that the
women of his State had in convention assembled early in the same
month made a public demand for their political rights:</p>

<blockquote><p>The Havre de Grace <i>Republican</i> says that the convention of the
Maryland Equal Rights Association, held in Raine's Hall,
Baltimore, last week, was a grand success. Mrs. Lavina C.
Dundore, president of the association, presided over the
convention with dignity and grace. Many prominent and able
champions of the cause were present and delivered eloquent and
telling addresses in favor of woman's enfranchisement, which were
listened to with marked attention by the large audiences in
attendance. The friends of the cause in Maryland feel much
gratified at this exhibition of the rapidly increasing interest
in the movement. </p></blockquote>

<p>Meetings had been held in Baltimore during the years of 1870-71,
and lectures given by Lucy Stone, Julia Ward Howe, Susan B.
Anthony, and others.</p>

<p>Charlotte Richmond of Baltimore writes the <i>Woman's Journal</i>, April
22, 1873:</p>

<blockquote><p>The American <i>Journal of Dental Science</i> makes the following
statement: "The Baltimore College of Dental Surgery, having had
the honor of conferring the first degree of Doctor of Dental
Surgery in the world, has also graduated the first woman who ever
received a diploma in medicine or dentistry in Baltimore, in the
person of Miss Emilie Foeking of Prussia, who, after attending
two full courses of lectures and demonstrations, passed a very
creditable final examination. Miss Foeking conformed to all the
rules and regulations of the college during the two sessions that
she was a student; no favor whatever as to requirement being
asked for on her part, or extended to her by the faculty, on
account of sex. She has fairly earned her degree by proficiency
and earnest application. After a short time Miss Foeking will
return to Berlin, where she intends to locate. That she will
succeed in establishing a large and lucrative practice, there is
no doubt, as she is well qualified professionally, and is in
manner so perfect a lady as to command the respect of all who
know her."</p>

<p>You will see by this extract from one of our medical journals,
that a lady has been graduated from our dental college. I hope
she has left the doors open, so that some of our own countrywomen
may enter and acquit themselves as honorably, but without the
difficulties which she has been compelled to encounter. You are
aware of the proceedings of the Philadelphia college in regard to
female students. Our Baltimore dentist, for we feel proud to
claim her as ours, although admitted in the college, still had
all the prejudices to meet in the minds of the people, but they
were too courteous and hospitable to act upon those feelings so
far as to turn her from their doors. She was brave and did not
surrender; not even when her sensitive woman's heart was wounded
and humiliated by the little acts done heedlessly under the
impression that a woman had stepped out of her sphere and was
taking upon herself a vocation belonging exclusively to men. She
is naturally sincere, modest and dignified. With these<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_817" id="Page_817">[Pg 817]</a></span> lady-like
qualifications, together with ability and perseverance, she has
won the honor and esteem of the faculty and the students.</p>

<p>I wish that Prussia could have witnessed the success of her
daughter on the night of commencement&mdash;the wreaths of laurel, and
the incessant applause while she was on the stage. I, for one,
felt quite proud to see my city acknowledge the foreign
lady-student so gracefully. She is already practicing to some
extent, and in every case gives the most entire satisfaction. I
trust there will be no more college doors closed against our sex,
for the reason that the male students do not want us. Let the
professors and trustees be just. We have proved that a true lady
is no disadvantage in a college with male students. I think the
way is now clear for women to enter upon the dental profession.
Miss Foeking has proved that a woman can be successful when she
undertakes an honorable profession. </p></blockquote>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 330px;">
<a name="v3_817" id="v3_817">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_817.jpg" width="330" height="500" alt="Mary B. Clay" title="" /></a>
</div>

<p>For the facts in regard to the Baltimore Dental College we are
indebted to the dean of the faculty:</p>


<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Baltimore College of Dental Surgery</span>, Jan. 2, 1886.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Miss Susan B. Anthony</span>&mdash;<i>Dear Miss</i>: Your letter of 27th of last
month came safely to hand. In reply I will say that only two
members of the fair sex have been graduated with us. Miss Emilie
Foeking of Prussia, whose present address I do not know, and Miss
Pauline Boeck of Germany, who has since died. Miss Foeking was
graduated in 1873, and Miss Boeck in 1877. I have learned that
both of these young ladies were attentive and energetic in the
pursuit of their studies, and were graduated with credit to
themselves. We have the "Woman's Medical College," from which
quite a number of young women have been graduated. For
information in regard to this institution I would refer you to
its dean, Prof. Wm. D. Booker, 157 Park avenue.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF sc">R. B. Winder.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very truly yours,</p>
</blockquote>



<h4 class="sc">III.&mdash;Delaware.</h4>

<p>Mary A. Stuart is the active representative of the movement for
woman suffrage in Delaware. From year to year she has written and
contributed to our National conventions in Washington, and has been
among the delegates on several occasions to address congressional
committees. In her report she says:</p>

<blockquote><p>My father was the first man in the State Senate to propose the
repeal of some of our oppressive laws, and succeeded in having
the law giving all real estate to the eldest male heir repealed.
The law of 1871 gave a married woman the right to make a will,
provided her husband gave his written consent, with the names of
two respectable witnesses thereunto attached. In 1873 the law was
repealed, and another act passed giving married women the right
to make a will, buy property and hold it exempt from the
husband's debts, but this law does not affect his tenancy by
courtesy.</p>

<p>Prior to 1868, bonds, mortgages, stocks, etc., were counted
personal property, all of which went into the possession of the
husband the moment the woman answered "I will," in the marriage
ceremony. I worked hard to get the law passed giving the wife the
right to her own separate earnings, and at last was greatly
helped by the fact that a woman petitioned for a divorce, stating
in her application that she was driven from her home, that she
and her two children had worked hard and saved $100 for a rainy
day, and now her husband claimed the money. It was a case in
point, and helped the members of our legislature to pass the
wages bill.</p>

<p>Delaware College, the only institution of the kind in the State,
was open to girls for thirteen years, but owing to a tragedy
committed by the boys in hazing one another, resulting in death,
the doors were thereafter closed to girls, although they were in
no way directly or indirectly implicated in the outrages. When
Governor Stockley was appealed to, he simply gave some of the old
arguments against coëducation, and did<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_818" id="Page_818">[Pg 818]</a></span> not recommend, as he
should have done, an appropriation at once by the State to build
a similar college, with all the necessary appointments for the
education of girls. We have women who are practicing physicians,
and are also in the State Medical Boards. We have none who
practice law or preach in our pulpits, and all the political
offices of the State are closed to women. No notaries, bank
cashiers, telegraph operators. Women are still in the belief that
work outside the home is a disgrace to the men of their families.</p>

<p>In February, 1881, Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, Miss Couzins and
Mrs. Lockwood, held various hearings before the legislature. Mrs.
Lockwood read to the gentlemen article 4 of the constitution as
amended in 1834: "Any white male citizen over 22 years of age who
shall be a tax-payer, shall be eligible to vote for electors."
She then showed them how readily, without any marked revolution,
the word "white" had been stricken out, while the word tax-payer
had virtually become a dead letter. Then turning to the first
paragraph of the United States revised code she cited the passage
which states that in determining the meaning of statutes after
February 25, 1877, "words importing the masculine gender may be
applied to females." <span class="spacious">* * * *</span> At this point the chairman of the
committee placed before Mrs. Lockwood the Delaware code from
which she read a similar application of the law made many years
before. Having laid this foundation she asserted that the women
of Delaware were legally entitled to vote under the laws as they
are, but that to prevent all question on the subject, she would
recommend a special enactment like that prepared in the bill
before them. An amendment to the State constitution giving
suffrage to women was presented in the House of Representatives
in February, 1881, and referred to the committee on privileges
and elections. It was reported adversely. The vote showed that
all the members, with two<a name="FNanchor_529_529" id="FNanchor_529_529"></a><a href="#Footnote_529_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a> exceptions, were opposed to the
measure. </p></blockquote>

<p>Among the friends in Delaware were several liberal families, active
in all the progressive movements of the day. Preëminent among these
was that of the noble Thomas Garrett, whose good words of
encouragement for woman's enfranchisement may be found in the bound
copies of <i>The Revolution</i> as far back as 1868. His private letters
to those of us interested in his labors of love are among our most
cherished mementoes. He was a man of good judgment, broad
sympathies, and unswerving integrity.</p>


<h4 class="sc">IV.&mdash;Kentucky.</h4>

<p>Mary B. Clay, daughter of Cassius M. Clay, sends us the following
report of what has been done to change the status of women in
Kentucky:</p>

<blockquote><p>The earliest agitation of the suffrage question in our State
arose from the advent of Miss Lucy Stone in Louisville, in 1853,
at which time she delivered three lectures in Masonic Hall to
crowded audiences. George D. Prentice gave full and friendly
reports in the <i>Courier-Journal</i>. In later years, Anna Dickinson
and others have lectured in our chief cities. But the first note
of associated effort is that given in <i>The Revolution</i> from
Glendale, which says:</p>

<blockquote><p>We organized here an association with twenty members the first of
October, 1867, and now have fifty. We hope soon to have the whole
of Hardin county, and by the close of another year the whole of
the State of Kentucky, enlisted on the side of woman's rights. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_819" id="Page_819">[Pg 819]</a></span></p>

<p>In the winter of 1872 Hannah Tracy Cutler and Margaret V. Longley
were granted a respectful hearing before our legislature at
Frankfort. In May, 1879, self-appointed, I represented Kentucky at
the May anniversary of the National Association at St. Louis. In
the autumn following, Miss Anthony, during an extended lecture tour
through the State, stopped in Richmond several days, and aided us
in organizing a local suffrage society.<a name="FNanchor_530_530" id="FNanchor_530_530"></a><a href="#Footnote_530_530" class="fnanchor">[530]</a> Letters were at once
written to the leading editors asking them to publish articles on
the subject. Many favorable answers were received, and we have
largely availed ourselves of the columns of the papers to keep up
the agitation. My sister, Sally Clay Bennett, edits a column in the
Richmond <i>Register</i>, sister Anne a column in the Lexington
<i>Gazette</i>, and Kate Dunning Clarke, a column in the <i>Turf, Field
and Farm</i>. Mrs. Clarke is also associate editor of the Kentucky
<i>State Journal</i>. The Misses Moore are making a success of a daily
paper at Milledgeville.</p>

<p>In May, 1880, Mrs. Bennett and myself were delegates at the great
National Mass Convention in Farwell Hall, Chicago. In October,
1881, the American Association held its annual meeting in
Louisville. It was largely attended and fully and fairly reported
by the press of the city. At its close, a Kentucky State
association was organized, with Laura Clay as president.</p>

<p>In January, 1882, the Richmond and Louisville clubs secured a
hearing before the judiciary committee of the Senate, Mrs. Bennett
and myself representing the former, and John A. Ward the latter.
With the valuable aid of Mrs. Mary Haggart of Indianapolis we made
a most favorable impression upon our legislators. The points in
which our laws are defective and upon which our appeals and
arguments were based are well indicated by the pleas of our several
petitions:</p>

<blockquote><p>That women might have municipal and presidential suffrage by
statute; that in marriage women might own their property as men
own theirs; that women who were married might be the legal
guardians of their children's property and persons as well as the
father; that women should be appointed with equal responsibility
and authority as assistant physicians in insane asylums, and that
the appointment of all the officers in such asylums should be
made by the legislature, and not by the governor, as now; that
women be appointed on boards of visitors and commissioners to all
asylums where women are inmates or prisoners. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1884, all of the Clay sisters&mdash;Mrs. Bennet, Mary, Laura and
Anne&mdash;with Mrs. Haggart, again went to Frankfort, and held meetings
in the legislative hall, which were largely attended by the best
classes of the citizens of that city, as well as by members of the
legislature.</p>

<p>For several years we have had a woman for State Librarian. In
Fayette, one of our most aristocratic counties, Lexington being its
county seat, a woman was elected to the office of county clerk by a
majority of 200 over her male competitor. In two other counties
women are also county clerks. Each of them had served so
efficiently in her husband's office, that at his death she had been
elected in his place.</p>

<p>That woman has to fight every step of her way to the recognition of
her rights as a citizen equal before the law, is shown by the
following despatch from Frankfort, dated December 18, 1885: <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_820" id="Page_820">[Pg 820]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>Mrs. M. C. Lucas was elected by the vote of Daviess county to the
office of jailer, to succeed her husband, who was killed by a mob
while in discharge of his duty. When she appeared before the
county court to give bond for the office, the Judge refused to
allow her to qualify. A writ of mandamus from the Circuit Court
was applied for to compel the court to allow her to qualify, but
the motion was denied. An appeal was then taken to the Court of
Appeals. Yesterday that court affirmed the decision of the
Circuit Court, that a woman cannot legally hold the office of
county jailer. </p></blockquote>

<p>A woman in Madison county acted as census-taker, and performed her
duty well. She was the niece of Mr. Justice Miller of the Supreme
Court of the United States. Gen. W. J. Sanderson, internal revenue
collector for the eighth district, employed two young ladies as
clerks, Miss Brown and Miss Price, the former of whom is said to be
his best clerk. She is the sister of Mrs. Smith, the circuit clerk
of Laurel county. The successor of General Sanderson, employs his
two daughters as clerks, and they receive the same pay as men who
do the same work.</p>

<p>Many women in our State manage their own farms. My mother, during
my father's absence as minister to Russia, took his farm of 2,500
acres (he making her his attorney), paid off a large debt on the
property, built an elegant house costing $30,000, stocked the farm,
and largely supported the family of six children, with money which
she made during the war. She fed government mules, and did it so
well that she would return them to camp before the time expired, in
better condition than most feeders got theirs. She is now, 1885,
conducting her own farm of 350 acres, selling several thousand
dollars' worth of wheat, cattle, and sheep annually, giving her
personal attention to everything, at the age of seventy. During the
adventurous and perilous period of my father's life she shared his
dangers, and was ever his mainstay in upholding his hands against
slavery; and in that crowning point of his life, when he was mobbed
in Lexington, my mother sat at his bed-side, and wrote at his
dictation, "Go tell your secret conclave of dastardly assassins,
Cassius M. Clay knows his rights and how to defend them."</p>

<p>Two of my sisters, Laura and Anne, and myself are practical
farmers, each having under her immediate superintendence the
workmen, both white and black, on 300 acres. We raise corn, wheat,
oats, cattle and sheep, buying and selling our own stock and
produce. We took possession of the land without stock or utensils,
and by our observation and experience, prudence and industry, have
greatly improved the lands and stock, and annually realize a
handsome income therefrom.</p>

<p>Miss Laura R. White of Manchester, sister of Hon. John D. White,
who ably advocated our cause in congress as well as in his own
State, was graduated with marked honor from the Michigan State
University in 1874. Since that time she has studied architecture in
the Boston Institute of Technology one year, worked as draughtsman
in the office of the supervisory architect of the treasury
department at Washington, two years, studied in the special school
of architecture in Paris one year, and is now, 1886, prosecuting
her studies with a liberal selection of French and English
architectural works at her mountain home in Kentucky. Mrs. Bessie
White Heagen, the youngest daughter of Mrs. Sarah A. White, was
graduated with honor from the Roxbury High School of Boston, and
from the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_821" id="Page_821">[Pg 821]</a></span> school of Pharmacy of Michigan University. Being denied
examination and the privileges of college graduates of the college
of pharmacy at Louisville, where she was employed by a prominent
pharmacist, she brought suit and obtained a verdict in her favor.</p>

<p>Early in 1882, Dr. J. P. Barnum employed young women in his store
with the expectation of being able to educate them in the college
of pharmacy. But the hostility of the students to the proposed
innovation, and the lack of a systematic laboratory course, caused
the relinquishment of that plan and the formation of the new
school. Prominent gentlemen in the community assisted Dr. Barnum,
and the Louisville School of Pharmacy was duly incorporated under
the general laws of Kentucky.<a name="FNanchor_531_531" id="FNanchor_531_531"></a><a href="#Footnote_531_531" class="fnanchor">[531]</a> Though sustained by men of
wealth and influence, the school met with great opposition, the
State Board of Pharmacy refusing to register the women who were
graduated from it until compelled to do so by a mandamus from the
Law and Equity Court, Judge Simral presiding. March 7, 1884, the
legislature incorporated the Louisville School of Pharmacy for
Women, and by special enactment empowered its graduates to practice
their profession without registration or interference from the
State board.</p>

<p>The school confers two degrees; its full course taking three years
and requiring more work than is done in other schools. So far its
graduates have been representative women, and all have found
responsible situations awaiting them. Its faculty remains, with a
few exceptions, as in the first session. Dr. J. P. Barnum, to whose
indefatigable efforts the foundation of the school is due, is dean
and professor of pharmacy and analytical chemistry; Dr. T. Hunt
Stuckey, a graduate of Heidelberg University, who joined his
efforts with Dr. Barnum at an early day, is professor of <i>materia
medica</i>, toxicology and microscopy. Mrs. D. N. Marble, professor of
general and pharmaceutical chemistry, and Mrs. Fountaine Miller,
professor of botany, were graduates of the first class.</p>

<p>Mrs. Kate Trimble de Roode, in a recent letter says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Kentucky has had school suffrage for thirty years, but as the
right is not generally known or understood, few women have ever
availed themselves of the privilege. The State librarian has for
many years been a woman, and there are several post-mistresses
also in this State. The State University has recently admitted
women on equal terms to all its departments. As a general thing
the young women of Kentucky are better educated than the men, the
latter being early put to business, while most parents desire
above all things to secure to their daughters a liberal
education. We have a number of women practicing medicine in the
larger cities, one architect, but as yet no lawyers, although
several women have taken a full course of study for that
profession. The question of woman suffrage has been but little
agitated in this State, although the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_822" id="Page_822">[Pg 822]</a></span> last legislature gave a
respectful hearing to several ladies on the question. The
property rights of married women are in a crude state; the wife's
personal property vests in the husband; the profits and rents
that accrue from her real estate belong to him also. She can make
no will without the assent of her husband, and if given, he can
revoke it at any time before the will is probated. The wife's
wages belong to her husband. She cannot sue or be sued without he
joins her in the suit. The wife's dower is a life interest in a
third of the husband's real estate, whereas the husband's
curtesy, where there is issue of the marriage, born alive, is a
life interest in all the real estate belonging to the wife at the
time of her death. This is the statutory law, but the wife by
obtaining a decree in chancery may possess all the rights of a
<i>femme sole</i>. A bill securing more equal rights to women passed
the House of the last legislature, but failed in the Senate. The
courtesy of Kentucky men to women in general, has kept them from
realizing their civil and political degradation, until, by some
sudden turn in the wheel of fortune, the individual woman has
felt the iron teeth of the law in her own flesh, and warned her
slumbering sisterhood. We are now awaking to the fact that an
aristocracy of sex in a republic is as inconsistent and odious as
an aristocracy of color, and indeed far more so. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<h4 class="sc">V.&mdash;Tennessee.</h4>

<p>We are indebted to Mrs. Elizabeth Lisle Saxon for the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Elizabeth Avery Meriwether is the chief representative of liberal
thought in Tennessee. Her pen is ever ready to champion the
wronged. I first came to know her when engaged in a newspaper
discussion to reestablish in the public schools of Memphis three
young women who had been dismissed because of "holding too many
of Mrs. Meriwether's views"&mdash;the reason actually given by the
superintendent and endorsed by the board of directors. A seven
month's war was carried on, ending in a triumphant reinstallment
of the teachers, a new superintendent, and a new board of
directors. Public opinion was educated into more liberal ideas,
and the <i>Memphis Appeal</i>, through its chivalrous editor, Mr.
Keating, declared squarely for woman suffrage.</p>

<p>When Col. Kerr introduced into the Tennessee legislature a bill
making divorce impossible for any cause save adultery, Mrs.
Meriwether wrote the ablest article I ever read, in opposition,
which Mr. Keating published in his paper, and distributed among
the members of the legislature. The result was a clear vote
against the bill.</p>

<p>With Mrs. Lide Meriwether and Mrs. M. J. Holmes, she publicly
assailed the cross examination of women in criminal trials,
either as culprits or witnesses, until the practice was broken
up, and private hearings accorded. In 1876 she sent a memorial to
the National Democratic convention at St. Louis, asking that
party to declare for woman suffrage in its platform. Though her
appeal was not read, hundreds of copies were circulated among the
members in the hope of stirring thought on the subject in the
South. It provoked much sarcasm because it was signed only by
Mrs. Meriwether and Mrs. Saxon. In 1880-81 Mrs. Meriwether was
one of the speakers in the series of conventions held by the
National association in the Western and New England States. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_823" id="Page_823">[Pg 823]</a></span></p>


<h4 class="sc">VI.&mdash;Virginia.</h4>

<p>In the winter of 1870, immediately after the National Washington
convention, Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, while spending a few days in
Richmond, formed the acquaintance of Mrs. Anna Whitehead Bodeker, a
most earnest advocate of the ballot for women. Mrs. Davis held a
parlor meeting in the home of Mrs. Bodeker, enlisting the interest
of several prominent citizens of Richmond, who very soon invited
Mrs. Joslyn Gage to their city to give a series of lectures. Of the
result of this visit we give Mrs. Bodeker's report as published in
<i>The Revolution</i> of May, 1870:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Dear Revolution:</span>&mdash;I glory in announcing a grand achievement in
the great reform of the day in Virginia. Our energetic and heroic
leader, Mrs. M. Joslyn Gage, after giant efforts on her part, and
with the aid of some strong advocates of the reform, on Friday
evening, May 6, 1870, organized in the city of Richmond a
Virginia State Woman Suffrage Association. The whole proceedings
I here append, for immediate publication in your columns.</p>

<p>Mrs. Gage, advisory counsel for New York, in the National Woman
Suffrage Association of America, delivered a lecture upon
"Opportunity for Woman," at Bosher's Hall, corner of Ninth and
Main streets, on Thursday evening. The lecture was able, earnest
and eloquent, and was listened to with rapt attention by the
friends of the cause present. At its conclusion, Judge John C.
Underwood gave notice that on the following evening a meeting
would be held at the United States Court room (which he freely
proffered for the purpose) to organize a State Association, adopt
a constitution, elect officers, and appoint delegates to the
anniversary of the National Association soon to be held in New
York city. The judge remarked that, upon conversing with Governor
Wise upon the subject, he expressed his warm sympathy with the
objects of the movement save upon the question of giving women
the ballot. With all the other rights claimed, he was heartily in
accord; especially, he thought, should the professions be opened
to women, more particularly the medical, they being the natural
physicians of their sex and of children.</p>

<p>Pursuant to the above notice, a meeting was held in the United
States court-room. Judge John C. Underwood was called to preside.
Previous to action on the regular business of the meeting,
several articles favorable to the movement were read. Miss Sue L.
F. Smith, daughter of the late Rev. Dr. Wm. A. Smith, read very
charmingly a well-written essay prepared by herself in advocacy
of granting to women the full meed of powers and responsibilities
now enjoyed by men. Mr. William E. Colman read an article
entitled "Clerical Denunciation of Woman Suffrage&mdash;A Defense,"
being a reply to a violent attack made by the Rev. Dr. Edwards of
this city, upon the adherents of the movement, in a sermon
delivered by him recently. A proposed constitution for the
government of the Virginia State Woman Suffrage Association was
adopted; after which came the election of officers<a name="FNanchor_532_532" id="FNanchor_532_532"></a><a href="#Footnote_532_532" class="fnanchor">[532]</a> of the
society. On motion of Judge Underwood, Miss Sue L. F. Smith was
appointed delegate to represent Virginia in the National
Association to be held in New York city May 12, 13, the society
having by resolution connected itself as an auxiliary to said
National Association. Mrs. Gage offered resolutions, which were
unanimously adopted, after which she delivered a forcible
address, enumerating many of the wrongs to which women are
subjected in this State, dwelling particularly upon the laws
depriving mothers of the right to their own children, placing the
property of married women at the mercy of their husbands, and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_824" id="Page_824">[Pg 824]</a></span>
depriving the wives of all voice in the disposition of the
property possessed by them before marriage. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the winter of 1871, Miss Anthony was honored by an invitation
from the society, and held several meetings in Judge Underwood's
court-room. About this time appeared the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Judge Underwood, having stated in a letter that after mature
consideration he had come to the conclusion that the fourteenth
and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution of the United
States, together with the enforcement act of May 31, 1870, have
secured the right to vote to female citizens as fully as it is
now exercised and enjoyed by male citizens, a test case is to be
made at once in the Virginia courts. As there are very few
advocates of woman suffrage in Virginia, some of the leaders of
the movement in Washington are about to move to Alexandria to
perfect an organization and be ready with a case when Judge
Underwood opens court there. </p></blockquote>

<p>But Mrs. Bodeker, who also memorialized the general assembly, was
first to make the attempt to vote. The Richmond <i>Dispatch</i>
describes the occasion:</p>

<blockquote><p>Yesterday morning the judges of the second precinct of Marshall
ward, J. F. Shinberger, esq., presiding, were surprised at the
appearance of a lady at the polls. She wished to deposit a
ballot, but as the judges declined to allow this, in view of her
not having registered, she then asked to be permitted to have a
paper with the following inscription placed in the ballot-box:
"By the Constitution of the United States, I, Anne Whitehead
Bodeker, have a right to give my vote at this election, and in
vindication of it drop this note in the ballot-box, November 7,
1871." This paper was taken by the judges, and will be deposited
with the ballots in the archives of the Hustings court. </p></blockquote>

<p>One remarkable incident in Gen. Grant's administration was Miss
Elizabeth VanLew's appointment as postmaster at Richmond. She held
the office eight years, notwithstanding the persistent opposition
of politicians. The <i>Ballot-Box</i> said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Miss VanLew was postmaster in Richmond under Grant, introducing
many reforms in the office, but through the envy of men, who were
voters, she, a non-voter, lost her office, as she had lost wealth
and friends from her devotion to the Union during the war. Now,
since its close, she finds not only her former slave men
permitted to make laws for her, but also those whom she opposed
when they were seeking their country's life. But women of all
ranks, white and colored, are awaking to their need of the ballot
for self-protection. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Philadelphia <i>Press</i>, edited by J. W. Forney, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>Some covert enemies of the president and the new civil-service
reform have been spreading a report, through sensational
specials, that the Richmond post-office is to be given to some
prominent Virginian of local standing as soon as Miss VanLew's
commission expires. If there is any post-office in the United
States in which the whole nation at this time has a special
interest, it is this one of Richmond which the present incumbent
holds, as it were, by a national right, and certainly by popular
acclaim. We have not time in a brief paragraph to tell the
striking story of what Miss VanLew has done and what she has
suffered for the country. Her story will pass into standard
history, however, as sadly illustrative of our times. She herself
is known and loved wherever the horrors of Libby and Belle Isle
are mourned and denounced. </p></blockquote>


<h4 class="sc">VII.&mdash;West Virginia.</h4>

<p>Hon. Samuel Young, in a letter to <i>The Revolution</i>, dated Senate
Chamber, Wheeling, West Virginia, February 22, 1869, writes:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_825" id="Page_825">[Pg 825]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>In 1867, I introduced a bill in the State Senate, looking to the
enfranchisement of all women in West Virginia, who can read the
Declaration of Independence intelligently, and write a legible
hand, and have actually paid tax the year previous to their
proposing to vote. But even this guarded bill had no friends but
myself. * * * I introduced a resolution during the present
session of our legislature, asking congress to extend the right
of suffrage to women. Eight out of the twenty-two members of the
Senate voted for it. This is quite encouraging&mdash;advancing from
one to eight in two years. At this rate of progress, we may
succeed by next winter. I give the names of those who are in
favor of and voted for female suffrage in the Senate: Drummond,
Doolittle, Humphreys, Hoke, Wilson, Workman, Young, and
Farnsworth, president. The same senators voted to invite Miss
Anna E. Dickinson to lecture in the state-house during her late
visit to Wheeling. </p></blockquote>


<h4 class="sc">VIII.&mdash;North Carolina.</h4>

<p>We are indebted to Mrs. Mary Bayard Clarke of New Berne for the
following:</p>

<blockquote><p>Since 1868, when the constitution was changed, a married woman
has absolute control of all the real estate she possessed before
marriage or acquired by gift or devise after it, except the power
to sell without the consent of her husband, who in his turn is
not at liberty to sell any real estate possessed by him before
marriage, or acquired after it, without the consent of his wife.
Should he sell any real estate without the wife's consent, in
writing, she can, after his death, claim her dower of one-third
in such real estate. If she owns a farm and her husband manages
it, she can claim full settlements from him, he having no more
rights than any other agent whom she may employ. So her property,
real and personal, is her individual right, with the income
therefrom. But she cannot contract a debt that is binding on her
property without the consent of her husband. With his written
consent, which must be registered in the office of the clerk of
the county in which she resides, she may become a free-trader
with all the rights of a man, her husband having no claim to her
gains and not being responsible for any debt which she may
contract. By giving this written consent her husband virtually
places her in the position of an unmarried woman, as far as her
property is concerned.</p>

<p>In 1881, finding that a widow had no right to appoint a guardian
for her children by "letters testamentary," I, through my son,
William E. Clarke, who was then senator for this county in our
State legislature, succeeded in getting this law so changed that
she now has the same rights as a man. In cases of divorce or
separation while the children are under age, it is discretionary
with the judge to give the children to either parent; but public
sentiment always gives them to the mother while young.</p>

<p>As a rule the women of the South are better educated than the
men, the boys being put to work while the girls are at school.
The girls are not trained to work in any way, and very few, as
yet, see the necessity of being regularly trained to do anything
by which they may make a living except as teachers. Our
public-school system requires a course through the normal school
for all teachers. Mixed schools are not popular with us, but we
have been forced into them by the public-graded-school tax, which
has crushed out our private schools. I am now, and have been for
the past two years, making an effort to have women on our
school-boards, and a female as well as a male principal for every
mixed public school, on the ground that mothers have as much
right to a voice in the education of their daughters as fathers
have in that of their sons. We have female teachers in our public
schools but not as principals, and the pay of the women is,
regardless of the quality of their work, always considerably less
than that of men.</p>

<p>Our Supreme Court granted a license to Miss Tabitha A. Holton to
practice law, and there is no legal impediment in the way of one
doing so. The same is true of the medical profession. Dr. Susan
Dimock was a North Carolinian by birth and on her<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_826" id="Page_826">[Pg 826]</a></span> application
for admission to the State Medical Society was unanimously
elected a member of that body. The African Methodist-Episcopal
Conference, Bishop Turner presiding, ordained Miss Sarah A.
Hughes of Raleigh, a bright mulatto girl, as deacon in the
church. Shortly after the close of the late war, my husband being
then incapacitated for work by wounds received in the Mexican and
the civil war, and my sons under age, I applied to Governor
Jonathan Worth for the position of State librarian. Though
cordially acknowledging my fitness, intellectually, for the
office, and admitting that my sex did not legally disqualify me
to hold it, he positively refused to appoint me or any other
woman to any office in his gift. Public sentiment then sustained
him, but it would not now do so; so many ladies of culture,
refinement and social position have been, since the war, forced
to work or starve, that it is now nothing remarkable to see them
and their daughters doing work which twenty years ago they would
have been ostracised for undertaking.</p>

<p>In a letter to the Boston <i>Index</i>, published August, 1885, the
venerable Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes Smith, who is now a resident of
this State, truthfully says,</p>

<blockquote><p>The women of the North can have little conception of the
hindrances which their sisters of the South encounter in their
efforts to accept new and progressive ideas. The other sex, in a
blind sort of way, hold fast to an absolute kind of chivalry akin
to that of the renowned Don Quixote, by which they try to hold
women in the background as a kind of porcelain liable to crack
and breakage unless daintily handled. Women here see the spirit
of the age and the need of change far more clearly than the men,
and act up to this light, but with a flexible grace that disarms
opposition. They see the necessity of work and are turning their
attention to methods for remunerative labor, far more difficult
to obtain at the South than at the North. </p></blockquote>

<p>I cordially endorse this extract. The Southern man does not wish
his "women folks" to be self-supporting, not because he is jealous
of their rivaling him, but because he feels it is his duty to be
the bread-winner. But the much sneered at "chivalry" of the South,
while rendering it harder for a woman to break through old customs,
most cordially and heartily sustains her when she has successfully
done so. There are fewer large centers in the South than in the
North, and much less attrition of mind against mind; the people are
homogeneous and slower to change, and public opinion is much less
fluctuating. But once let the tide of woman suffrage fairly turn,
and I believe it will be irresistable and advance far more steadily
and rapidly in the South than it has done in the North. Let the
Southern women be won over and the cause will have nothing to fear
from the opposition of the men. But, after twenty years' experience
as a journalist, my honest opinion is that until the Southern women
can be made to feel the pecuniary advantages to them of suffrage,
they will not lift a finger or speak a word to obtain it.</p>

<p>In 1881, at the March meeting of the Raleigh Typographical Union,
No. 194, my son, being then a member of that Union, introduced and,
after some hard fighting, succeeded in carrying a resolution
placing women compositors on a par in every respect with men. There
was not at that time a single woman compositor in the State, to my
son's knowledge; there is one now in Raleigh and two apprentices,
who claimed and receive all the advantages that men applying for
admission to the Union receive.</p>

<p>Mrs. C. Harris started the <i>South Atlantic</i> at Wilmington. The
Misses Bernheim and their father started a magazine in the same
city called <i>At Home and Abroad</i>, which was afterwards moved to
Charlotte; both were short-lived. We have now the <i>Southern Woman</i>.
This is the only journal ever edited and managed by a woman alone,
with no man associated with or responsible for it. I have been for
twenty years connected with the press of this State in one way and
another, and am called the "Grandmother of the North Carolina Press
Association." In 1880 I delivered an original poem before the
association, and another Masonic one before the board of the orphan
asylum; making me, I believe, the first native North Carolina woman
that ever came before the public as a speaker. I was both denounced
and applauded for my "brass" and "bravery." Public sentiment has
changed since then.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_827" id="Page_827">[Pg 827]</a></span></p>

<p>Mrs. Marion A. Williams, president of the State National Bank at
Raleigh for several years, is probably the first woman ever elected
to that responsible position in any State of this Union. In 1885
Louisa B. Stephens was made president of the First National Bank of
Marion, Iowa; and a national bank in Newbery, South Carolina,
honored itself by placing a woman at the head of its official
board.</p>

<p>The <i>North Carolinian</i> of January, 1870, contained an able
editorial endorsing woman suffrage, closing with:</p>

<blockquote><p>For one we say, tear down the barriers, give woman an opportunity
to show her wisdom and virtue; place the ballot in her hands that
she may protect herself and reform men, and ere a quarter of a
century has elapsed many of the foulest blots upon the
civilization of this age will have passed away. </p></blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>From an interesting article in the <i>Boston Advertiser</i>, May 22,
1875, by Rev. James Freeman Clark, concerning Dr. Susan Dimock, one
of North Carolina's promising daughters, whose career was ended in
the wreck of the Schiller near the Scilly islands, we make a few
extracts:</p>

<blockquote><p>One of our eminent surgeons, Dr. Samuel Cabot, said to me
yesterday:</p>

<blockquote><p>"This community will never know what a loss it has had in Dr.
Dimock. It was not merely her skill, though that was remarkable,
considering her youth and limited experience, but also her nerve,
that qualified her to become a great surgeon. I have seldom known
one at once so determined and so self-possessed. Skill is a
quality much more easily found than this self-control that
nothing can flurry. She had that in an eminent degree; and, had
she lived, she would have been sure to stand, in time, among
those at the head of her profession. The usual weapons of
ridicule would have been impotent against a woman who had reached
that supreme position which Susan Dimock would certainly have
attained." </p></blockquote>

<p>During the war of the rebellion, Miss Dimock sought admission into
the medical school of Harvard University, preferring, if possible,
to take a degree in an American college. Twice she applied, and was
twice refused. Hearing that the University of Zurich was open to
women, she went there, and was received with a hospitality which
the institutions of her own country did not offer. She pursued her
medical studies there, and graduated with honor. A number of the
"Revue des Deux Mondes" for August, 1872, contains an article
called "Les Femmes à l'Universitie de Zurich," which speaks very
favorably of the success of the women in that place. The first to
take a degree as doctor of medicine was a young Russian lady, in
1867. Between 1867 and 1872 five others had taken this degree, and
among them Miss Dimock is mentioned. From the medical school at
Zurich, she went to that at Vienna; and of her appearance there we
have this record: A distinguished German physician remarked to a
friend of mine residing in Germany that he had always been opposed
to women as physicians&mdash;but that he had met a young American lady
studying at Vienna, whose intelligence, modesty and devotion to her
work was such as almost to convince him that he was wrong. A
comparison of dates shows that this American student must have been
Dr. Dimock.</p>

<p>On her return to the United States Dr. Dimock became resident
physician at "The Hospital for Women and Children," on Codman
Avenue, in Boston. Both the students of medicine and the patients
became devotedly attached to her; they were fascinated by this
remarkable union of tenderness, firmness and skill. The secret was
in part told by what she said in one of her lectures in the
training-school for nurses connected with the woman's hospital: "I
wish you, of all my instructions, especially to remember this.
Where you go to nurse a patient, imagine that it is your own sister
before you in that bed; and treat her as you would wish your own
sister to be treated." While at this hospital, she was also able to
carry out a principle in which she firmly believed, namely&mdash;that in
a hospital the rights of every patient, poor and rich, should be
sacredly regarded, and never be postponed even to the supposed
interests of medical students. No student was allowed to be present
at any operation, except so far as the comfort and safety of her
patients rendered the student's presence desirable. Her<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_828" id="Page_828">[Pg 828]</a></span> interest
in the woman's hospital was very great. She was in the habit, at
the beginning of each year, of writing and sealing up her wishes
for the coming year. Since her death, her mother has opened the
envelope of January 1, 1875, and found it to contain a prayer for a
blessing on "my dear hospital."</p>

<p>And now this young, strong soul so ardent in the pursuit of
knowledge, so filled with a desire to help her suffering sisters,
has been taken by that remorseless deep. </p></blockquote>


<h4 class="sc">IX.&mdash;South Carolina.</h4>

<p>The first action we hear of in South Carolina was a Woman's Right's
Convention in Columbia, Dec. 20, 1870, of which the Charleston
<i>Republican</i> said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The chairman, Miss Rollin, said: "It had been so universally the
custom to treat the idea of woman suffrage with ridicule and
merriment that it becomes necessary in submitting the subject for
earnest deliberation that we assure the gentlemen present that
our claim is made honestly and seriously. We ask suffrage not as
a favor, not as a privilege, but as a right based on the ground
that we are human beings, and as such, entitled to all human
rights. While we concede that woman's ennobling influence should
be confined chiefly to home and society, we claim that public
opinion has had a tendency to limit woman's sphere to too small a
circle, and until woman has the right of representation this will
last, and other rights will be held by an insecure tenure."</p>

<p>Mr. T. J. Mackey made a forcible argument in favor of the
movement. He was followed by Miss Hosley, who made a few brief
remarks upon the subject. General Moses thought woman's
introduction upon the political platform would benefit us much in
a moral point of view, and that they had a right to assist in
making the laws that govern them as well as the sterner sex.
Messrs. Cardozo, Pioneer and Rev. Mr. Harris followed in short
speeches, endorsing the movement and wishing it success.
Resolutions were adopted, and officers chosen.<a name="FNanchor_533_533" id="FNanchor_533_533"></a><a href="#Footnote_533_533" class="fnanchor">[533]</a> The following
letters were read:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">Executive Department</span>, Columbia, Jan. 19, 1871.</p>

<p><i>Miss L. M. Rollin</i>:&mdash;I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt
of your invitation to be present at the preliminary organization
of the association for the assertion of woman's rights in this
State, and regret that the pressure of public duties precludes my
indulging myself in that pleasure. Be assured, however, that the
cause has my warmest sympathy, and I indulge the hope that the
time is not far distant when woman shall be the peer of man in
political rights, as she is peerless in all others, and when she
will be able to reclaim some of those privileges that are now
monopolized by the sterner sex.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">R. K. Scott</span>, <i>Governor</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">I have the honor to be, very respectfully, etc.,</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break">
<span class="smcap">Office of the Attorney-General</span>, Columbia, Feb. 1, 1871.</p>

<p>I hoped when I received your invitation to the meeting to-night
of the friends of woman suffrage, that I should be able to attend
in person, but at a late hour I find other duties standing in the
way, and I can only say a word of approval and encouragement with
my pen. The woman suffrage cause is to my mind so just and so
expedient as to need little argument. To say that my mother, my
sisters or my wife have less interest in good government than I
have, or are less fitted by nature to understand and use the
ballot than I am, is to contradict reason and fact.</p>

<p>Upon the same grounds that I defend my own right to share in the
government which controls and protects me, do I now assert the
right of woman to a voice in public affairs. For the same reasons
that I would regard an attempt to rob me of my civil rights as
tyranny, do I now protest against the continued civil inequality
and thralldom of woman. I take no merit or pride to myself for
such a position. I have felt and said these things during my
whole life. They are to me self-evident truths; needing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_829" id="Page_829">[Pg 829]</a></span> no more
demonstration by argument than the first lines of the Declaration
of American Independence. My claim for woman is simply this: Give
her a full and fair chance to act in any sphere for which she can
fit herself. Her sphere is as wide as man's. It has no limits
except her capacity. If woman cannot perform a soldier's duty,
then the army is not her sphere; if she can, it is her sphere, as
much as it is man's.</p>

<p>I value the ballot for woman chiefly because it opens to her a
wide, free avenue to a complete development of all her powers.
The Chinese lady's shoe is nothing compared to the clamps and
fetters which we Americans have put upon woman's mind and soul.
An impartial observer would scarcely condemn the one and approve
the other. What we need now is to accustom the public to these
radical truths. Demand the ballot; demand woman's freedom. It is
not a conflict of argument or reason, so much as a crusade
against habit and prejudice. To tell the truth, I don't think
there is a respectable argument in the world against woman
suffrage. People think they are arguing or reasoning against it
when they are in fact only repeating the prejudices in which they
have been trained. With the sincerest wishes for the success of
your meeting and of all your efforts for woman suffrage, I
remain, yours very truly,</p>

<p class="ltr-from">D. H. Chamberlain.</p>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>

<p>The American association memorialized the legislature March 13,
1872. The joint committee recommended an amendment to the
constitution of the State, providing that every person, male or
female, possessed of the necessary qualifications, should be
entitled to vote. B. F. Whittemore, H. J. Maxwell, W. B. Nash, G.
F. McIntyre, were the committee on the part of the Senate; C. D.
Hayne, W. J. Whipper, Benj. Byas, B. G. Yocom, F. H. Frost,
committee on the part of the House.</p>

<p>In the debate in congress in 1874, Hon. Alonzo J. Ransier of South
Carolina, the civil-rights bill being under discussion, claimed
that equal human rights should be extended to women as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>And may the day be not far distant when American citizenship in
civil and political rights and public privileges shall cover not
only those of our sex, but those of the opposite one also; until
which time the government of the United States cannot be said to
rest upon the "consent of the governed," or to adequately protect
them in life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. </p></blockquote>

<p>Miss Sallie R. Banks, for some years a teacher of colored schools
in South Carolina, has been appointed collector of internal revenue
for the Sumter district.</p>


<h4 class="sc">X.&mdash;Florida.</h4>

<p>In 1880, the agricultural department at Washington, paid a premium
of $12 to Madame Atzeroth of Manatee, for the first pound of coffee
ever grown out of doors in the United States.</p>

<p>The following is from a letter to the Savannah <i>News</i>, reporting a
judgment rendered by a Florida county judge, in a case between an
old black man and his wife:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date"><span class="smcap">Ocala</span>, Fla., May 12, 1874.</p>

<p>Be it known throughout all christendom that the husband is the
head of the wife, and whatever is his is his'n, and whatever is
hers is his'n, and come weal or woe, peace or war, the right of
all property is vested in the husband, and the wife must not take
anything away. The ox belongs to Uncle Ben, and he must keep it,
and the other things, and if the old woman quits she must go
empty-handed. Know all that this is so by order of the Judge of
Probate.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF">Wm. R. Hillyer.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">[Signed]</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Though quaintly expressed, yet this decision is in line with the
old common law and the statutes of many of the States in this Union
to-day.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_830" id="Page_830">[Pg 830]</a></span></p>


<h4 class="sc">XI.&mdash;Alabama.</h4>

<p>The women of Alabama are evidently awake on the temperance
question, though still apparently unprepared for suffrage. In a
report of a meeting in Birmingham in 1885, the following, from a
prominent editor, was read by the president:</p>

<blockquote><p>Tell the admirable lady, Mrs. Bryce, that I would devote
everything to the cause she espouses, but there's no use. Let
women demand the ballot, and with it they can destroy whisky, and
by no other agency. There is no perfect family or state in which
woman is not an active governing force. They should have the
courage to assert themselves and then they can serve the country
and the race. </p></blockquote>

<p>If a thunderbolt had fallen it would not have created a greater
sensation. The ladies at first grew indignant and uttered
protestations. When they grew calmer, the corresponding secretary
was ordered to furnish the editor with the following:</p>

<blockquote><p>The ladies of the W. C. T. U. return thanks to the editor for his
kindly and progressive suggestions, but, in their opinion, they
are not ready to ask any political favors. Whenever suffrage is
granted to the women of the United States, those of Alabama will
be found on the right side. </p></blockquote>

<p>At Huntsville lives Mrs. Priscilla Holmes Drake, whose name has
stood as representative of our National Association in Alabama
since 1868.</p>


<h4 class="sc">XII.&mdash;Georgia.</h4>

<p>We give a letter from Georgia's great statesman, defining his views
of woman's sphere:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="ltr-date">
<span class="smcap">House of Representatives, Washington</span>, D. C., May 29, 1878.</p>

<p><i>Mrs. E. L. Saxon, New Orleans, La.</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">My Dear Madam</span>:&mdash;Your letter to Hon. Alexander H. Stephens, of the
22d inst., came duly to hand. He requests me to thank you for it,
and to say in reply that he has ever sympathized with woman in
her efforts for a higher and broader sphere of intellectual and
moral culture, as well as physical usefulness in life. He does
not go so far as to endow woman with the ballot, or to fit her
for the more masculine duties of the State. Her sphere, by
nature, is circumscribed within certain physical boundaries, but
in all those things to which she is fitted by nature, and can
enter without interference with the laws of God, he would open
the doors wide to her.</p>

<p class="ltr-rightF"><span class="smcap">C. P. Culver</span>, <i>Secretary</i>.</p>
<p class="ltr-left">Very respectfully yours,</p>
</blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_523_523" id="Footnote_523_523"></a><a href="#FNanchor_523_523"><span class="label">[523]</span></a> Myrtilla Miner; published by Houghton, Mifflin &amp;
Co., Boston and New York.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_524_524" id="Footnote_524_524"></a><a href="#FNanchor_524_524"><span class="label">[524]</span></a> See <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_90">Vol. II., page 90</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_525_525" id="Footnote_525_525"></a><a href="#FNanchor_525_525"><span class="label">[525]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Hon. Samuel C. Pomeroy;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Josophine S. Griffing, Belva A. Lockwood, Jas.
H. Holmes, John H. Craney; <i>Advisory Council</i>, Mary E. O'Connor,
Josephine S. Griffing, Caroline B. Winslow, Dr. Susan A. Edson,
Lydia S. Hall, Mr. and Mrs. Boyle, Caroline B. Colby, and others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_526_526" id="Footnote_526_526"></a><a href="#FNanchor_526_526"><span class="label">[526]</span></a> The officers elected were: <i>President</i>, United
States Senator S. C. Pomeroy; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. Josephine S.
Griffing, Mrs. Belva McNall Lockwood, Miss Stickney, Thaddeus
Hyatt, Caroline B. Winslow, M. D., S. Yorke At Lee, Mrs. Josephine
L. Slade, Prof. William J. Wilson, Mrs. Mary Olin, Judge A. B.
Olin, Mrs. C. M. E. Y. Christian, Prof. George B. Vashon, J. H.
Crossman, Mrs. Angeline S. Hall, Dr. C. B. Purvis, Mrs. Dr.
Hathaway, Bishop Moore, Mrs. C. A. F. Stebbins, Giles B. Stebbins,
Miss Emily Stanton, Dr. John Mayhew, John R. Elvana, J. C. O.
Whaley, Charles Roeser, George T. Downing; <i>Recording Secretary</i>,
George F. Needham; <i>Treasurer</i>, Daniel Breed; <i>Board of Managers</i>,
Josephine S. Griffing, Hamilton Wilcox, Dr. Daniel Breed, Mrs.
Corner, Geo. F. Needham, Mrs. Lydia S. Hall, J. H. Crane;
<i>Corresponding Secretary</i>, Mrs. Mary T. Corner. Letters were
reported from Frederick Douglass, George William Curtis, Mrs. E.
Oakes Smith. Addresses were delivered by J. H. Crossman, G. F.
Needham, Mrs. Lockwood, R. J. Hinton, and Mr. Tibbits of Virginia.
Dr. Breed recited an original poem, entitled, "Woman's Pledge to
Freedom."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_527_527" id="Footnote_527_527"></a><a href="#FNanchor_527_527"><span class="label">[527]</span></a> The names of the women who attempted to register and
vote were: Jane A. Archibald, Clara M. Archibald, Mary Anderson, S.
W. Aiken, Sallie S. Barrett, Mary B. Baumgras, Florence Riddle
Bartlett, Ann M. Boyle, M. W. Browne, Deborah B. Clarke (Grace
Greenwood's mother, eighty years of age), C. W. Campbell, Elizabeth
T. Cowperthwaite, Mary T. Corner, Mary M. Courtenay, Mary A.
Donaldson, Mary A. Dennison, Ruth Carr Dennison, L. S. Doolittle,
Dr. Susan A. Edson, Sarah P. Edson, B. F. Evans, E. W. Foster,
Olive Freeman, Maggie Finney, Julia H. Grey, Josephine S. Griffing,
A. A. Henning, Susie J. Hickey, Calista Hickey, E. M. Hickey, Mary
Hooper, Ruth G. D. Havens, E. E. Hill, Lydia S. Hall, Julia
Archibald Holmes, N. M. Johnson, Jennie V. Jewell, Carrie Ketchum,
Joanna Kelly, Sara J. Lippincott (Grace Greenwood), Belva A.
Lockwood, Susie S. McClure, A. Jennie Miles, Augusta E. Morris, M.
T. Middleton, Savangie E. Mark, A. E. Newton, M. C. Page, Eliza Ann
Peck, Mary A. Riddle, A. R. Riddle, Caroline Risley, Sarah Andrews
Spencer, E. D. E. N. Southworth, Caroline A. Sherman, Mary S.
Scribner, Belle Smith, Maria T. Stoddard, Ada E. Spurgeon, Rubina
Taylor, Harriet P. Trickham, Eliza M. Tibbetts, Dr. Caroline B.
Winslow, Sarah E. Webster (mother of Dr. Susan A. Edson), Julia A.
Wilbur, Mrs. Westfall, Mary Willard, Amanda Wall, Lucy A. Wheeler.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_528_528" id="Footnote_528_528"></a><a href="#FNanchor_528_528"><span class="label">[528]</span></a> For full account see <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_587">Vol. II., page 587</a>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_529_529" id="Footnote_529_529"></a><a href="#FNanchor_529_529"><span class="label">[529]</span></a> David Eastburn and Henry Swaine of New Castle
county.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_530_530" id="Footnote_530_530"></a><a href="#FNanchor_530_530"><span class="label">[530]</span></a> The officers were: Sally Clay Bennett, Maggie S.
Burnham, Mrs. Somers, Mary B. Clay.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_531_531" id="Footnote_531_531"></a><a href="#FNanchor_531_531"><span class="label">[531]</span></a> The incorporators who formed the Board of Regents
were, the Right Rev. Thomas U. Dudley, D. D., Bishop of Kentucky;
Rev. James P. Boyce, D. D., President of the Baptist Theological
Seminary; Rev. E. F. Perkins, Rector of St. Paul's Church; Hon. I.
H. Edwards, Chancellor of Louisville Chancery Court; Theodore
Harris, President Louisville Banking and Insurance Co.; W. N.
Haldeman, President <i>Courier Journal</i> Co.; Nicholas Finzer,
President of Finzer tobacco works; Samuel L. Avery, President B. F.
Avery Co.; G. H. Cochran, President Louisville School Board; Robert
Cochran, Commissioner of Chancery Court; Hon. Charles Godshaw,
Trustee of Jury Fund; Dr. E. A. Grant and Mr. James K. Lemon. The
board was organized by the election of Mr. Theodore Harris,
<i>President</i>, Dr. E. A. Grant, <i>Secretary</i>, and James K. Lemon,
<i>Treasurer</i>. The school opened with fifteen students, and continued
until June, 1883. A lecture and practical course combined, occupy
ten months of the year&mdash;lectures being given five afternoons of
each week during the term.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_532_532" id="Footnote_532_532"></a><a href="#FNanchor_532_532"><span class="label">[532]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Mrs. Anne W. Bodeker, Richmond;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. Maria G. and Judge John C. Underwood, Mr.
and Mrs. Judge Westal Willoughby, Mr. and Mrs. Judge Lysander Hill,
all of Alexandria; Mr. R. M. Manly, Richmond; Mrs. Martha Haines
Bennett, Norfolk; Mr. Andrew Washburne and Mr. William E. Coleman,
Richmond; <i>Secretary</i>, Miss Sue L. F. Smith, Richmond; <i>Executive
Committee</i>, Rev. W. F. Hemenway, Mrs. Andrew Washburne, Mrs. Dr. E.
H. Smith, Dr. and Mrs. Langstedt, Richmond, and Mrs. Allen
(Florence Percy) of Manchester.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_533_533" id="Footnote_533_533"></a><a href="#FNanchor_533_533"><span class="label">[533]</span></a> <i>President</i>, Gov. R. K. Scott; <i>Vice-Presidents</i>,
Hon. B. F. Whittemore, Hon. G. F. McIntyre, Gen. W. J. Whipper,
Mrs. R. C. DeLarge, Hon. D. H. Chamberlain, Mrs. A. J. Ransier, and
Mrs. R. K. Scott; <i>Secretary</i>, Miss K. Rollin; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. K.
Harris.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_831" id="Page_831">[Pg 831]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LV_Concluded" id="CHAPTER_LV_Concluded"></a>CHAPTER LV. (<span class="smcap">Concluded</span>).</h2>

<h3>CANADA.</h3>


<p><span class="sc">We</span> are indebted to Miss Phelps of St. Catharines and Mrs. Curzon of
Toronto for the facts we give in regard to women's position in the
Dominion. Miss Phelps says:</p>

<blockquote><p>History tells us that when the thirteen American colonies
revolted and their independence was declared there were 25,000
who adhered to the policy of King George, under the name of the
United Empire Loyalists, some of whom came to Canada, others to
Acadia and others wandered elsewhere. The 10,000 who sought a
home in Canada at once formed a government in harmony with
English laws and usages. Parliament was established in 1803 at
York, now Toronto, and during that session the first law for the
protection of married women was passed. At first, if a married
woman desired to dispose of her property, she was obliged to go
before the courts to testify as to her willingness to do so. In
1821 a bill was passed enabling her to go before justices of the
peace. This was a great convenience, for the courts were not
always in session when it was imperative for her to sell. In 1849
a bill was passed to naturalize women who married native-born or
naturalized subjects. In 1859, under the old parliament of
Canada, the Married Woman's Property act was passed, which in
brief provides that every woman who may marry without any
marriage-contract or settlement shall, after May 4, 1859,
notwithstanding her coverture, have, hold and enjoy all her real
estate, whether belonging to her before marriage or in any way
acquired afterward, free from her husband's debts and obligations
contracted after May 4, 1859. A married woman may also hold her
personal property free from the debts and contracts of her
husband, and obtain an order of protection for her own earnings
and those of her minor children. She may become a stockholder of
any bank, insurance company or any incorporated association, as
if she were a <i>feme sole</i>, and may vote by proxy or otherwise. A
married woman is liable on contracts respecting her own real
estate. No married woman is liable to arrest either on mesne or
final process. Any superior court of law or equity or any judge
of said court, or a judge of a surrogate court, or deputy, may,
on hearing the petition of a mother, or minor whose father is
dead, appoint her as guardian&mdash;notwithstanding the appointment of
another person by the father&mdash;of the estate to which the minor is
entitled, and of such sums of money as are necessary from time to
time for the maintenance of the minor. In 1881 a law was passed
enabling a woman to discharge a mortgage on her lands without her
husband being a party to it, while a husband cannot dispose of
his property without her consent.</p>

<p>More than thirty years ago school suffrage was granted to women
on the same grounds as to male electors, and they are eligible to
all school offices. Women have, however, been slow to avail
themselves of this privilege, owing to their ignorance of the
laws and their lack of interest in regard to all public measures.
When they awake to their political rights they will feel a deeper
responsibility in the discharge of their public duties. But the
steady increase in the number of those who avail themselves of
this privilege is the one encouraging indication of the growth of
the suffrage movement in Canada.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_832" id="Page_832">[Pg 832]</a></span></p>

<p>In 1882 the municipal act was so amended as to give married
women, widows and spinsters, if possessed of the necessary
qualifications, the right to vote on by-laws and some other minor
municipal matters. Again, in 1884, the act was still further
amended, extending the right to vote at municipal elections to
widows and unmarried women on all matters. In Toronto, January 4,
1886, the women polled a large vote, resulting in the election of
the candidate pledged to reform. But it must be remembered that
this progressive legislation belongs only to the Province of
Ontario. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mrs. Curzon writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the year 1876 Dr. Emily H. Stowe&mdash;graduated in New
York&mdash;settled in Toronto for the practice of her profession.
Thoroughly imbued with the principles roughly summed up in the
term "woman's rights," and finding that her native Canada was not
awake to the importance of the subject, she lectured in the
principal towns of Ontario on "Woman's Sphere and Woman in
Medicine." By reason of the agitation caused by these lectures a
Woman's Literary Club<a name="FNanchor_534_534" id="FNanchor_534_534"></a><a href="#Footnote_534_534" class="fnanchor">[534]</a> was organized in Toronto with Dr.
Stowe, president, and Miss Helen Archibald, secretary. The
triumphs scored through the efforts of this club were the
admission of women to the University College and School of
Medicine of Toronto, Queen's University and the Royal Medical
School of Kingston, and the founding of a medical school for
women in each city. When the municipal franchise was granted to
women the club decided to come out boldly as a suffrage
organization. Accordingly by resolution the Toronto Woman's
Literary Club was dissolved and the Canadian Woman Suffrage
Association<a name="FNanchor_535_535" id="FNanchor_535_535"></a><a href="#Footnote_535_535" class="fnanchor">[535]</a> formed, March 9, 1883.</p>

<p>McGill University at Montreal has an annex for women founded
through the munificence of one of the merchants of that
city.&mdash;&mdash;Dalhousie College, Halifax, admits women on the same
footing as men. The Toronto <i>Mail</i> says it is only a question of
time when all Canadian colleges will do the same thing.&mdash;&mdash;In
1883 the provincial legislature of Nova Scotia gave duly
qualified women the right to vote, and they exercised it very
generally the following year.&mdash;&mdash;In New Brunswick the old laws
and prejudices remain, but woman suffrage has its friends and
advocates in Mrs. E. W. Fisher and Mr. and Mrs. W. Frank Hathaway
of St. Johns.&mdash;&mdash;In 1885 the Mount Allison Methodist College at
Sackville, N. B., conferred the degree of M. A. on Miss Harriet
Stewart. This is the first instance of an educational institution
in the Dominion conferring such an honor upon a lady. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_534_534" id="Footnote_534_534"></a><a href="#FNanchor_534_534"><span class="label">[534]</span></a> <i>The Ballot-Box</i> in 1880 said: "<i>The Citizen</i> of
Toronto, Ont., has established a 'Ladies' Column' under the
auspices of the Toronto Woman's Literary Club, the first ladies'
club ever formed in Canada. This club has been in existence four
years. <i>The Citizen</i> is said to be the first Canadian paper
devoted, even in part, to woman's interest. Heading this change
'Important Notice,' it says: 'We have great pleasure in announcing
that we have made an arrangement with the Toronto Woman's Literary
Club to occupy an important space in our columns, for the advance
of moral, social, educational and family matters affecting woman
generally. Mrs. S. A. Curzon has charge of this column as associate
editor.' The club in a stirring salutatory defines its work and
objects. It is the intention to give, each week, a <i>résumé</i> of the
current topics concerning women, education, the franchises, the
legal abilities and disabilities of women, etc., hoping to arouse a
national sentiment among Canadian women and intelligence upon these
important subjects. This appeal is signed by Mrs. McEwen, the
president, and Emily H. Stowe, Mrs. W. J. MacKenzie, Mrs. W. B.
Hamilton and Mrs. S. A. Curzon, the executive committee."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_535_535" id="Footnote_535_535"></a><a href="#FNanchor_535_535"><span class="label">[535]</span></a> The officers were: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Donald McEwen;
<i>Vice-Presidents</i>, Mrs. Curzon, Mrs. E. H. Stowe, M. D., Captain W.
F. McMaster, John Hallam, esq.; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. W. B. Hamilton;
<i>Secretary</i>, Miss J. Foulds; <i>Executive Committee</i>, Mrs. McKenzie,
Mrs. S. McMaster, Mrs. Riches, Mrs. Miller, Miss Hamilton, Miss
McMaster, Miss Alexander, William Houston, J. L. Foulds, P.
McIntyre, Phillips Thompson, Thomas Bengough.</p></div>
</div>

<div class="figcenter" style="width: 317px;">
<a name="v3_833" id="v3_833">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_833.jpg" width="317" height="500" alt="Mentia Taylor" title="" /></a>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_833" id="Page_833">[Pg 833]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LVI" id="CHAPTER_LVI"></a>CHAPTER LVI.</h2>

<h3>GREAT BRITAIN.</h3>

<h4>BY CAROLINE ASHURST BIGGS.</h4>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>Women Send Members to Parliament&mdash;Sidney Smith, Sir Robert Peel,
Richard Cobden&mdash;The Ladies of Oldham&mdash;Jeremy Bentham&mdash;Anne
Knight&mdash;Northern Reform Society, 1858&mdash;Mrs. Matilda
Biggs&mdash;Unmarried Women and Widows Petition
Parliament&mdash;Associations formed in London, Manchester, Edinburgh,
1867&mdash;John Stuart Mill in Parliament&mdash;Seventy-three Votes for his
Bill&mdash;John Bright's Vote&mdash;Women Register and
Vote&mdash;Lord-Chief-Justice of England Declares their Constitutional
Right&mdash;The Courts give Adverse Decisions&mdash;Jacob Bright secures
the Municipal Franchise&mdash;First Public Meeting&mdash;Division on Jacob
Bright's Bill to Remove Political Disabilities&mdash;Mr. Gladstone's
Speech&mdash;Work of 1871-2&mdash;Fourth Vote on the Suffrage Bill&mdash;Jacob
Bright fails of Reëlection&mdash;Efforts of Mr. Forsyth&mdash;Memorial of
the National Society&mdash;Some Account of the Workers&mdash;Vote of the
New Parliament, 1875&mdash;Organized Opposition&mdash;Diminished Adverse
Vote of 1878&mdash;Mr. Courtney's Resolution&mdash;Letters&mdash;Great
Demonstrations at
Manchester&mdash;London&mdash;Bristol&mdash;Nottingham&mdash;Birmingham&mdash;Sheffield&mdash;Glasgow&mdash;Victory
in the Isle of Man&mdash;Passage of Municipal Franchise Bill for
Scotland&mdash;Mr. Mason's Resolution&mdash;Reduction of Adverse Majority
to 16&mdash;Conference at Leeds&mdash;Mr. Woodall's Amendment to Reform
Bill of 1884&mdash;Meeting at Edinburgh&mdash;Other Meetings&mdash;Estimated
Number of Women Householders&mdash;Circulars to Members of
Parliament&mdash;Debate on the Amendment&mdash;Resolutions of the
Society&mdash;Further Debate&mdash;Defeat of the Amendment&mdash;Meeting at St.
James Hall&mdash;Conclusion. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">In</span> writing a history of the woman suffrage movement, it is
difficult to say where one should begin, for although the organized
agitation which arose when John Stuart Mill first brought forward
his proposal in parliament dates back only eighteen years, the
foundations for this demand were laid with the very earliest
parliamentary institutions in England. As a nation we are fond of
working by precedents, and it is a favorite saying among lawyers
that modern English law began with Henry III. In earlier Saxon
times women who were freeholders of lands or burgesses in towns had
the same electoral rights as men. We have records of the reigns of
Mary and Elizabeth, showing that ladies of the manse, in their own
right, sent members to parliament. Down to the time of the civil
wars women were accustomed to share in the election of "parliament
men." In 1640, some women voted in an election<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_834" id="Page_834">[Pg 834]</a></span> for the county of
Suffolk, Sir Simonds d'Ewes being high-sheriff:</p>

<blockquote><p>Who, as soon as he had notice thereof, sent to forbid the same,
conceiving it a matter verie unworthy of anie gentleman, and most
dishonourable in such an election to make use of their voices,
although in law they might have been allowed. </p></blockquote>

<p>The spirit of the Puritans was not favorable to woman's equality;
but, though disused, the right was never absolutely taken away by
law. In a celebrated trial, Olive <i>vs.</i> Ingram (reign of George
II.) the chief-justice gave it as his opinion that "a person paying
scot and lot," and therefore qualified to vote, was a description
which included women; and all the writs of election down to the
time of William IV. were made to "persons" who were freeholders.
However, for all purposes of political life this right was as good
as dead, being absolutely forgotten. But still the local franchises
remained. We have no data to determine whether these were as
completely neglected as the parliamentary franchise. Parishioners
voted for overseers of the poor and for other local boards; and
women were never legally disqualified from voting in these
elections. The lowest period in the condition of women appears to
have been reached at the end of the last century, though they were
not then indifferent to politics. "You cannot," says Miss
Edgeworth's Lady Davenant, "satisfy yourself with the common
namby-pamby phrase, 'Ladies have nothing to do with politics.'
<span class="spacious">* * *</span> Female influence must exist on political subjects as well as on
all others; but this influence should always be domestic not
public; the customs of society have so ruled it." This sentence
exactly represented ordinary English feeling. It was never
considered derogatory to an English lady to take an active part in
elections, provided she did so for some member of her family; but
of direct responsibility she had none.</p>

<p>In the ferment of opinion which preceded the great Reform bill,
woman's claim to participate in it was never heard. The new
franchises which were then for the first time created applied
exclusively to <i>male</i> persons, but in the old franchises continuing
in force, the word "person" alone is strictly used. Mr. Sidney
Smith said:</p>

<blockquote><p>In reserving and keeping alive the qualifications in existence
before those itself created, this statute falls back exactly to
the accustomed phraseology of the earlier acts. Whenever it
confers a new right it restricts it to every male person.
Whenever it perpetuates existing franchises,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_835" id="Page_835">[Pg 835]</a></span> it continues them
to every person, leaving the word "male" out on system. </p></blockquote>

<p>This may have been little more than an oversight, or it may have
been that respect for precedent which used to be an inherent
quality in English statesmen. But it is curious that the first
petition ever, to our knowledge, presented for women's suffrage to
the House of Commons should date from this same year. It was
presented on August 3, 1832, and is the worthy predecessor of many
thousands in later times. Hansard thus describes it:</p>

<blockquote><p>Mr. Hunt said he had a petition to present which might be a
subject of mirth to some honorable gentlemen, but which was one
deserving of consideration. It came from a lady of rank and
fortune, Mary Smith of Stanmore, in the county of York. The
petition stated that she paid taxes, and therefore did not see
why she should not have a share in the election of a
representative; she also stated that women were liable to all the
penalties of the law, even death, and ought to have a voice in
the fixing of them; but so far from this, on their trials both
judges and jurors were of the opposite sex. She could see no good
reason for the exclusion of women from political rights while the
highest office of the State, that of the crown, was open to the
inheritance of females; and, so we understood, the petitioner
expressed her indignation against those vile wretches who would
not marry, and yet would exclude females from a share in the
legislation. The prayer of the petition was that every unmarried
female, possessing the necessary pecuniary qualifications, should
be entitled to vote for members of parliament. </p></blockquote>

<p>The following year Sir Robert Peel in opposing vote by ballot said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The theoretical arguments in favor of woman suffrage were at
least as strong as those in favor of vote by ballot. There were
arguments in favor of extending the franchise to women to which
it was no easy matter to find a logical answer. Other and more
important duties were entrusted to women. Women were allowed to
hold property, to vote on many occasions in right of that
property; nay, a woman might inherit the throne and perform all
the functions of the first office of the State. Why should they
not vote for a member of parliament? </p></blockquote>

<p>But Sir Robert Peel evidently had no idea that a time would come
when women would ask this question in downright seriousness.
Meanwhile the preference for the words "male person" in the new
enactments still continued. It was employed in the Municipal
Corporation Reform act, 1835; and in the Irish poor-law act of
1838, women, as well as clergymen, were expressly excluded from
election as poor-law guardians. The repeal of the corn-laws brought
the political work of women to the front; they formed local
committees, collected funds and attended meetings.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_836" id="Page_836">[Pg 836]</a></span> In a speech on
free-trade, delivered in Covent Garden Theater January 15, 1845,
Richard Cobden said:</p>

<blockquote><p>There are many ladies present, I am happy to say; now, it is a
very anomalous fact that they cannot vote themselves, and yet
that they have a power of conferring votes upon other people. I
wish they had the franchise, for they would often make much
better use of it than their husbands. </p></blockquote>

<p>Again in 1848, in supporting a motion of Mr. Joseph Hume in the
House of Commons to the effect that the elective franchise should
be extended to all householders, Mr. Cobden said:</p>

<blockquote><p>A gentleman asked me to support universal suffrage on the ground
of principle, and I said to him, if it is a principle that a man
should have a vote because he pays taxes, why should not a widow
who pays taxes and is liable to serve as church-warden and
overseer, have a vote for members of parliament? The gentleman
replied that he agreed with me. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1853, Mr. W. J. Fox, member for Oldham, in acknowledging the
presentation to him by the ladies of Oldham of a signet-ring
bearing the inscription, "Education, the birthright of all," spoke
strongly in favor of women having a definite share in political
life:</p>

<blockquote><p>If women have nothing to do with politics, honest men ought to
have nothing to do with politics. They keep us pure, simple,
just, earnest, in our exertions in politics and public life. They
have to do with it, because while the portion of man may be by
the rougher labors of the head and hands to work out many of the
great results of life, the peculiar function of woman is to
spread grace and softness, truth, beauty, benignity over all. Nor
is woman confined to this. In fact I wish that her direct as well
as indirect influence were still larger than it is in the sphere
of politics. Why, we trust a woman with the sceptre of the realm,
consider her adequate to make peers in the State and bishops in
the Church; surely she must be adequate to send her
representatives to the lower House. I know the time may not have
come for mooting a question of this sort; but I know the time
will come, and that woman will be something more than a mere
adjective to man in political matters. She will become a
substantive also. And why not? </p></blockquote>

<p>Other speakers and writers brought forward the same point. Jeremy
Bentham declared he could find no reasons for the exclusion of
women, though he laid no stress on the matter; Herbert Spencer in
"Social Statics" (1851), Mr. Thomas Hare in his book on
"Representation," and Mr. Mill in "Representative Government," all
discussed it. In 1843 Mrs. Hugo Reid published an excellent volume,
"A Plea for Woman," in which she maintained that "There is no good
ground for the assumption that the possession and exercise of
political privileges are<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_837" id="Page_837">[Pg 837]</a></span> incompatible with home duties." In 1841 a
strong article appeared in the <i>Westminster Review</i>, written by
Mrs. Margaret Mylne, a Scotch lady still living. Mrs. Stuart Mill's
admirably comprehensive article appeared in the same review in
1851.<a name="FNanchor_536_536" id="FNanchor_536_536"></a><a href="#Footnote_536_536" class="fnanchor">[536]</a> In 1846, also, Col. T. Perronet Thompson, the well-known
anti-corn-law advocate, wrote:</p>

<blockquote><p>Whenever the popular party can agree upon and bring forward any
plan which shall include the equal voting of women, they will not
only obtain an alliance of which most men know the importance,
but they will relieve the theory of universal suffrage from the
stigma its enemies never fail to draw upon it, of making its
first step a wholesale disqualification of half the universe
concerned. </p></blockquote>

<p>Among other writers and speakers on the subject, we must also
enumerate Anne Knight, an earnest warm-hearted Quaker lady. She
sometimes lectured upon it, and many of her letters written to Mrs.
Elizabeth Pease Nichol of Edinburgh, Lord Brougham, and others, are
still preserved, in which she eagerly advocates the admission of
women to the suffrage. She assisted in founding the Sheffield
Female Political Association. On February 26, 1851, this
association held a meeting at the Democratic Temperance Hotel,
Sheffield, and unanimously adopted an address, which was the first
manifesto dealing with the suffrage ever formulated by a meeting of
women in England:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Address of the Sheffield Political Association to the Women of
England</span>&mdash;<i>Beloved Sisters</i>: We, the women of the democracy of
Sheffield, beg the indulgence of addressing you at this important
juncture. We have been observers for a number of years of the
various plans and systems of organization which have been laid
down for the better government and guidance of democracy, and we
are brought to the conclusion that women might with the strictest
propriety be included in the proclamation of the people's
charter; for we are the majority of the nation, and it is our
birth-right, equally with our brother, to vote for the man who is
to sway our political destiny, to impose the taxes which we are
compelled to pay, to make the laws which we with others must
observe; and heartily should we rejoice to see the women of
England uniting for the purpose of demanding this great right of
humanity, feeling assured that were women thus comprehended, they
would be the greatest auxiliaries of right against might. For
what would not the patient, energetic mind of woman accomplish,
when once resolved? The brave and heroic deeds which history
records are our testimony that no danger is too great, no
struggle too arduous for her to encounter; thus confirming<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_838" id="Page_838">[Pg 838]</a></span> our
convictions that woman's coöperation is greatly needed for the
accomplishment of our political well-being. But there are some
who would say: "Would you have woman enjoy all the political
rights of men?" To this we emphatically answer: Yes! for does she
not toil early and late in the factory, and in every department
of life subject to the despotism of men? and we ask in the name
of justice, must we continue ever the silent and servile victims
of this injustice? perform all the drudgery of his political
societies and never possess a single political right? Is the
oppression to last forever? We, the women of the democracy of
Sheffield, answer, No! We put forth this earnest appeal to our
sisters of England to join hand and heart with us in this noble
and just cause, to the exposing and eradicating of such a state
of things. Let us shake off our apathy and raise our voices for
right and liberty, till justice in all its fulness is conceded to
us. This we say to all who are contending for liberty, for what
is liberty if the claims of women be disregarded? Our special
object will be the entire political enfranchisement of our own
sex; and we conjure you, our sisters of England, to aid us in
accomplishing this holy work. We remain with heartfelt respect,
your friends.<a name="FNanchor_537_537" id="FNanchor_537_537"></a><a href="#Footnote_537_537" class="fnanchor">[537]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>At the end of 1858 there was established in Newcastle-on-Tyne an
association called the Northern Reform Society, which had universal
suffrage for its object, and it expressly invited the contributions
of women. Letters were written by Matilda Ashurst Biggs, and
afterwards by two or three women in different parts of the country,
offering to become members. In acknowledging these letters, the
secretary stated that the Northern Reform Union only contemplated
the extension of the franchise to men, although he admitted that
many of its leading members were individually in favor of "woman
suffrage" but they believed that by asking for manhood suffrage,
they were advancing a step towards universal franchise. He added.
"The society will be very glad of women's subscriptions, and trusts
that they will use their best efforts to promote its extension."
Undoubtedly, there has never been any reluctance to accept the
subscriptions of women towards promoting the objects of men. In
commenting upon this letter, Mrs. Biggs<a name="FNanchor_538_538" id="FNanchor_538_538"></a><a href="#Footnote_538_538" class="fnanchor">[538]</a> said in the <i>Newcastle
Guardian</i>, February 19, 1859:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_839" id="Page_839">[Pg 839]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>I have never given my rights to be merged in those of any other
person, and I feel it an injustice that I, who am equally taxed
with men, should be denied a voice in making the laws which
affect and dispose of my property, and made to support a State
wherein I am not recognized as a citizen. I consider that a
tyranny which renders me responsible to laws in the making of
which I am not consulted. The Northern Reform Society, which
"takes its stand upon justice," should claim for us at least that
we be exempted from the duties, it we are to be denied the rights
belonging to citizens. </p></blockquote>

<p>These books, speeches and letters though scattered and unconnected,
slowly prepared the ground for the organized agitation. Another
Reform bill grew into preparation. Men's thoughts were turned again
towards the question of representation, and every word spoken on
behalf of the enfranchisement of women assumed double force as it
drew near to a political issue. The enfranchisement of women
advanced from a question of philosophical speculation to actual
politics in the election of John Stuart Mill member of parliament
for Westminster in 1865. In his election address, Mr. Mill, as
previously in his work on representative government, openly avowed
this article of political faith. Nevertheless, the first speech of
which we have record in the House of Commons plainly vindicating
the right of women to the vote, was that of a man who differed from
Mr. Mill in every other feature of his political life and
creed&mdash;Mr. Disraeli. He used almost the same form of argument as
Sir Robert Peel had done thirty years before, but unlike the former
statesman he backed it up with his vote and personal influence for
many succeeding years. It was in 1866 that he spoke these words,
long and gratefully remembered by the women of the country:</p>

<blockquote><p>In a country governed by a woman&mdash;where you allow woman to form
part of the estate of the realm&mdash;peeresses in their own right for
example&mdash;where you allow a woman not only to hold land, but to be
a lady of the manor and hold legal courts&mdash;where a woman by law
may be a church-warden and overseer of the poor,&mdash;I do not see,
where she has so much to do with the State and Church, on what
reasons, if you come to right, she has not a right to vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>These words from Disraeli were the spark that fired the train. In
answer to a request from Miss Jessie Boucherett, Mrs. Bodichon and
Miss Bessie R. Parkes, Mr. Mill replied that if they could find a
hundred women who would sign a petition for the franchise, he would
present it to the House of Commons. A committee was immediately
formed in London, and the petition was circulated. In two or three
weeks it had received 1,499<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_840" id="Page_840">[Pg 840]</a></span> signatures. Among these were many who
in after years took a prominent part, not only in suffrage, but in
other movements for the elevation of women. The petition was
presented by Mr. Mill in May, 1866, and was received with laughter.
He then gave notice of a motion to introduce into the Reform bill a
provision to the same effect. The committee<a name="FNanchor_539_539" id="FNanchor_539_539"></a><a href="#Footnote_539_539" class="fnanchor">[539]</a> immediately began
to circulate petitions and pamphlets. Two of these were by Mrs.
Bodichon, "Reasons for, and Objections against the Enfranchisement
of Women," being the substance of a paper she had read at the
Social Science Congress, in October, 1866. We give the text of the
petition, as it differed somewhat from those circulated in after
years:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To the Honorable, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled:</i></p>

<p>The humble petition of the undersigned,&mdash;showeth, That your
petitioners fulfill the conditions of property or rental
prescribed by law as the qualification of the electoral
franchise, and exercise in their own names the rights pertaining
to such conditions; that the principles in which the government
of the United Kingdom is based, imply the representation of all
classes and interests in the State; that the reasons alleged for
withholding the franchise from certain classes of her majesty's
subjects do not apply to your petitioners. Your petitioners
therefore humbly pray your honorable House to grant to such
persons as fulfill all the conditions which entitle to a vote in
the election of members of parliament, excepting only that of
sex, the privilege of taking part in the choice of fit persons to
represent the people in your honorable House. </p></blockquote>

<p>This form of petition was only signed by unmarried women and widows
of full age, holding the legal qualification for voting in either
county or borough, but there were other forms for other classes of
persons. On March 28, the Right Hon. H. A. Bruce presented a
petition from 3,559 persons, mostly women. Mr. Mill, in April,
presented one with 3,161 names collected by the Manchester
committee, and the Right Hon. Russell Gurney one signed by 1,605
qualified women, <i>i. e.</i>, free-holders and householders<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_841" id="Page_841">[Pg 841]</a></span> who would
have had the vote had they been men. In all 13,497 were counted in
the parliamentary report this session; among these were many
clergymen, barristers, physicians and fellows of colleges.</p>

<p>While we are on the subject of petitions we may as well briefly
glance at what was done in this branch of work during succeeding
years.<a name="FNanchor_540_540" id="FNanchor_540_540"></a><a href="#Footnote_540_540" class="fnanchor">[540]</a> No better method could be found of testing public
opinion, or of affording scope for quiet, intelligent agitation.
Many friends could help by circulating petitions, distributing
literature at the same time and arguing away objections. In 1868
there were presented 78 petitions with nearly 50,000 signatures.
One of them, headed by Mrs. Somerville and Florence Nightingale,
contained 21,000 names, and was a heavy but delightful burden which
Mr. Mill could hardly carry to the table. This petition excited
great attention. During all these years no petitions were presented
against granting the suffrage to women. These numbers were
undoubtedly a surprise to many members of parliament who were
inclined to look upon woman suffrage as an "impracticable fad,"
"the fantastic crochet of a few shrieking sisters." But the
collection and arrangement of the signatures took up incalculable
time, and after a few years this method of agitation was discarded
to a great extent in the large political centres. Friends became
wearied out with the toilsome process of year by year collecting
signatures, which when presented were silently and indifferently
dropped into the bag under the table of the House of Commons. But
during the early days of the movement these petitions, signed by
all classes of men and women, were invaluable in arousing interest
in our movement.</p>

<p>In 1867, for the better prosecution of the work, instead of one
committee embracing the whole of England, separate associations
were formed in London, Manchester and Edinburgh. The London
committee consisted of ladies only, Miss Frances Power Cobbe, Mrs.
Fawcett, Miss Hampson, Miss Hare, Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Stansfeld, with
Mrs. Taylor as secretary. In the Manchester committee Mr. Jacob
Bright, M. P., at once took up the position of leader and advocate
which he afterwards so long and nobly maintained in the House of
Commons. Miss Becker<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_842" id="Page_842">[Pg 842]</a></span> was appointed secretary. The Edinburgh
committee elected Mrs. McLaren<a name="FNanchor_541_541" id="FNanchor_541_541"></a><a href="#Footnote_541_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a> for their president. At a
special general meeting, November 6, 1867, it was resolved that
these three societies should form one national society, thus
securing the advantages of coöperation while maintaining freedom of
action. The same rule applied to societies in Birmingham, Bristol
and other towns.</p>

<p>To return to the debate in the House of Commons on May 20, 1867 on
clause 4 of the Representation of the People bill. Mr. Mill moved
to leave out the word "man" and insert the word "person." His
speech has been too long before the public to need quotation; it is
a model of inductive reasoning and masterly eloquence. The debate
which followed was very unequal in character, but the division was
gratifying, for he received 73 votes (including pairs, 81); 194
voted against him. Mr. Mill wrote afterwards to a friend:</p>

<blockquote><p>We are all delighted at the number of our minority, which is far
greater than anybody expected the first time, and would have been
greater still had not many members quitted the House, with or
without pairing, in the expectation that the subject would not
come on. But the greatest triumph of all was John Bright's vote. </p></blockquote>

<p>At the election for Manchester, held near the end of 1867 (when Mr.
Jacob Bright was elected), Lily Maxwell, whose name had been
accidentally left on the parliamentary register, recorded her vote.
No objection was taken to it by the returning officer, or by the
agents of either candidate. The <i>Times</i> devoted a leading article
to it. The circumstance was of no legal value, but it was useful to
show that a woman could go through the process of recording a vote
in a parliamentary election even before the Ballot act was passed.
The idea gained ground that by the new Reform act the right to vote
had been secured to women. The Reform act of 1867, sec. 3, declares
that:</p>

<blockquote><p>Every man shall in and after the year 1868 be entitled to be
registered as a voter, and when registered, to vote for a member
to serve in parliament. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the substitution of the word "man" for that of "male person" in
the Reform act of 1832, a great difference was already<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_843" id="Page_843">[Pg 843]</a></span>
discernable, but this difference was more important when taken into
conjunction with what was popularly known as "Lord Romilly's act,"
an act for shortening the language used in acts of parliament (13
and 14 Vict.). This act provides, "that all words importing the
masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females,
unless the contrary is expressly provided"; and in the
Representation of the People act there was no express provision to
the contrary. This had been pointed out by one or two members at
the time.</p>

<p>Accordingly the several societies united in a systematic endeavor
to procure the insertion of women's names on the registers of
electors under the new Reform act. A circular respectfully
requesting the boards of overseers to insert on the list of voters
the names of all persons who had paid their rates, was sent to
several hundred boards in different parts of the country. Very few
replies were received, but women were placed on the lists in many
counties, in Aberdeen, Salford and many small districts in
Lancaster, Middlesex, Kent, etc. The overseers of Manchester
declined compliance. In that city there were 5,100 women
householders who claimed their votes, and when the revision courts
were opened in September, this claim came on for consideration. The
case was ably argued, but the revising barrister decided against
admitting it, granting, however, a case for trial at the Court of
Common Pleas. Another case was also granted, being that of Mrs.
Kyllman, a free-holder, her claim being under the old free-holding
franchise 8 Henry VI., to wit.:</p>

<blockquote><p>Elections of knights of the shire shall be made in each county by
people dwelling and resident therein of whom each has free-hold
to the value of £40 by the year. </p></blockquote>

<p>In the majority of districts the revising barristers disallowed the
claims; but in four district-revision courts the women's names were
admitted. In Finsbury, one of the metropolitan boroughs, Mr.
Chisholm Anstey was revising barrister, and he admitted them on
account of ancient English law; in Cockermouth, Winterton and two
townships of Lancashire, the revising barrister admitted them upon
his interpretation of the Reform act taken in conjunction with Lord
Romilly's act. In the suffrage report for this year the number of
women placed on the electoral roll by these decisions is estimated
at about 230, but undoubtedly there were others concerning whom no
information was received. In many cases the women voted: 15 did so
in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_844" id="Page_844">[Pg 844]</a></span> Finsbury (not only was there no disturbance, but hardly any
remark was made, and they expressed their surprise that it was so
easy a thing to do); 12 in Gordon and 10 in Levenshulme, both
little districts in Lancashire, and smaller numbers in other
places. In Chester the parliament candidate issued his election
placards to "Ladies and Gentlemen."</p>

<p>On November 7, the case of the 5,000 Manchester women householders
was argued before the Court of Common Pleas. Mr. J. D. Coleridge
(now Lord Coleridge, Lord-chief-justice of England) and Dr.
Pankhurst were the counsel for the appellants. Mr. John Coleridge
in an able argument spoke of the ancient constitutional right of
women to take part in elections. He produced copies from the record
office of several indentures returning members to parliament, the
signatures of which were in the hand-writing of women, or to which
women were parties. He argued that the term "man" in the Reform act
included woman, not only generally but specifically, under the
provisions of Lord Romilly's act. The case was argued before
Lord-chief-justice Boville; the decision was given on November 9,
and decisively pronounced that the new Reform act had never
intended to include women, and that they were incapacitated from
voting. This decision did not affect the women who were already on
the register, and many voted in the general election which took
place afterwards. Thus women have been shut out from electoral
rights, not by any decree of parliament, but by this decision of
the Court of Common Pleas. However there was no appeal from this
Court, except to parliament, and from this time forward the
character of the agitation changed. The year 1868 ended with a
legal decision which seemed crushing in its finality, while the
same year had given the most conclusive proof that women wished to
vote, and would do so whenever the opportunity offered.</p>

<p>The next year, 1869, gave another convincing proof that women were
eager to vote, and brought us the most substantial triumph yet
obtained, due to the wisdom and skilful tactics of Mr. Jacob
Bright, member of parliament for Manchester. This victory was the
municipal franchise for women. Early in 1869 Mr. Hibbert introduced
a bill to regulate the conditions of the municipal franchise. By
the Municipal Corporation Amendment act, passed in 1835, male
persons only were authorized to vote. The present bill was to amend
that. Mr. Jacob Bright, seconded by Sir<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_845" id="Page_845">[Pg 845]</a></span> Charles Dilke and Mr.
Peter Rylands, proposed the omission of the word "male" from the
bill, and the insertion of a clause securing to women the right of
voting in municipal elections. Mr. Hibbert concurred in the
introduction of these amendments, though he did not anticipate they
would lead to any result beyond a discussion. A circular containing
full information upon the ancient and existing rights of women to
vote in local affairs was sent to each member of parliament by the
Manchester committee. It showed that before the passing of the
Municipal Corporation act of 1835, women rate-payers had rights
similar to those of men in all matters pertaining to local
government and expenditure; and that in non-corporate districts
they still exercised such rights, under the provisions of the
Public Health act, and other statutes guarding the electoral
privileges of the whole body of rate-payers. But when any district
was incorporated into a municipal borough, the women rate-payers
were disfranchised, although those not included within its
boundaries remained possessed of votes. It showed also that women
can vote in parochial matters, and take part in vestry meetings,
called for various purposes, such as the election of church-wardens
and way-wardens, the appointment of overseers, the sale of parish
property, and, formerly, the levying of church-rates; also that
they can vote in the election of poor-law guardians&mdash;that in fact,
in none of those ancient voting customs, was the sex of the
ratepayers taken into consideration as either a qualification or
disqualification. We quote from the Manchester society:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the House of Commons on June 7, 1869, on consideration of the
Municipal Franchise bill as amended, Mr. Jacob Bright rose to
move that in this act and the said recited act (Municipal
Corporation Reform act, 1835) wherever words occur which import
the masculine gender, the same shall be held to include females
for all purposes connected with and having reference to the
election of or power to elect representatives of any municipal
corporation. He stated that his object was to give the municipal
vote to every rate-payer within the municipal limits; to give to
municipal property the representation which all property enjoyed
elsewhere; that had the proposition been an innovation, a
departure from the customary legislation of the country, he would
not have brought it in as an amendment to a bill; but that his
object was to remove an innovation&mdash;to resist one of the most
remarkable invasions of long-established rights which the
legislation of this or any other country could show. The bill
before the house was an amendment of the Municipal Corporation
act of 1835. That act was the only act in regard to local
expenditure and local government which established this
disability. Before and since, all acts<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_846" id="Page_846">[Pg 846]</a></span> of parliament gave every
local vote to every rate-payer. The Health of Towns act of 1848
had a clause almost identical with the one he was moving. He was
therefore asking the House not only to make the bill in harmony
with the general legislation of the country, but to allow it to
be in harmony with its latest expressed convictions as shown in
the act of 1848. There were in England 78 non-corporate towns
which were not parliamentary boroughs, with populations varying
from 20,000 to 6,000. In these every rate-payer voted. There was
little if any difference between their government and that of
municipal towns. Who could assign a reason why women should vote
in one and not in the other? Every parochial vote was in the
hands of the whole body of rate-payers. Women held the most
important parochial offices. The sister of the member for
Stockport had acted as overseer. Miss Burdett Coutts had been
urged to take the office of guardian. Had she been a large
rate-payer in a municipal town, what an absurdity to shut her out
from the vote! He then showed how the process of disfranchisement
was going on, and quoted Darlington and Southport. The latter
town was incorporated in 1867. In 1866, 2,085 persons were
qualified to vote for commissioners; 588 of these were women.
From the moment of incorporation these votes were extinguished
without a reason being assigned, though they had exercised them
from time immemorial. Such would be the case with any town
incorporated in the future. He appealed to the metropolitan
members, and showed them that unless his clauses were carried,
when they came to establish corporations throughout the
metropolis, as some of them desired, all the female rate-payers
would be struck off the roll; that over a population of 3,000,000
this exclusion would prevail. He stated that where women had the
vote they exercised it to an equal degree with the men. Mr.
Lings, the comptroller for the city of Manchester, affirms that
according to his experience the number of men and women who vote
in local affairs bears a just proportion to the number of each on
the register. He showed that as the bill was a largely
enfranchising measure, his clause was in strict harmony with it,
but that while the bill sought to increase the representation of
those who were already considerably represented, the clause which
he wished to add would give representation to those who within
municipal towns were totally deprived of it. He concluded by
saying that questions had come to him, since these amendments had
been on the paper, from women in different parts of the country,
and from those who by their social and intellectual positions
might be regarded as representatives of their sex, asking why
there should always be this tender regard for the representation
and therefore the protection of men, and this apparent disregard
for the interest of women; and he appealed to the House, by its
decision, to show that as regards these local franchises it had a
common regard for the whole body of rate-payers. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. Jacob Bright's motion, which he supported with all the tact,
earnestness and judgment of which he afterwards gave such repeated
proofs in bringing forward his Women's Disabilities bill, was
seconded by Mr. Rylands. Mr. Bruce (the home secretary)<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_847" id="Page_847">[Pg 847]</a></span> said he
had shown conclusively that this proposition was no novelty, and
that women were allowed to vote in every form of local government,
except under the Municipal Corporations act. The clause introduced
no anomaly, and he should give it his cordial support. Mr. Hibbert
also supported the clause, which was agreed to amid cheers, and it
was passed without a dissentient word or the faintest shadow of
opposition, as was also the proposal of Sir Charles Dilke, to leave
out the word "male" in the first clause.</p>

<p>In the House of Lords an attempt was made by Lord Redesdale to
reverse the decision of the House of Commons, but the proposal
found no seconder, and therefore fell to the ground. The Earl of
Kimberley, on behalf of the government, supported the proposition,
as did also Lord Cairns, from the opposition benches. The Municipal
Franchise bill became law in August, 1869. One well-known statesman
said at the time, "This is a revolution; this vote means still
another, and there never was so great a revolution so speedily
accomplished." In 1869 the Ballot act had not been passed; this was
in the days of open voting. It was therefore possible to ascertain
with accuracy in how large a proportion the women householders
availed themselves of their restored right to vote whenever a
contested election took place. On the following November a letter
of inquiry was sent to the town clerk of every municipal borough in
England and Wales, and by their courtesy in replying it was
ascertained that the women voted in very large numbers. In our
municipal towns the average ratio of women householders to men
householders is about one to seven. This varies greatly in
different localities. In Tewkesbury, for instance, there was only
one woman householder to twenty-three men householders, while in
Bath the proportion had risen as high as one to three. The women
voters were in about the same proportion. In the larger boroughs
the proportion was especially good, while there were cases in which
the polling of the women exceeded that of the men. In Bodmin,
Cornwall, two women voted, one of whom was 92 and the other 94
years of age.</p>

<p>The first public meeting in connection with women's suffrage was
held in Manchester, April 14, 1868, in the assembly room of the
Free Trade Hall. The occasion was one of great interest. Mr. Henry
D. Pochin, the mayor of Salford (which adjoins Manchester), took
the chair, and the first resolution was moved by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_848" id="Page_848">[Pg 848]</a></span> Miss Becker,
seconded by the venerable Arch-deacon Sandford, and supported by
Mr. T. B. Potter, M. P.:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the exclusion of women from the exercise of the
franchise in the election of members, being unjust in principle
and inexpedient in practice, this meeting is of opinion that the
right of voting should be granted to them on the same conditions
as it is or may be granted to men. </p></blockquote>

<p>The other resolutions were spoken to by Dr. Pankhurst, Mrs. Pochin
(who had also written a very exhaustive pamphlet on "The Claim of
Woman to the Elective Franchise," signed, <i>Justitia</i>), Mr. Chisholm
Anstey, Mr. Jacob Bright, M. P., Miss Annie Robertson of Dublin,
Mr. F. W. Myers, fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, and Mr. J.
W. Edwards. This meeting, and the one which followed in Birmingham,
May 6, are fair types of those which have followed by thousands.
With few exceptions they have been addressed by men and women
jointly; the resolutions passed have generally been of a directly
practical and political character. They have been presided over,
whenever possible, by the chief magistrate, or some other
well-known man in the locality; in comparatively few cases have
women presided, and very seldom, indeed, strangers. Thus they have
been modeled closely on the ordinary English political meeting; and
this form, quite apart from the principles discussed at the
meetings, has done much to identify women's suffrage with the
practical politics of the day. The first meeting ever held in
London (July, 1869,) excited much attention. Admittance here was by
ticket. Mrs. Peter A. Taylor took the chair; Miss Biggs read the
report, and a noble array of speakers followed.<a name="FNanchor_542_542" id="FNanchor_542_542"></a><a href="#Footnote_542_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a></p>

<p>The principle of women's suffrage was unhesitatingly conceded by
the passing of the Municipal Amendment act of 1869. The time was
come to demand its application in parliamentary elections.
Moreover, the decision of the Court of Common Pleas had left no
mode of action possible except for parliament to reverse that
decision. Mr. Jacob Bright, therefore, on the first day of the
session gave notice of his intention to introduce a bill to remove
the electoral disabilities of women. Sir Charles Dilke, a Liberal,
and Mr. E. B. Eastwick, a Conservative, also gave their names on
the back of the bill.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_849" id="Page_849">[Pg 849]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">A Bill</span> <i>to remove the Electoral Disabilities of Women</i>:</p>

<p>Be it enacted by the Queen's most excellent Majesty, by and with
the advice and consent of the Lords, spiritual and temporal, and
Commons in this present parliament assembled, and by the
authority of the same, as follows:</p>

<p><i>First</i>&mdash;That in all acts relating to the qualification and
registration of voters or persons entitled or claiming to be
registered and to vote in the election of members of parliament,
wherever words occur which import the masculine gender, the same
shall be held to include females for all purposes connected with,
and having reference to the right to be registered as voters, and
to vote in such elections, any law or usage to the contrary
notwithstanding. </p></blockquote>

<p>On February 16, the bill was read for the first time, and on May 4,
it came on for its second reading. Mr. Jacob Bright earnestly
appealed to the House to grant this measure of justice:</p>

<blockquote><p>The women who are interested in this subject, he concluded, are
only acting in the spirit of one of the noblest proverbs of our
language, "God helps those who help themselves." Is it a matter
of regret to us that they should have these aspirations? Ought it
not rather to be a subject of satisfaction and of pride? That
this bill will become law, no one who has observed the character
of this agitation and who knows the love of justice in the
British people can doubt. I hope it will become law soon, for I
have a desire which will receive the sympathy of many in this
House. I have a strong desire that when our children come to read
the story of their country's fame, it may be written there that
the British parliament was the first great legislative assembly
in the world, which, in conferring its franchises, knew nothing
of the distinctions of strong and weak, of male and female, of
rich and poor. </p></blockquote>

<p>The result of the division surprised and cheered all the supporters
of the measure. The government was neutral, and members of the
cabinet voted on either side according to their own opinions. The
second reading was carried by a vote of 124 to 91, being a majority
in its favor of 33. Those who witnessed that division will never
forget the grateful enthusiasm with which Mr. Jacob Bright was
received when he came up to the ladies' gallery, with his wife
leaning upon his arm. But our triumph was short-lived. Before the
bill went into committee, a week later, it became known that the
government intended to depart from its attitude of neutrality. A
strong pressure was exercised to crush the bill, and the contest of
course became hopeless. On the division for going into committee
220 votes were counted against 94 in its favor.</p>

<p>It became evident that we were in for a long contest, which would
require not only patience, courage and determination, but a high
degree of political sagacity. Organizations had to be perfected,
and additional societies established; meetings had to be called,
and lectures given to explain the question. In March<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_850" id="Page_850">[Pg 850]</a></span> of this year
the <i>Women's Suffrage Journal</i> was established in Manchester. Miss
Becker has conducted this monthly from the beginning with great
talent and spirit; it is frequently quoted by the ordinary press,
and its pages contain the best record extant of the movement. This
same year of 1870, which witnessed our first parliamentary defeat,
brought compensation also of such magnitude as to outweigh the
temporary overthrow of the franchise bill. This was the Elementary
Education act, by which women were not only admitted to vote for
school-board candidates, but expressly enabled to sit on these
boards, and thus exercise not only elective, but legislative
functions of the most important character. The election clause
reads thus:</p>

<blockquote><p>The school-board shall be elected in the manner provided by this
act, in a borough by the persons whose names are on the burgess
roll of such borough for the time being in force, and in a parish
not situated in the metropolis, by the rate-payers. </p></blockquote>

<p>In London, with the sole exception of the city, the persons who
elect the vestries, <i>i. e.</i> the rate-payers, are the electors&mdash;this
includes women as a matter of course. In the city only, the
electors were to be the same persons who elected
common-council-men, and as these included men only, women are thus
excluded from voting in the school-board election, though even here
it may be observed they are eligible to sit on the board. Thus,
within the space of two years, two important measures were extended
unexpectedly.</p>

<p>In 1871 Mr. Jacob Bright again introduced the Women's Disabilities
Removal bill, and it was also supported by Mr. Eastwick and Dr.
Lyon Playfair. It was thrown out in the division upon the second
reading on May 3, by a majority of 69; 151 (including tellers and
pairs 159) voting for it, and 220 (including tellers and pairs 228)
voting against it. The most remarkable feature of the debate was a
speech made by Mr. Gladstone, which certainly justified the
confidence that women have subsequently entertained that the great
minister was willing to see justice done to them:</p>

<blockquote><p>The ancient law recognized the rights of women in the parish; I
apprehend they could both vote and act in the parish. The modern
rule has extended the right to the municipality, so far as the
right of voting is concerned.... With respect to school-boards, I
own I believe that we have done wisely, on the whole, in giving
both the franchise and the right of sitting on the school-board
to women. Then comes a question with regard to parliament, and we
have to ask ourselves whether we shall or shall not go
further.... I admit, at any rate, that as far as I am able to
judge, there is more presumptive ground for change in the law
than some<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_851" id="Page_851">[Pg 851]</a></span> of the opponents of the measure are disposed to
own.... I cannot help thinking that, for some reason or other,
there are various important particulars in which women obtain
much less than justice under social arrangements.... I may be
told that there is no direct connection between this and the
parliamentary franchise, and I admit it, but at the same time I
am by no means sure that these inequalities may not have an
indirect connection with a state of law in which the balance is
generally cast too much against women, and too much in favor of
men. There is one instance which has been quoted, and I am not
sure there is not something in it&mdash;I mean the case of farms.... I
believe to some extent in the competition for that particular
employment women suffer in a very definite manner in consequence
of their want of qualification to vote. I go somewhat further
than this, and say that so far as I am able to form an opinion of
the general tone and color of our law in these matters, where the
peculiar relation of men and women is concerned, that law does
less than justice to women [hear, hear], and great mischief,
misery and scandal result from that state of things in many of
the occurrences and events of life. [Cheers.] ... If it should be
found possible to arrange a safe and well-adjusted alteration of
the law as to political power, the man who shall attain that
object, and who shall see his purpose carried onward to its
consequences in a more just arrangement of the provisions of
other laws bearing upon the condition and welfare of women, will,
in my opinion, be a real benefactor to his country. [Cheers.] </p></blockquote>

<p>In another portion of his speech Mr. Gladstone said that the
personal attendance of women in election proceedings, until the
principle of secret voting should be adopted, was in his eyes an
objection of the greatest force&mdash;thus giving reason to believe that
as soon as vote by ballot was secured, this objection would be
removed. Mr. Gladstone did not on this occasion vote against the
bill, but left the House without voting.</p>

<p>In 1872, our indefatigable leader again moved the second reading of
the bill on the 4th of May. His speech was calm and masterly, and
he was ably supported, but the division remained much the same; 143
for the bill and 222 against it. This year the Scotch Education
bill was passed, which extended the voting of women and their
election on school-boards to Scotland; thus the principle of direct
representation on a matter so important as national education was
recognized. The Ballot act also, which at once rendered elections
orderly and safe, henceforth gave increased security and comfort to
women who were voting in municipal elections.</p>

<p>In this year a new committee was established in London called the
Central committee, to which all other branches of the society<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_852" id="Page_852">[Pg 852]</a></span> had
the right of appointing delegates, and the movement received
thereby a considerable increase of strength and solidity.<a name="FNanchor_543_543" id="FNanchor_543_543"></a><a href="#Footnote_543_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a></p>

<p>Meantime each branch of the society was working away indefatigably.
During 1871, the <i>Suffrage Journal</i> recorded 135 public meetings,
and during 1872, 104 in England and 63 in Scotland. The work in
Scotland was chiefly carried on in the way of lectures by Miss Jane
Taylour, who during these early years of the movement was an
untiring and spirited pioneer, Miss Agnes McLaren often
accompanying her and helping her to organize the meetings.</p>

<p>We must not omit to mention Mary Burton (sister of John Hill Burton
the historiographer of Scotland), who was also one of the most
energetic workers of the Edinburgh committee, especially in the
north of Scotland; and Mrs. Dick Lauder who had the courage to free
herself from the opinions in which she had been educated, and with
much sacrifice devoted herself to the work. Space fails us fitly to
record the indomitable efforts of Eliza Wigham, one of the
honorable secretaries of the Edinburgh committee. In England, Mrs.
Ronniger organized and spoke at many meetings, as did Mrs. Fawcett,
Miss Rhoda Garrett, Miss Becker, Miss Craigen and, less frequently,
Mrs. Josephine Butler, Lady Amberley, Miss Annie Young and others.
Mrs. Grote, wife of the historian and herself a well-known author,
took part in one meeting held in Hanover Square rooms, London, on
March 26, 1870. Mrs. Grote was then upwards of seventy years of
age. Rising with great majesty, she spoke with all the weight that
age, ability and experience could give, greatly impressing her
audience. Miss Helen Taylor, step-daughter of John Stuart Mill,
also made her maiden speech at this meeting; it was delivered with
much grace, excellent in thought as in manner.</p>

<p>Many additional local committees were established, and good work
was done by familiarizing the public mind with the principles of
the association. Ward meetings were held in which the women
burgesses and municipal voters were assembled, and while the
responsibilities of the vote they already possessed were pointed
out to them, attention was called to the prior importance of the
vote which was withheld from them.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_853" id="Page_853">[Pg 853]</a></span></p>

<p>In 1873, for the fourth time, our unwearied champion, Mr. Jacob
Bright, brought forward his bill. This time the second reading was
fixed for April 30. He was supported in the debate by Mr. Eastwick,
Sergeant Sherlock, Lord John Manners, Mr. Fawcett, Mr. Heron, Mr.
Henley, and Sir J. Trelawny. While all these gentlemen deserved our
thanks for the able assistance they rendered the cause, the speech
of Mr. Henley, Conservative member for Oxfordshire, so old a member
that he was styled the "Father of the House," excited special
attention. He said he had once felt considerable doubt and dislike
of the measure, but after careful watching of the way in which
women gave the local votes, he had come to the conclusion that an
extension of the principle would be useful. The votes in favor of
the bill increased at this debate to 155 (with tellers and pairs
172), a larger number than had ever before been obtained, while the
opposition remained stationary.</p>

<p>Along with the petitions of this year were two memorials signed by
upwards of 11,000 women, and presented to Mr. Gladstone and Mr.
Disraeli. Every English county, with the exception of the smallest,
Rutland, and most large towns sent representative signatures. An
effort was made this session by Mr. William Johnston, the member
for Belfast, to introduce amendments into the Irish Municipal bill,
which would have had the effect of extending the municipal
franchise to Irish women householders. But the bill was withdrawn,
and similar efforts made in subsequent years have met with the like
fate.</p>

<p>This year the death of Mr. John Stuart Mill saddened the hearts of
all. He will never be forgotten as the first man who carried this
question into the arena of practical politics and gave it the
weight of an honored name. The strength and vitality of the
movement were further tested by a disaster which threatened to do
it a lasting injury. The general election took place early in the
spring of 1874, and to the regret and consternation of the friends
of equal suffrage, their able and devoted leader, Mr. Jacob Bright,
lost his seat for Manchester&mdash;a loss in a great degree attributable
to his unshrinking advocacy of an unpopular question. Never did his
clients, for whom he had sacrificed so much, feel so deeply the
need of the power which the franchise would have given them to keep
so good a friend in the House of Commons. Not only was Mr. Bright
defeated, but Mr. Eastwick, the friend who had always seconded the
bill, also lost his seat with about<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_854" id="Page_854">[Pg 854]</a></span> seventy others of our
supporters. We were thus compelled to look around for fresh
leaders. The task of bringing in a bill was accepted by Mr.
Forsyth, the Conservative member for Marylebone, one of the London
boroughs; with him were associated Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Russell
Gurney and Sir R. Anstruther, men differing widely on matters of
party politics. The bill was introduced early in the session, but
no day was found for it, and in the middle of July it was
withdrawn. Considerable discussion was excited by the unexpected
action of Mr. Forsyth, who on his own responsibility inserted in
the bill an additional clause by which married women were
especially excluded from its operation. Although the insertion of
this clause would probably have made no difference, the bulk of
legal opinion being that under the law of coverture, married women
even when possessed of property are not "qualified persons," yet
the society joined in requesting that this additional clause should
be dropped and the original form of the bill adhered to.</p>

<p>Memorials, signed by upwards of 18,000 women headed by Florence
Nightingale, Harriet Martineau, Lady Anna Gore Langton (sister of
the Duke of Buckingham), Frances Power Cobbe, Anna Swanwick, were
again this year forwarded to Mr. Disraeli and Mr. Gladstone. An
important memorial was also forwarded from a large conference held
in Birmingham in January, which represents very accurately the
special aspects of the question in England. The president of the
conference was Mrs. William Taylor, sister-in-law of Mr. Peter A.
Taylor, M. P.:</p>

<blockquote>
<p class="hang"><i>To the Right Honorable William Ewart Gladstone, M. P., First
Lord of Her Majesty's Treasury:</i></p>

<p>The memorial of members and friends of the National Society for
Women's Suffrage, in conference assembled at Birmingham, January
22, 1874, showeth, that your memorialists earnestly desire to
urge on the attention of her majesty's government the justice and
expediency of abolishing the disability which precludes women,
otherwise legally qualified, from voting in the election of
members of parliament.</p>

<p>They submit that the disability is anomalous, inasmuch as it
exists only in respect to the parliamentary franchise. The
electoral rights of women have been from time immemorial equal
and similar to those of men in parochial and other ancient
franchises, and in the year 1869 a measure was passed, with the
sanction of the administration of which you are the head,
restoring and confirming the rights of women ratepayers to the
exercise of the municipal franchise.</p>

<p>The electoral disability is further anomalous, because by the law
and constitution of this realm, women are not disabled from the
exercise of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_855" id="Page_855">[Pg 855]</a></span> political power. Writs, returning members to serve
in the House of Commons, signed by women as electors or returning
officers, are now in existence, and the validity of such returns
has never been disputed. Women who were heirs to peerages and
other dignities exercised judicial jurisdiction and enjoyed other
privileges appertaining to such offices and lordships without
disability of sex. The highest political function known to the
constitution may be exercised by a woman. The principle that
women may have political power is coëval with the British
constitution. On the other hand the practice of women taking part
in voting at popular elections is equally ancient in date, and
has been restored and extended by the action of the present
parliament. Your memorialists therefore submit that to bring the
existing principle and practice into harmony by removing the
disability which prevents women who vote in local elections from
voting in the election of members of parliament, would be a step
in the natural process of development by which institutions,
while retaining the strength and authority derived from the
traditions of the past, and preserving the continuity of the
national life, continually undergo such modifications as are
needed in order to adapt them to the exigencies of the age and
the changed conditions of modern life.</p>

<p>They also submit that the old laws regulating the qualifications
of electors do not limit the franchise to male persons; that the
laws under which women exercised the parochial franchise were
couched in the same general terms as those regulating the
parliamentary suffrage, and that while the latter were not
expressly limited to men, the former were not expressly extended
to women. There is, therefore, a strong presumption that the
exclusion of women from the parliamentary suffrage was an
infringement on their ancient constitutional rights, rendered
possible in a barbarous age by the comparative weakness and
smallness of the number of persons affected by it, and continued
until the exclusion had become customary. The franchise of women
in local elections has been from time to time under judicial
consideration, and their right to take part in such elections has
been repeatedly confirmed by the judges. During the arguments in
these cases, the question of their right to vote in the election
of members of parliament was frequently mooted and conflicting
opinions thereon incidently expressed by various judges, but the
matter was never judicially decided, and no authoritative
judgment was ever given against the right until the year 1868,
after the passing of two modern acts of parliament in 1832 and
1867, the former of which for the first time in English history,
in terms, limited the franchise created by it to every "male
person," and the latter to every "man" qualified under its
provisions. Your memorialists submit that had the question of the
right of women to vote in the election of members of parliament
been raised in the law courts under the old statutes which
contain no reference to sex, and before the passing of the
limiting acts of 1832 and 1867, that the precedents which had
determined the right in their favor in the construction of the
law as to local government must have been held to apply to the
case of qualified freeholders or others who claimed the right as
regards parliamentary government.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_856" id="Page_856">[Pg 856]</a></span></p>

<p>They submit also, that even after these limiting acts, women had
reasonable grounds for claiming the suffrage under the existing
law. There is an act of parliament which declares that "in all
acts, words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed and
taken to include females, ... unless the contrary is <i>expressly
provided</i>." The act of 1867 contained clauses imposing personal
liabilities and pecuniary burdens on certain classes of
ratepayers. In these clauses, as in the enfranchising clauses,
and throughout the act, words importing the masculine gender were
alone used. No provision was made that these words should not
include females. Accordingly in enforcing the act the extra
liabilities and burdens were imposed on women ratepayers, to many
of whom they caused grievous hardship. There was, therefore,
reason to expect that the enfranchising clauses would bear the
same interpretation, inasmuch as they were confessedly offered as
an equivalent for the increased liabilities. But when the women
who had been subjected to the liabilities claimed their votes,
they found that words importing the masculine gender were held to
include women in the clauses imposing burdens, and to exclude
them in the clauses conferring privileges, in one and the same
act of parliament.</p>

<p>This kind of injustice was shown in a marked manner in the case
of certain women ratepayers of Bridgewater, who, in a memorial
addressed to you in 1871, set forth the grievance of most heavy
and unjust taxation which was levied on them, in common with the
other householders of that disfranchised borough, for the payment
of a prolonged commission respecting political bribery. The
memorialists felt it to be unjust and oppressive, inasmuch as,
not exercising the franchise nor being in any way directly or
indirectly concerned in the malpractices which led to the
commission, they were nevertheless required to pay not less than
three shillings in the pound according to their rental. To that
memorial you caused a reply to be sent through Mr. Secretary
Bruce, stating that "it was not in the power of the secretary of
State to exempt women owning or occupying property from the local
and imperial taxation to which that property is liable." While
fully admitting this, your memorialists beg to represent that it
is in the power of the legislature to secure to women the vote
which their property would confer, along with its liability to
local and imperial taxation, were it owned or occupied by men.</p>

<p>They submit that this concession has recently been granted in
respect to local taxation, and that if justice demands that Women
should have a voice in controlling the municipal expenditure to
which their property contributes, justice yet more urgently
demands that they should have a voice in controlling the imperial
expenditure to which the same property is liable. The local
expenditure of the country amounts to about £30,000,000, the
imperial expenditure to about £70,000,000 annually; if,
therefore, the matter be regarded as one of taxation only, the
latter vote is of more importance than the former. Local
government deals with men and women alike, and knows no
distinction between male and female ratepayers. But imperial
government deals with men and women on different principles, and
in such a manner that whenever there is any distinction made in
the rights, privileges and protection accorded to them<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_857" id="Page_857">[Pg 857]</a></span>
respectively, the difference is always against women and in favor
of men. They believe this state of things is a natural result of
the exclusion of women from representation, and it will be found
impracticable to amend it until women are admitted to a share in
controlling the legislature.</p>

<p>By the deprivation of the parliamentary vote, women, in the
purchase or renting of property, obtain less for their money than
men. In a bill which passed the House of Commons last session,
provision was made for the amalgamation in one list of the
municipal and parliamentary registers of electors. In that list
it appeared that the same house, the same rent and the same taxes
conferred on a man the double vote in municipal and parliamentary
government, and on a woman the single vote only, and that the
less honorable and important one. When the occupation of a house
is transferred from a man to a woman, say to the widow of the
former owner, that home loses the privilege of representation in
the imperial government, though its relations with the
taxgatherer continue unaltered. There have been various societies
formed with a view to enable persons to acquire portions of
landed or real property, partly for the sake of the vote attached
to such property. Should a woman purchase or inherit such an
estate, the vote, which has been one important consideration in
determining the value, would be lost through her legal disability
to exercise it.</p>

<p>The deprivation of the vote is a serious disadvantage to women in
the competition for farms. A case is recorded of one estate in
Suffolk from which seven widows have been ejected, who, if they
had possessed votes, would have been continued as tenants. A
sudden ejection often means ruin to a family that has sunk
capital in the land, and it is only too probable that no day
passes without the occurrence of some such calamity to some
unhappy widow, who, but for the electoral disability, might have
retained the home and the occupation by which she could have
brought up her family in comfort and independence.</p>

<p>Besides this definite manner in which the electoral disability
injures women farmers, it has a more or less directly injurious
influence on all self-dependent women who maintain themselves and
their families by other than domestic labor. A disability, the
basis of which is the presumed mental or moral incapacity of the
subject of it to form a rational judgment on matters within the
ordinary ken of human intelligence, carries with it a stigma of
inferiority calculated to cause impediment to the entrance on or
successful prosecution of any pursuit demanding recognized
ability and energy. This presumed incapacity is probably the
origin of the general neglect of the education of women, which is
only now beginning to be acknowledged, and the absence of
political power in the neglected class renders it difficult if
not impossible to obtain an adequate share for girls in the
application of educational funds and endowments. So long as women
are specifically excluded from control over their parliamentary
representatives, so long will their interests be postponed to
claims of those who have votes to give; and while parliament
shall continue to declare that the voices of women are unfit to
be taken into account in choosing members of the legislature, the
masses of men<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_858" id="Page_858">[Pg 858]</a></span> will continue to act as if their wishes, opinions
and interests were undeserving of serious consideration.</p>

<p>It is now nearly two years since you, in your place in the House
of Commons, said that the number of absolutely self-dependent
women is increasing from year to year, and that the progressive
increase in the number of such women is a very serious fact,
because those women are assuming the burdens that belong to men;
and you stated your belief that when they are called upon to
assume those burdens, and to undertake the responsibility of
providing for their own subsistence, they approach the task under
greater difficulties than attach to their more powerful
competitors. Your memorialists therefore ask you to aid women in
overcoming these difficulties, by assisting to place them,
politically at least, on a level with those whom you designate as
"their more powerful competitors."</p>

<p>One of the greatest hindrances in the path of self-dependent
women is the opposition shown by members of many trades and
professions to women who attempt to engage in them. The medical
and academical authorities of the University of Edinburgh have
successfully crushed the attempt of a small band of female
students to qualify themselves for the medical profession, and
the same spirit of "trades unionism" is rife in the industrial
community. A few months ago the printers of Manchester, learning
that a few girls were practicing type-setting, and endeavoring to
earn a little money thereby, instantly passed a rule ordaining a
strike in the shop of any master printer who should allow type
set up by women to be sent to his machines to be worked. At the
present time, in a manufacturing district in Yorkshire where
there are "broad" and "narrow" looms, at the former of which much
more money can be earned, the men refuse to allow women to work
at the broad looms, though they are quite able to manage them,
because the work is considered too remunerative for women. At
Nottingham there is a particular machine at which very high wages
can be earned, at which women now work, and the men, in order to
drive them out of such profitable employment, have insisted on
the masters taking no more women on, but as those at present
employed leave, supplying their places by men. A master
manufacturer reports: "We have machines which women can manage
quite as well or better than men, yet are they not permitted by a
selfish combination of the strong against the weak." These are
only samples of the cases that are constantly occurring of
successful attempts to drive women out of remunerative
occupations. Your memorialists submit that women would be more
able to resist such attempts if they had the protection of the
suffrage; and that men would be less likely to be thus aggressive
and oppressive if they had learned to regard women as their
political equals.</p>

<p>Besides the restrictions on the industrial liberties of women
effected by combinations of men, there are existing and proposed
legislative restrictions from which men are exempt, and which
exercise a powerful influence on the market for their labor. For
the coming session we have the proposal further to limit their
hours of paid labor in factories, and to place other restrictions
on their labor in shops; also a proposition to place<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_859" id="Page_859">[Pg 859]</a></span> married
women on the footing of half-timers. Without here expressing any
opinion as to the wisdom of these proposals, we urge that members
of the House of Commons would be more capable of dealing with
them in a just and appreciative spirit if they were responsible
for their votes to the persons whose interests are directly
concerned and whose liberties they are asked to curtail; and,
further, that it is a grave question how far it is safe to trust
the industrial interests of women, as a class, to the
irresponsible control of the men who have manifested to
individuals and to sections of working women the spirit indicated
by the examples we have cited.</p>

<p>In the same speech you spoke of a state of the law in which the
balance is generally cast too much against women and too much in
favor of men. Since you directed your attention to this matter,
you have not been able either to introduce or to assist others
who have introduced measures to ameliorate the state of the law
respecting women, and such proposals have been unable to win
consideration from parliament. Your memorialists cannot believe
that this neglect has arisen from want of a desire on your part
to deal with the grievances under which you have admitted that
your countrywomen suffer; they are therefore led to the
conclusion that you have been unable to take into consideration
the affairs of an unrepresented class, owing to the preoccupation
of parliament with the concerns of those to whom it is directly
responsible.</p>

<p>You stated that "the question was, to devise a method of enabling
women to exercise a sensible influence, without undertaking
personal functions and exposing themselves to personal
obligations inconsistent with the fundamental particulars of
their condition as women," and that the objection to the personal
attendance of women at elections was in your mind an objection of
the greatest force. They respectfully submit that the exercise of
the municipal franchise involves the personal attendance of women
at the polls, and that since your words were uttered changes have
been effected which render the process of voting absolutely
identical for municipal and parliamentary elections, and the
whole proceeding perfectly decorous and orderly. Experience has
proved that women can vote at municipal elections without
prejudice to the fundamental particulars of their condition as
women, whatever these may be; and this experience shows that they
may vote in parliamentary elections without the smallest personal
prejudice or inconvenience. The school-board elections have also
shown that women can appeal to large constituencies and go
through the ordeal of public meetings, addresses and questions
from electors, to which men must submit who seek the suffrages of
a great community, without any sacrifice of womanly dignity, or
of the respect and consideration accorded to their position and
their sex. They therefore submit that events have obviated the
objections you entertained in 1871 to the proposal to give
representation to women, and that the course taken by the
administration over which you preside in assenting to the
extension of the municipal and school-board franchise to them; in
calling them to the public functions of candidates and members of
school-boards; and lastly, of securing the passing of a law which
renders the process of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_860" id="Page_860">[Pg 860]</a></span> voting silent and secret, have taken away
all reasonable grounds for objecting on the score of practical
inconvenience to the admission of women to the exercise of a
vote, which they would have to give in precisely the same manner,
but not nearly so often, as those votes which they already
deliver.</p>

<p>It has been said that there is neither desire nor demand for the
measure, and further, that women do not care for and would not
use the suffrage if they possessed it. But the demand for the
parliamentary franchise is enormously greater than was the demand
for the municipal franchise, and for the school-board franchise
there was no apparent call. Yet these two measures were passed
purely on their own merits, and it was not held to be necessary
to impose on their promoters, over and above the obligation to
make out their case, the condition that a majority of the women
of England or of a particular district should petition for the
proposed boon. Experience proved the wisdom and justice of this
course, for although women throughout the country had taken no
active part in agitating for the municipal franchise, no sooner
was the privilege accorded than they freely availed themselves of
it, and statistics obtained from some of the largest boroughs in
the kingdom show that from the first year that women possessed
the suffrage, they have voted in about equal proportion with men
to the number of each on the register. The parliamentary vote is
more honorable and important than the municipal vote; it is,
therefore, safe to conclude that women who value and use the
latter will appreciate and exercise the former as soon as it
shall be bestowed upon them. Your memorialists submit that great
injustice and injury are done by debarring these women from a
voting power which there is such strong presumptive ground for
believing that they would freely exercise but for the legal
restraint.</p>

<p>Your memorialists are especially moved to call your attention to
the urgency of the claim at the present time, when a bill
extending the application of the principle of household suffrage
is about to be proposed to parliament, which bill received last
year such expressions of approval from members of her majesty's
government as to lead to the belief that they are willing to take
the proposal into serious consideration. They submit that the
claim and the need for representation of women householders are
even more pressing than that of agricultural laborers. The
grievances under which women suffer are equally great, and the
demand for the franchise has been pressed by a much greater
number of women and for a much longer period of time than in the
case of county householders now excluded. The number of persons
who petitioned last session for the County Franchise bill and for
the Women's Disabilities bill respectively were, for the former,
1,889, and for the latter, 329,206. The latter bill has received
most influential support from both sides of the House, and more
votes have been recorded in its favor than have been given for
any bill not directly supported as a party measure by one or
other of the great parties in the State. Under these
circumstances your memorialists earnestly request that you will
use your influence as leader of the House of Commons and of the
government to secure the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_861" id="Page_861">[Pg 861]</a></span> passing of the bill introduced by Mr.
Jacob Bright, either as a substantive enactment, or as an
integral portion of the next measure that shall be passed dealing
with the question of the representation of the people.</p>

<p>Signed on behalf of the conference,</p>

<p class="ltr-from2">
<span class="smcap">Caroline M. Taylor</span>, <i>President</i>.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>The first vote that was given by the new parliament was on April 7,
1875, Mr. Forsyth having moved the second reading in an able
speech. It at once became manifest that the question had made great
progress in the country. In spite of the loss of the seventy
friends at the preceding general election, our strength in the new
parliament had greatly increased. Including tellers and pairs, 170
voted for the bill, and only 250 against. This result appears to
have alarmed our opponents, who proceeded to form an association of
peers, members of parliament and other influential persons, to
resist the claims of women to the suffrage. They issued a circular
which will be read by future generations with a smile of
amazement.<a name="FNanchor_544_544" id="FNanchor_544_544"></a><a href="#Footnote_544_544" class="fnanchor">[544]</a></p>

<p>It may have been partly owing to the influence of this association
that the next year, when Mr. Forsyth again brought forward his
bill, April 26, 1876, although the numbers of our friends and
supporters remained undiminished, the opponents had considerably
increased. This was due, also, no doubt, in great degree to the
unexpected attitude taken on this question by the Right Hon. John
Bright, the most powerful living advocate for freedom and
representative government. In Mr. Mill's division of 1867, Mr.
Bright had voted in favor of the measure, and while his brother had
charge of the bill, he had never opposed it. His opposition speech
in this debate, therefore, caused extreme disappointment and
discouragement. It had little of the force which had always
characterized his pleas for political justice. The most eloquent
voice in the House of Commons lost its magic power when no longer
inspired by truth. The women in the gallery listened with sorrowful
hearts. Though they knew<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_862" id="Page_862">[Pg 862]</a></span> Mr. Bright's opinion could not block the
wheels of progress, yet they felt intense regret that so honored a
friend to freedom should abandon his most cherished principles when
applied to women.</p>

<p>The parliamentary history of the next few years may be very briefly
recorded. In 1877 the bill had again passed into the hands of our
beloved leader, Mr. Jacob Bright, who had resumed his place in the
House of Commons, as member of parliament for Manchester. After a
debate of great interest, and while our advocate, Mr. Leonard
Courtney, was speaking, the opponents of the measure burst into a
tumultuous uproar, which effectually drowned his voice. This new
method of setting up shouts and howls in place of arguments, has
since been brought to bear on more than one public question, but it
was then comparatively novel. Mr. Courtney, nothing daunted, would
not give way, and when six o'clock, which is the hour for closing
the debates on Wednesday, struck, it was no longer possible to take
a division.</p>

<p>The following year, 1878, Mr. Jacob Bright was unable from failing
health to continue in charge of the bill in the House of Commons,
and a deputation of members from each society waited on Mr.
Courtney and placed it in his hands. June 19, was set for the
second reading. In his speech Mr. Courtney dwelt on the benefits
that may accrue to women from representation. He added:</p>

<blockquote><p>The political reasons for granting the prayer of the bill appear
to me to be undeniable, but I confess they are not the reasons
why I most strongly support it. I believe it will develop a
fuller, freer and nobler character in women by admitting them
into the sphere of political thought and duty. Some may say, "But
what is to be the end?" I do not know that we are always bound to
see the goal towards which we are moving. If we are moving on
right principles; if we are actuated by a feeling of justice; if
the hand that moves above us and leads us on is a hand in which
we can place implicit confidence,&mdash;then I say, trust to that
light, follow that hand, without fear of the future. </p></blockquote>

<p>The bill was again lost by 219 votes against 140, thus showing a
smaller adverse majority than on the last division. This year Mr.
Russell Gurney died. His name will always be associated with the
women's suffrage movement, which he had supported ever since Mr.
Mill's division in 1867. The death of Lady Anna Gore Langton about
this time was also a severe loss.</p>

<p>The last time that the question was brought before that parliament
was the following summer, 1870. Mr. Courtney, after<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_863" id="Page_863">[Pg 863]</a></span> taking counsel
with his parliamentary friends, made an important change in the
conduct of his measure. It had hitherto been brought forward as a
bill, which, if passed, would have made the actual change desired
in the law; as the parliament was now verging towards its close, it
was thought wiser to test the opinion of the House by bringing the
question forward in the form of a resolution. Two purposes were
served by this change: one was that many men who were in favor of
the principle of women's suffrage had objected to it when brought
forward as an isolated measure of reform involving a large addition
to the constituency, and possibly therefore a new election; the
other was, that the time for discussion of a private member's bill
is very limited. On Wednesdays, when such bills come on, the House
only sits in the morning, and the debate must be concluded at a
quarter before six, while the forms of the House afford greater
facilities for discussing and voting upon motions. Mr. Courtney in
a clear and exhaustive speech moved his resolution as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>That in the opinion of this House it is injurious to the best
interests of the country that women who are entitled to vote in
municipal, parochial and school-board elections when possessed of
the statutory qualifications, should be disabled from voting in
parliamentary elections, although possessed of the statutory
qualifications, and that it is expedient that this disability
should be forthwith repealed. </p></blockquote>

<p>The debate was animated, but the result on division was much the
same as before: 113 (including tellers and pairs, 144) voting for
it, and 217 (with tellers and pairs, 248) against it. Thus closed
the ninth parliament of Victoria, as far as women's suffrage was
concerned.</p>

<p>The steady perseverance and unflagging courage of the devoted band
of men and women had achieved victories at many points along the
line of attack.<a name="FNanchor_545_545" id="FNanchor_545_545"></a><a href="#Footnote_545_545" class="fnanchor">[545]</a> Every suffrage meeting<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_864" id="Page_864">[Pg 864]</a></span> was the means of
gaining converts. The agitation for the suffrage kept the memory of
women's wrongs and grievances fresh before the public mind. These
years saw the medical profession legally thrown open to women, and
facilities given them in school and hospital for obtaining that
education which had been hitherto sought abroad. Pharmacy no longer
excluded them. London University opened its gates. The Irish
Intermediate Education bill, in 1878, which was originally
introduced for boys only, was, after several energetic discussions,
widened, so as to include girls. Women began to be elected as
poor-law guardians. A Scotch Married Women's Property bill was
passed, which was a great improvement on the former law. A
Matrimonial Causes Amendment act was also carried, which enables
magistrates to grant a judicial separation to wives who are
brutally treated, along with a maintenance for their children. Some
of our friends regretted that these side issues should absorb the
time of those who might otherwise have been working exclusively for
suffrage; but this was a short-sighted fear. By broadening the
basis of work, by asking simultaneously for better laws, better
education, better employments and wider fields of usefulness, the
sympathies of more women were engaged; while underlying and
supporting all was the steady agitation for the suffrage with its
compact organization of committees, meetings, publications and
petitions which kept parliament awake to the fact that though still
disfranchised, women had claims which it could not afford to
ignore.</p>


<div class="figcenter" style="width: 315px;">
<a name="v3_864" id="v3_864">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_864.jpg" width="315" height="500" alt="Priscilla Bright McLaren" title="" /></a>
</div>


<p>This was a time when the agitation for the suffrage had apparently
reached a stationary condition, neither advancing nor receding, in
which it was destined to remain for some years longer. Other
causes, as the abolition of West Indian slavery and the corn laws,
have had a similar period of apparent torpor succeeding the first
activity. Justin McCarthy in his "History of our own Times," says:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_865" id="Page_865">[Pg 865]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>This is, from whatever cause, a very common phenomenon in our
political history. A movement which began with the promise of
sweeping all before it, seems to lose all its force, and is
supposed by many observers to be now only the care of a few
earnest and fanatical men. Suddenly it is taken up by a minister
of commanding influence, and the bore or the crotchet of one
parliament is the great party controversy of a second, and the
accomplished triumph of a third. </p></blockquote>

<p>During the year of 1879, it was thought desirable to ascertain by
some practical test what were the various reasons which caused
thinking women to wish for the suffrage; and letters were addressed
to ladies who were eminent either in literature or art, or who were
following scientific or professional careers, or were engaged in
any form of philanthropic work. The answers that were returned were
collected into a pamphlet of exceeding interest, which was sent to
each member before the debate, and it was amazing to watch from the
gallery how the little green pamphlet was consulted and quoted
from, in the most opposite quarters of the House, by friends who
sought fresh arguments from it or by enemies who were looking for
some sentence on which to base a sarcasm.<a name="FNanchor_546_546" id="FNanchor_546_546"></a><a href="#Footnote_546_546" class="fnanchor">[546]</a></p>

<p>As a specimen of these letters Miss Frances Power Cobbe said:</p>

<blockquote><p>So far from the truth is the reiterated statement of certain
honorable members of parliament that women do not desire the
franchise, that in my large experience I have scarcely ever known
a woman possessed of ordinary common sense, and who had lived
some years alone in the world, who did not earnestly wish for it.
The women who gratify these gentlemen by smilingly deprecating
any such responsibilities, are those who have dwelt since they
were born in well-feathered nests, and have never needed to do
anything but open their soft beaks for the choicest little grubs
to be dropped into them. It is utterly absurd (and I am afraid
the members of parliament in question are quite aware they are
talking nonsense) to argue from the contented squawks of a brood
of these callow<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_866" id="Page_866">[Pg 866]</a></span> creatures, that full grown swallows and larks
have no need of wings, and are always happiest when their pinions
are broken. </p></blockquote>

<p>The production of this pamphlet marked an era in women's suffrage
literature. It was impossible after this to doubt that a large body
of thinking women, not the queens of society, but the women who
wrote, read, thought, or worked, were in favor of having full
admission to political rights and responsibilities.</p>

<p>The chief work of the society had now crystallized into five or six
great centres. Edinburgh, under the presidency of Mrs. McLaren,
assisted by Miss Wigham and Miss Kirkland, treasurer and secretary,
was the recognized centre of activity for Scotland. In Ireland
there was a committee in Dublin, of which Mrs. Haslam is the most
active member; and the North of Ireland Committee, led by Miss
Isabella Tod.<a name="FNanchor_547_547" id="FNanchor_547_547"></a><a href="#Footnote_547_547" class="fnanchor">[547]</a> The three principal associations in England were
those of London,<a name="FNanchor_548_548" id="FNanchor_548_548"></a><a href="#Footnote_548_548" class="fnanchor">[548]</a> including the east and north-east counties;
Manchester,<a name="FNanchor_549_549" id="FNanchor_549_549"></a><a href="#Footnote_549_549" class="fnanchor">[549]</a> taking charge of the north of England and Wales,
and Bristol<a name="FNanchor_550_550" id="FNanchor_550_550"></a><a href="#Footnote_550_550" class="fnanchor">[550]</a> looking after the West. The officers of the
several committees of the three kingdoms form a National Central
Committee which has its headquarters in London and superintends all
of the work bearing specially upon the action of parliament.</p>

<p>Petitions were still sent in, but no longer in such enormous
numbers. It had become evident that parliament cared little for a
long roll of names from the unrepresented classes; they were now
chiefly collected as a means of discovering how public opinion
stood in any particular district. For instance, in 1879, a petition
was sent from 1,447 women householders of Leicester. The total
number of women householders in this town was 2,610, of whom only
1,991 could be applied to, and there is no reason to suppose that
public opinion was more advanced in Leicester than in the majority
of large manufacturing towns.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_867" id="Page_867">[Pg 867]</a></span></p>

<p>The municipal elections occur in England every November, and our
custom in some towns was to call meetings of the women householders
in every ward in which there was a contest, to explain to them the
responsibilities resting upon the voters, and after an earnest
address from some one of the ladies, to invite the respective
candidates to speak. By these means not only was the interest of
the women awakened in local politics, but the candidates themselves
were reminded of the interests of an important section of their
constituencies.</p>

<p>With the beginning of 1880, came again the promise of a reform
bill. The majority of the Liberal members of the House of Commons
had pledged themselves to their constituents in its favor. But as
our enemies were still reiterating that women themselves did not
care for the franchise, some further proof of their sympathy was in
order. The first great demonstration in favor of women was held in
Free Trade Hall, Manchester, which seats about 5,000 people,
February 3, where women were admitted free, and seats reserved for
men in the gallery at 2s. 6d. each. This arrangement was adopted to
make it a meeting of women. One hundred gentlemen were present
besides the reporters.</p>

<p>The purpose of the demonstration had been explained at preliminary
ward meetings to which men and women came in crowds. On the night
in question the scene exceeded the most sanguine expectations.
Those who had witnessed the great free trade gatherings which
assembled to hear Charles Villiers, Richard Cobden and John Bright,
never saw a more enthusiastic audience. Mrs. Duncan McLaren of
Edinburgh, who had been invited to preside, took her seat followed
by an array of distinguished women, such as had never before graced
any platform in the history of the three kingdoms, while the vast
area and galleries were crowded with women of wealth and culture;
factory women, shop-keepers and hard toilers of every station were
also there. Some had walked twenty miles to attend that great
meeting. They sat on the steps of the platform, climbed on every
coigne of vantage, stood in dense masses in every aisle and corner.
A large over-flow meeting was also held in the neighboring Memorial
Hall over which Mrs. Lucas presided, but even this could not
accommodate all who came, and thousands went away disappointed. It
was truly a marvelous meeting, grand in its numbers, grand in the
enthusiasm which had brought so many thousands together unattracted
by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_868" id="Page_868">[Pg 868]</a></span> the names of any distinguished speakers, to sympathize with
each other in a great national movement, and to proclaim unity of
action until it was gained; and it was grand also in the
impressiveness of the words that were uttered. The president in her
clear grave tones which were heard in the breathless stillness over
that large assembly, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>It seems like a dream. But only a grave reality could have
brought so many women together. Need we wonder that the
beneficent designs of Providence have been so imperfectly carried
out when only one-half the intellect and heart of the nation have
hitherto been called into action, and the powers of the other
half have been almost wholly suppressed? Women are learning along
with good men that politics in the true sense has to do with
human interests at large. </p></blockquote>

<p>When Mrs. McLaren had concluded, one speaker after another, gave
her special testimony in favor of the necessity of obtaining
representation. The number was so great that no one was allowed
more than ten minutes.<a name="FNanchor_551_551" id="FNanchor_551_551"></a><a href="#Footnote_551_551" class="fnanchor">[551]</a></p>

<p>This demonstration was quickly followed by others that were every
way as successful. In connection with one at St. James' Hall,
London, over which Viscountess Harberton presided, a procession of
working women marched through the streets with a banner on which
was inscribed "We're far too low to vote the tax; we're not too low
to pay." Here also an overflow meeting was held to accommodate the
numbers that could not be admitted into the hall. On November 4,
the same scene was repeated at the Colston Hall, Bristol, and Mrs.
Beddoe, the wife of a popular physician in that city presided, and
on November 11, the last demonstration of that year was convened in
the Albert Hall, Nottingham, where Mrs. Lucas took the chair. The
following year saw no relaxation in these efforts. The Birmingham
demonstration took place on February 22, 1881. It was a most
inclement night and great fears had been entertained that it would
prove a failure, but nothing had power to keep the crowds of women
away or to lessen their enthusiasm. Mrs. Crosskey, the wife of Dr.
Crosskey, one of the most respected of the Birmingham Liberal
leaders, presided. The next was in St.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_869" id="Page_869">[Pg 869]</a></span> George's Hall, Bradford, on
November 22, and here again Mrs. McLaren took the chair, and said:</p>

<blockquote><p>We are here to-night in the spirit of self-sacrifice. We have had
our sorrows in working on this question. We are here because we
know there are on our statute books unjust laws which subject
many women to sorrow and suffering, and the fact that we have
worked our way to such a platform proves that women are capable
of holding a political position, and ought to have a voice in our
national affairs. We cannot rest contented under the
consciousness of injustice because there are women who accept it
as their natural condition. We feel it our duty to arouse our sex
everywhere to a sense of their high destiny. The inspiration for
this work has come from a higher source than ourselves, and we
have had often to feel that God does not leave his children to
fight their battles alone. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1882 there were two more demonstrations. The first was in Albert
Hall, Sheffield, on February 27, Lady Harberton presiding, and it
was crowded to overflowing with women of all ranks and conditions
of society. The demonstration at Glasgow was on November 3, and no
way inferior to the other in brilliancy and interest.<a name="FNanchor_552_552" id="FNanchor_552_552"></a><a href="#Footnote_552_552" class="fnanchor">[552]</a></p>

<p>These demonstrations conclusively proved that the suffrage is
desired, not only by a few educated women, the leaders of the
movement, but by the great masses of the hard-working women. They
proved also woman's political capacity and organizing power. No
body of persons could possibly do more to manifest their desire for
political liberty than the women who have organized and attended
these demonstrations. So far as I am aware no such meetings have
been attempted by the agricultural laborers over whose
enfranchisement the House of Commons has been so deeply exercised,
and though the absence of interest which these classes of men have
as a whole shown in the question of the franchise is no argument
for depriving them of it, the political knowledge and aspirations
that women have shown for more than fifteen years ought to count
for something in establishing their claim.</p>

<p>The session of 1880 was broken, and the dissolution of parliament
in March, the general election which followed, the change in the
government and the consequent press of public affairs,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_870" id="Page_870">[Pg 870]</a></span> made it
impossible to bring forward any measure for the suffrage, but the
principle was most splendidly and triumphantly vindicated in the
ancient kingdom of the Isle of Man which has an independent
government dating from the time of its first colonization under the
vikings. It has in modern times its elective house which is called
the House of Keys and is equivalent to the Commons. Its Upper House
consists of the attorney-general, the clerk of the rolls, the
bishop, two judges (or deemsters) and other officials. It enacts
its own laws and imposes its own taxes, but is subject to imperial
control by requiring the sanction of the queen before any law can
come into effect. Some few years ago the franchise was felt to be
too restricted, and a movement was set on foot which culminated in
1880 in a bill to extend the franchise to every male person who was
a householder. Mr. Richard Sherwood, who five years previously had
brought forward a similar motion, moved an amendment to omit the
word "male" for the purpose of extending the franchise to women who
possessed the requisite qualification, which was carried by 16 to
3, a vote of two-thirds of the whole body of the House of Keys. It
then went before the Council which refused the franchise to female
occupiers and lodgers, though agreeing to give it to all female
owners of real estate of £4 annual value. Thus modified the bill
was sent back to the House of Keys which gave up the lodger
franchise but adhered to that for occupiers. The bill thus altered
was again sent back to the Council and again returned with a
message that the Council refused to come to an agreement. The Keys
then proposed a compromise, limiting the qualification to woman
occupiers of £20 a year. This again was refused, and the Council
were prepared to reject the bill altogether. Sooner than lose the
whole, the Keys assented, signing, however, a protest in which they
stated that they had complied simply to secure a part of a just
principle rather than lose the whole. The act was signed by the
governor, the Keys and the Council on December 21, received the
royal assent on January 5, 1881, and was immediately afterwards,
according to ancient custom, proclaimed as law on the Tynwald Hill.</p>

<p>Fully to estimate this victory, it must be remembered that the vote
thus gained is the complete parliamentary franchise. Though the
total area of the island is so small and though only those women
who were absolutely owners of property were enfranchised, they
numbered about 700. The law came into operation<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_871" id="Page_871">[Pg 871]</a></span> immediately, and
the election began March 21. The women voted in considerable
numbers, and were, as an eye-witness states, without exception
quite intelligent and business like in this procedure. At the
polling stations, the first persons who recorded their votes were
women. We may mention in proof of their political gratitude that in
the district where Mr. Sherwood was one of the candidates, every
woman, whatever her party, voted for his reëlection.</p>

<p>Just before the opening of parliament in 1881, Mr. Courtney
accepted a position in the administration, which rendered it
impossible for him to continue in charge of any independent
measure. By his advice, application was made to Mr. Hugh Mason,
member for Ashton under Lyme. But the state of public business
during the session never permitted the resolution to be discussed.
The same disappointment occurred in the session of 1882&mdash;the
difficulties in Ireland and Egypt occupying the attention of the
government and the country to an extent which almost precluded any
measure of domestic reform. Nevertheless, by constant and arduous
efforts, these two years witnessed the passing of the Municipal
Franchise bill for Scotland.</p>

<p>The Municipal Franchise act of 1869 applied to English women only.
Early in the session of 1881, Dr. Cameron, member for Glasgow,
introduced a bill to assimilate the position of Scottish women to
that which their English sisters had enjoyed for twelve years. The
bill passed the House of Commons before Easter, and was then
brought forward in the House of Lords by the Earl of Camperdown,
passed May 13, and received the royal assent June 3. This law
applied only to women rate-payers of the royal and parliamentary
burghs, and did not extend to the police burghs, the populous
places endowed with powers of local self-government under the
general Police and Improvement act of 1862. A request was sent to
Mr. Cameron to exert himself for a similar extension of the
franchise to the women of the police burghs, and he answered by
introducing in the following year, 1882, another act which gave to
all women rate-payers the right, not merely of voting at elections
of burgh commissioners, but also of voting with the other
inhabitants as to whether a populous place should be constituted a
police burgh.</p>

<p>The election under these new measures was in November, 1882, and
then Scottish women voted for the first time, excepting of course
in school-board elections. The result was entirely satisfactory,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_872" id="Page_872">[Pg 872]</a></span>
though the number of women who voted varied greatly&mdash;in some places
where no special interest attached to the election none came to
vote, while in others they voted in equal proportion with the men,
and in a few towns nearly every woman whose name was on the
register voted. The passing of these two franchise bills was an
undoubted triumph of the women's suffrage party. As one of the
opponents in the debate of July, 1883, scornfully observed, "Had it
not been for the question of women's suffrage being agitated
throughout the country at the time, we should not have heard a
syllable of the Scottish women's franchise bill," a sneering
admission which we willingly construe into compliment.</p>

<p>The year 1882 also witnessed the passing of the Married Women's
Property act, whose immense benefits can hardly be estimated, and
we may confidently assert that but for the unceasing agitation of
the friends of women's suffrage, another quarter of a century would
have been suffered to pass without bringing in this tardy measure
of justice.<a name="FNanchor_553_553" id="FNanchor_553_553"></a><a href="#Footnote_553_553" class="fnanchor">[553]</a></p>

<p>We now come to the session of 1883, inoperative as far as actual
legislation was concerned, but rich in its augury for the future.
Already in April the improved temper of the House on questions in
which women were concerned, had been shown by the brilliant
majority that voted with the Rt. Hon. Mr. Stansfeld for the
suppression of the Contagious Diseases acts which have so long
stained the English statute book. Early in May a memorial to Mr.
Gladstone was signed by 110 Liberal members of parliament,
unconnected with the government, in which they stated:</p>

<blockquote><p>That in the opinion of your memorialists no measure for the
assimilation of the county and borough franchise will be
satisfactory unless it contain provisions for extending the
suffrage without distinction of sex to all persons who possess
the statutory qualifications for the parliamentary franchise. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_873" id="Page_873">[Pg 873]</a></span></p>

<p>This memorial was a most remarkable manifestation of the support
which members on the Liberal side of the House are pledged to give
to the principle of justice to women. Nor are we wanting in
Conservative support. Sir Stafford Northcote, has always given his
friendly approval to the movement, and has very recently repeated
his assurances of coöperation in answer to a deputation of ladies
who waited on him. After repeated balloting, Mr. Mason obtained a
day, July 6, on which to bring forward his resolution. It was thus
worded:</p>

<blockquote><p>That in the opinion of this House the parliamentary franchise
should be extended to women who possess the qualifications which
entitle men to vote, and who, in all matters of local government
have the right of voting. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. Edward Leatham, also a Liberal, gave notice to oppose the
resolution affirming with a curious liberalism, that "it is
undesirable to change the immemorial basis of the franchise, which
is that men only shall be qualified to elect members to serve in
this House." Thus after a silence of four years, years of apparent
inertia, but really fraught with progress, the debate once again
revived in parliament. Mr. Jacob Bright said:</p>

<blockquote><p>They have told us women can get what they want without the
franchise. That used to be said of working men&mdash;but since they
have had a vote, members in every part of the House have had a
generosity and sympathy and courage in all matters affecting
working men which they never had before. Precisely the same
effect would follow if you gave women the franchise. I admit that
women have gained much without the franchise, and I will tell the
House when that gain began: It began with the introduction of the
question of women's suffrage to the House, and the gain has been
mainly due to the awakening intelligence of women on political
questions owing to the wide-spread agitation and the demand for
women's suffrage. They have gained without the franchise,
municipal votes, school-board votes, the right to sit on
school-boards, the magnificent act of last year&mdash;an act which
ought to confer lasting fame on the present lord chancellor&mdash;the
Married Women's Property act. And owing to the untiring energy of
the right honorable member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), they have
succeeded in inflicting a blow on an act of parliament<a name="FNanchor_554_554" id="FNanchor_554_554"></a><a href="#Footnote_554_554" class="fnanchor">[554]</a> more
unjust to women than anything which has ever been passed, a blow
from which that act will never recover. These things have been
gained without the franchise. But who will tell me they would not
have gained them sooner, with less heart-breaking labor, if they
had had the political franchise? </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. Courtney also addressed the House in stirring words. The result
was most encouraging. Four years had passed since a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_874" id="Page_874">[Pg 874]</a></span> division had
been taken, and the enormous majority against us which in so many
divisions had maintained its strength had dwindled to only 16. A
total of 164, including tellers and pairs supported the resolution
against an opposition of only 180. If the Liberal side of the House
had only been canvassed on this occasion it would have been a
victory, as 119 Liberals voted for it and paired, and only 75
against it.</p>

<p>With the close of the session the question was transferred to the
country, and the events of the autumn made it amply evident that
the majority of Liberals were in favor of extending the
parliamentary suffrage to women. A great conference was held in
October at Leeds, where delegates from between 500 and 600 Liberal
organizations were present. Fully 2,000 delegates were present at
the first meeting. After a long discussion upon the coming Reform
bill, the Rev. T. Crosskey, of Birmingham, proposed a rider to the
resolution which would include women's suffrage, as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That, in order to meet the just expectations of the
country, and to fulfill the pledges given at the last general
election, this conference is of opinion that a measure for the
extension of the franchise should confer on householders in the
counties the same electoral rights as those enjoyed by
householders in parliamentary boroughs; <i>and that, in the opinion
of this meeting, any measure for the extension of the suffrage
should confer the franchise upon women, who, possessing the
qualifications which entitle men to vote, have now the right of
voting in all matters of local government</i>. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. Walter McLaren seconded Dr. Crosskey in an able speech, and
Miss Jane Cobden (daughter of the late Richard Cobden) who was
sitting on the platform, and who had been appointed delegate from
the Liberal association of Midhurst, supported the resolution. She
begged them, representing as they did the Liberal principles of all
England, to give it their hearty support. This was a continuation
of the struggle in which Liberals had taken part during the last
fifty years, and she trusted they would be true to their
principles.</p>

<p>Mrs. Helen Bright Clark, the daughter of Mr. John Bright, M. P.,
who had been appointed delegate from one of the few Liberal
associations which comprise women among their members, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>There was in this country a considerable and increasing number of
earnest women of strong liberal convictions, who felt keenly the
total exclusion of their sex from the parliamentary suffrage.
Their hope was, of course, in the Liberal party, though all of
its members were not yet converted to true liberalism. The
Liberal women would not rest satisfied until there was throughout
the United Kingdom a real and honest household<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_875" id="Page_875">[Pg 875]</a></span> suffrage. They
knew that they were weak in the cabinet, and they regretted to
know that some of the most eminent leaders of the Liberal party
were not in this matter wholly their friends. These leaders had
fears which she thought the future would show to have been
unfounded. But she could venture to say on behalf of the Liberal
women of England that they were not unmindful of the past, and
were not ungrateful for the services which these men rendered and
were prepared to render to their country. Women were grateful.
They sympathized with the efforts of Liberal statesmen in the
past, and they knew how faithfully and loyally to follow. But
they felt that they must sometimes originate for themselves, and
they dared not blindly and with absolute faith follow any man,
however great or however justly and deeply beloved. Further, she
could say that, with the result of the high political teaching
they had had in the past, they would endeavor faithfully,
intelligently and with what ability was given to them, to uphold
those great principles of justice, and trust in the people which
she believed had made the Liberal party what it was, and which
alone were capable of lifting it to the highest triumphs in the
future. </p></blockquote>

<p>There were enthusiastic cheers when Mrs. Clark had finished
speaking. The historical interest, the self-evident justice of the
plea brought forward by the daughters of the great reform leaders
on behalf of the continuance of the grand cause of freedom for
which their fathers had so bravely battled, went to the hearts of
the crowded assembly. Delegates who had come determined to vote
against the resolution&mdash;the "monstrous political fad," as one of
our opponents in parliament had called it&mdash;said, almost with tears
in their eyes, "We can't vote against the daughters of Bright and
Cobden," and when the resolution with the rider was put, a forest
of hands went up in its support, and in that vast crowd there were
only about thirty dissentients. The following evening Miss Jane
Cobden and Mrs. Scatcherd addressed an open-air meeting of 30,000
men who could not gain access to Victoria Hall, where John Bright
was speaking on the franchise for men, and a unanimous cheer was
given in favor of women's suffrage.</p>

<p>This was only the beginning of the autumn campaign among the
Liberal associations. The general committee of the Edinburgh United
Liberal Association met on November 16, 1883, in the Oddfellows'
Hall (No. 2), Forrest road, Edinburgh, to consider the questions of
the Local Government Board (Scotland) bill, the equalization of the
burgh and county franchise, and the extension of the parliamentary
vote to women householders. After the two first subjects had been
considered, the following resolution, moved by ex-Bailie Lewis, was
adopted:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That this meeting regards the extension of the
parliamentary franchise to female householders as just and
reasonable, and would hail with satisfaction the introduction<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_876" id="Page_876">[Pg 876]</a></span> of
a government measure which would confer the parliamentary
franchise upon all female householders, whether resident in
counties or burghs. </p></blockquote>

<p>November 21, a meeting of the general council of the Manchester
Liberal Association was held in the Memorial Hall to consider the
resolutions passed at the Leeds conference. Mr. J. A. Beith
presided. Mr. J. W. Southern moved the following resolution:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That in order to meet the just expectation of the
country and to fulfill the pledges given at the last general
election, this council is of opinion that a measure for the
extension of the franchise should confer on householders and
lodgers in the counties the same electoral rights as those
enjoyed by householders and lodgers in parliamentary boroughs,
and should extend to Ireland the franchise enjoyed by Great
Britain; and that, in the opinion of this meeting, any measure
for the extension of the suffrage should confer the franchise
upon women who, possessing the qualifications which should
entitle men to vote, have now the right of voting in all matters
of local government. </p></blockquote>

<p>An amendment to strike out the portion relating to women having
been rejected, the resolution was carried unanimously. November 26,
the sixth annual meeting of the National Liberal Association was
held at Bristol. Here also one or two ladies were present as
delegates. After a resolution affirming the urgency of the question
of parliamentary reform had been passed, Mr. Lewis Fry, M. P.,
moved:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of this meeting any measure for
the extension of the suffrage should confer the franchise upon
women who, possessing the qualifications which entitle men to
vote, have now the right of voting in all matters of local
government. </p></blockquote>

<p>The resolution was seconded by Dr. Caldicott, supported in
excellent speeches by Mrs. Walter McLaren and Mrs. Ashworth
Hallett, and carried by a majority of five. Many other Liberal
associations of less importance, during the autumn, affirmed the
principle of women's suffrage. All the political associations in
Ulster, both Conservative and Liberal, either formally or
informally signified their acceptance of the principle. In the
progress of the movement it was very encouraging to see so many
brave women<a name="FNanchor_555_555" id="FNanchor_555_555"></a><a href="#Footnote_555_555" class="fnanchor">[555]</a> of ability crowding our platform, conscientiously
devoting their time, talents and money to this sacred cause, ready
and able to fill the vacant places that time must make in our
ranks.</p>

<p>The year 1884 opened with good hopes. There was the immediate
prospect of a reform bill, intended so to widen the representation
of the people as to fix it on a satisfactory basis for another<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_877" id="Page_877">[Pg 877]</a></span>
generation at least. The time seemed opportune for the attainment
of women's suffrage. There had been repeated proof that the
majority of the Liberal party in the country admit the justice of
their claims; there were renewed promises of support on the part of
members of parliament of all shades of political opinion. Many
times the claims of women for the franchise have been set aside by
the assertion that so important a privilege could not be granted
till the time came for the general re-settlement of the question.
That time appeared to have come. A considerable extension of the
suffrage was to be granted, so as to include another 2,000,000 of
unenfranchised men; what better time to recognize the claims of
women who already possessed the qualifications of property or
residence which alone in England give the vote? A few persons
expected that the government Reform bill would contain a clause
relating to women, but this expectation was not generally shared.
It was well known that strong differences of opinion existed in the
cabinet which would render it well-nigh impossible for the
government to introduce the question as one of their own; and
though there may have been disappointment, there was no great
surprise when the Franchise bill, on its introduction, was found to
contain no reference to women.</p>

<p>Meanwhile there had been a change in the leadership of the
movement. Mr. Hugh Mason having intimated his intention to resign
the conduct of the measure, Mr. William Woodall, member of
parliament for Stoke-on-Trent, consented to take charge of it. A
conference of friendly members of parliament was held in the House
of Commons on February 7, and it was then agreed that should the
government Franchise bill not extend to women, an amendment with
the object of including them should be moved at some stage of the
discussion in the House of Commons. Mr. Woodall agreed to take
charge of this amendment.</p>

<p>On February 28, Mr. Gladstone moved in the House of Commons for
leave to bring in a bill to amend the representation of the people.
The forms of the House did not admit of Mr. Woodall's amendment
being placed on the notice-paper until after the second reading of
the bill, but during the adjourned debate on the second reading he
found an opportunity to announce that he would move his proposed
clause while the House was in committee on the bill. He remarked
that the fundamental principle of the bill as it was described by
the prime minister was to give a vote to every household, but as
there was no provision for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_878" id="Page_878">[Pg 878]</a></span> giving the franchise to such
householders if they happened to be women, he intended to propose
the insertion of a clause to remedy this omission. The clause was:</p>

<blockquote><p>For all purposes connected with and having reference to the right
of voting in the election of members of parliament, words in the
Representation of the People acts importing the masculine gender
include women. </p></blockquote>

<p>A careful analysis of the opinions of members of the House of
Commons gave every promise that such an amendment might be
successful. The views of 485 out of the entire number were known,
while 155 had never expressed an opinion, about one-third of these
being new members. Of those whose opinions were known, 249, or a
majority, had expressed themselves in favor of women's suffrage,
236 had expressed themselves against it. The preponderance of
support had hitherto always been among the Liberal ranks, for
though the leaders of the Conservative party had given the
principle their hearty approval, their example had not been
followed by their partisans. It appeared probable therefore that,
if the government held itself neutral on the occasion and permitted
fair play, the amendment would be carried mainly by means of their
own friends.</p>

<p>During the spring, meetings of considerable importance were held in
the country. The first was at Edinburgh on March 22. It was a
demonstration of women inferior in no respect to those we have had
occasion to chronicle of former years. No more imposing assemblage
for a political object had ever been seen in Edinburgh. The largest
hall in the city&mdash;that of the United Presbyterian Synod&mdash;was
crowded to the doors, and an overflow meeting was held in the
Presbytery Hall. Banners were hung above the platform and a roll
inscribed with the names of the principal supporters of the
movement was conspicuously displayed.<a name="FNanchor_556_556" id="FNanchor_556_556"></a><a href="#Footnote_556_556" class="fnanchor">[556]</a> Lady Harberton occupied
the chair and was accompanied by the delegates.<a name="FNanchor_557_557" id="FNanchor_557_557"></a><a href="#Footnote_557_557" class="fnanchor">[557]</a> Letters<a name="FNanchor_558_558" id="FNanchor_558_558"></a><a href="#Footnote_558_558" class="fnanchor">[558]</a>
of sympathy were read by Miss Wigham, the secretary.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_879" id="Page_879">[Pg 879]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Lady Harberton</span> said: If our legislators say taxation and
representation should go together, it is right that they should
give expression to this opinion fairly and openly, and at all
times and seasons insist upon it that those women who are
ratepayers and who are in fact heads of households, ought not to
be excluded from the privilege of voting for a member to
represent them in the House of Commons. This is no question of
women usurping the place of men or any trivialities of that kind;
it is a much more serious matter. The exclusion of women from the
right to representation has already led to laws being passed
about them and their interests, that I do not hesitate to call a
disgrace to humanity. [Cheers.] That they are not more commonly
recognized as such is due, I think, to two causes. One thing is
that women of the upper classes, who are usually wealthy, are
able by the aid of money so to hedge themselves around with
barriers to oppose the inconveniences placed upon women by the
laws, that they very often do not feel them so much; while women
of the classes who are not wealthy are so crushed and oppressed
by the working of these laws that they are unable to take the
first step, which is agitation, towards getting them altered or
repealed. [Cheers.] It often seems to me that another reason why
women themselves are not more enthusiastic upon this question of
the franchise is, that from their earliest childhood they are
taught that the first duty of women is unselfishness, the putting
of their own interests and wishes behind those of others. Any
discussion of this great question only brings forth hysterical
clamor that "women should stay at Home"&mdash;with a very big "H."
[Laughter and cheers.] Well, I have been examining a little into
the conduct of those ladies who do stay at home so much, and what
do I find? Why, that they rush about and seem like the changing
colors of the kaleidoscope, now collecting at a bazaar, anon
singing at a concert, with no end of publicity [cheers], but as
long as no rational object is promoted by their action, it is all
counted as staying quietly home in the nursery, whether they have
children or not. That is their notion of being "thoroughly
domesticated." [Laughter.] Now, much as I could wish myself that
men had done their duty and agitated for us, in this case it is
an undeniable fact that they have not shown that readiness, I may
say eagerness, to begin that one could have wished; it therefore
changes at once into one of those duties men have not seen their
way to do, and so becomes of necessity women's work. </p></blockquote>

<p>A series of meetings<a name="FNanchor_559_559" id="FNanchor_559_559"></a><a href="#Footnote_559_559" class="fnanchor">[559]</a> after this was held in Bath, Newcastle
and London.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_880" id="Page_880">[Pg 880]</a></span></p>

<p>The audiences heartily concurred with the speakers that the time
when a reform bill was before parliament was the fittest and most
opportune moment in which to press forward the claim of women to
representation.</p>

<p>We may observe once again with pride, how hearty and cheering have
always been the sympathy and assistance that men have rendered to
women in this movement in England. At no time has there been a
possibility of a feeling of bitterness between the sexes or a
conviction that their interests were antagonistic, for the plain
reason that there have always been men working side by side with
women. Our suffrage meetings have been attended and supported by
political leaders, members of parliament, town councils or
prominent movers among the working-class associations. Except in
the great demonstrations, which for special reasons were confined
exclusively to women, our movement has formed part of the ordinary
political life of the country.</p>

<p>The <i>Suffrage Journal</i> for May contains a very carefully drawn
calculation of the number of women in the United Kingdom who will
probably receive the franchise if the wider qualifications
contained in the present Franchise bill become law. It must be
remembered that there are now 3,330,720 more houses than electors
in the British Isles. In boroughs where household suffrage already
prevails for men, the unrepresented houses should guide us to a
tolerably correct estimate of the number of women householders. We
may say that practically there are 446,000 houses in the boroughs
of England and Wales, whose inhabitant in each case being a woman,
is unrepresented. The proportion varies<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_881" id="Page_881">[Pg 881]</a></span> much in different
localities; in the city of Bath one-fourth the householders are
women. If we calculate that one house in every six in the boroughs
is occupied by a woman, we find that 349,746 is the probable number
to be enfranchised there.</p>

<p>For the counties there are no means of arriving at so close a
result, but by estimating the proportion of women householders to
be the same as that of women land-owners, or one in seven, we reach
the fairly approximate calculation of 390,434, in the counties. The
same method of calculation applies to Scotland and to Ireland,
where, however, the proportion of woman land-owners is one in
eight.<a name="FNanchor_560_560" id="FNanchor_560_560"></a><a href="#Footnote_560_560" class="fnanchor">[560]</a></p>

<p>In order to show that the desire for the suffrage was not confined
to any one rank, class or profession of women, a circular was
signed by a large number of ladies and sent to every member of both
houses of parliament. It was as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p><span class="smcap">Sir</span>: We desire to call your attention to the claim of women who
are heads of households to be included in the operation of the
government Franchise bill.</p>

<p>Women have continuously presented this claim before parliament
and the country since the Reform bill of 1867. The introduction
of a measure declared by the government to be intended to deal
with the franchise in an exhaustive manner, renders it especially
necessary now to urge it upon the attention of parliament.</p>

<p>We respectfully represent that the claim of duly qualified women
for admission within the pale of the constitution is fully as
pressing as that of the agricultural laborer, and that the body
of electors who would thereby be added to the constituencies,
would be at least equal in general and political intelligence to
the great body of agricultural and other laborers who are to be
enfranchised by the government bill.</p>

<p>Among this body would be found women land-owners, who form
one-seventh of the land proprietors of the country; women of
means and position living on their own property; schoolmistresses
and other teachers; women engaged in professional, literary and
artistic pursuits; women farmers, merchants, manufacturers and
shopkeepers; besides large numbers<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_882" id="Page_882">[Pg 882]</a></span> of self-supporting women
engaged in industrial occupations. The continued exclusion of so
large a proportion of the property, industry and intelligence of
the country from all representation in the legislature is
injurious to those excluded, and to the community at large.</p>

<p>Several bills having special reference to the interests and
<i>status</i> of women have been introduced in parliament during the
present session. This affords a powerful reason for the immediate
enfranchisement of women, in order that members of parliament may
have the same sense of responsibility towards the class affected
by them whether dealing with questions relating to women or to
men.</p>

<p>For these and other reasons we earnestly beg that you will give
your support to the amendment to be introduced by Mr. Woodall in
committee on the Representation of the People bill for including
women householders in its operation. We are, sir, yours
faithfully,<a name="FNanchor_561_561" id="FNanchor_561_561"></a><a href="#Footnote_561_561" class="fnanchor">[561]</a> </p></blockquote>

<p>In this circular women of all opinions were represented, but a
special circular, signed only by ladies of Conservative views, was
sent to the conservative associations. These ladies pointed out
that justice to women themselves, and the welfare of the whole
community are involved in the admission of the women householders
who at this moment are possessed of the existing statutory
qualifications:</p>

<blockquote><p>To bring in a new class, under new conditions, whilst continuing
to exclude those who fulfill the present conditions, would be
very injurious to those excluded and set a wrong example before
the community. Every enlargement of the electoral franchise for
men which can now take place necessarily includes many whose
interests in the country cannot equal those of the women who now
claim it. Their position is already recognized by their
possession of every local franchise whatsoever. Justice requires
that the principle should be fully carried out by extending to
women the right to vote for members of parliament, whose
legislation so strongly affects their welfare. Prudence also
requires that an important class of educated and philanthropic
persons should not be left out, or their claims postponed, when a
large addition is likely to be made to the less educated portion
of the electorate. We most seriously believe that few things
could happen more dangerous for the real happiness of the nation
than to permit the opportunity to pass without the admission of
legally qualified women within the circle of the constitution. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_883" id="Page_883">[Pg 883]</a></span></p>

<p>A correspondence also was conducted with Mr. Gladstone by the
Bristol Ladies' Liberal Association and others whom they invited to
join them, of known Liberal views, urging him to receive a
delegation and praying that</p>

<blockquote><p>It may not in the future be said that women alone were unworthy
of any measure of confidence which you so rightly extended even
to the humblest and most ignorant men. </p></blockquote>

<p>Mr. Gladstone declined to receive the deputation, partly on the
ground of illness, partly lest the admission of their views might
interfere with his plans for the bill. So the day of battle drew
on, when a rumor began to be circulated that the government
intended to oppose Mr. Woodall's clause, on the ground that its
admission might endanger the bill. Strenuous efforts were at the
same time made to induce him to withdraw the amendment, and the
government whips plainly intimated that the question would not be
considered an open one, on which members were to be free to vote
according to their convictions, but as one which the government had
made up their minds to oppose. With the hope of changing this
determination a memorial was signed by seventy-seven members of
parliament, and presented to Mr. Gladstone, asking him to leave the
introduction of the clause an open question. It represented&mdash;</p>

<blockquote><p>That the Franchise bill being now in committee a favorable
opportunity is afforded for the discussion of the amendment for
extending its provisions to women, of which notice has been given
by Mr. Woodall.</p>

<p>That your memorialists have heard a rumor that her majesty's
government have declared against allowing the question to be
discussed and decided on its merits, on the ground that the
adoption of the proposal might endanger the bill.</p>

<p>That your memorialists are of the opinion that the claim of women
who are householders and ratepayers is just and reasonable, and
that the time when the House is engaged in amending the law
relating to the representation of the people is the proper time
for the consideration of this claim.</p>

<p>That during the discussion in committee on the Reform bill of
1867, an amendment for extending its provisions to women was
introduced by Mr. John Stuart Mill, and that on that occasion the
government of the day offered no opposition to the full and free
discussion of the question, and placed no restriction on the free
exercise of the judgment of members of their party as to the
manner in which they should vote. The tellers appointed against
Mr. Mill's motion were not even the government tellers.</p>

<p>That your memorialists earnestly pray that the precedent so
instituted may be followed on the present occasion, and that the
clause proposed by Mr. Woodall may be submitted to the free and
unbiased decision of the House on its own merits.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_884" id="Page_884">[Pg 884]</a></span></p>

<p>They desire earnestly to express their conviction that the course
of allowing the question to be an open one, on which the
government is prepared to accept the decision of the House,
cannot possibly endanger or prejudice the Franchise bill. In
connection with this your memorialists would press on your
attention the fact that Mr. Woodall's amendment is in the form of
a new clause, and would not therefore come under discussion until
the bill as it stands has passed through committee. </p></blockquote>

<p>This request was refused. On June 9, such unexpected progress was
made by the committee of the House of Commons with the Franchise
bill that all the government clauses were carried. There were many
amendments on the paper which took precedence of Mr. Woodall's, but
these were hastily gone through or withdrawn, and in the middle of
the morning sitting of June 9, he rose and moved the introduction
of his clause. Mr. Woodall's speech was a masterpiece of earnest
but temperate reasoning. He was fortunate enough to present an old
and well-worn subject in new lights. He said that Mr. Gladstone had
affirmed the principle of the measure to be to give every
householder a vote, and it would now be his endeavor to pursuade
parliament that women were capable citizens, who would meet all the
conditions so clearly laid down by the prime minister. Against the
charge of inopportunity in bringing the subject forward at this
crisis, he reminded the House of Mr. Chamberlain's words on a
recent occasion, that it was always opportune to do right.</p>

<blockquote><p>Mr. Gladstone said there were two questions to be considered. One
of these was the question whether women were to be enfranchised,
the other whether the enfranchisement should be effected by a
clause introduced in committee on the present bill. The second
question was that on which he was about to dwell. He deprecated
the introduction of new matter into the bill. The cargo which the
vessel carried was, in the opinion of the government, as large as
she could carry safely. The proposal was a very large one. It did
not seem unreasonable to believe that the number of persons in
the three kingdoms to be enfranchised by the amendment would be
little short of half a million. What was the position in which
Mr. Woodall placed the government when he requested them to
introduce a completely new subject on which men profoundly
differed, and which, it was clear, should receive a full and
dispassioned investigation? It was not now practicable to give
that investigation. This was one of those questions which it
would be intolerable to mix up with purely political and party
debates. If there was a subject in the whole compass of human
life and experience that was sacred beyond all other subjects it
was the character and position of woman. Did his honorable friend
ask him to admit that the question deserved the fullest
consideration? He gave him that admission freely. Did he ask
whether he (Mr. Gladstone) wished to bind the members of the
Government or his colleagues in the cabinet with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_885" id="Page_885">[Pg 885]</a></span> respect to the
votes they would give on this question? Certainly not, provided
only that they took the subject from the vortex of political
contention. He was bound to say, whilst thus free and open on the
subject itself, that with regard to the proposal to introduce it
into this bill he offered it the strongest opposition in his
power, and must disclaim and renounce all responsibility for the
measure should Mr. Woodall succeed in inducing the committee to
adopt his amendment. </p></blockquote>

<p>On motion of Lord John Manners the debate was adjourned till June
12.</p>

<p>On the intervening day a meeting was summoned of the general
committee of the society. Miss Cobbe first, and Mr. Woodall
subsequently, presided, and the following resolutions were passed:</p>

<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That the claim of duly qualified women to the
exercise of the suffrage having been continuously presented
before parliament and the country since the Reform bill of 1867,
this meeting is of opinion that the time when the legislature is
again engaged in amending the law relating to the representation
of the people is the proper time for the consideration of this
claim.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That this meeting heartily approves of the amendment
which Mr. Woodall has moved in committee on the Franchise bill
for extending its provisions to duly qualified women, and pledge
themselves to support his action by every means in their power.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That they have heard with astonishment that her
majesty's government refuse to allow this amendment to be
discussed on its merits and to be decided by the free exercise of
the judgment of members of the House of Commons, but that the
government require their supporters to refrain from such free
exercise of their judgment on the alleged ground that the
adoption of the proposal would endanger the Franchise bill.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That in the opinion of this meeting the exercise of
such pressure appears to be an infringement of the privileges of
a free parliament and an aggression on the rights of the people.
They hold that all sections of the community, whether electors or
non-electors, have an indefeasible right to have matters
affecting their interests submitted to the unbiased judgment, and
decided by the unfettered discretion of the members sent to
represent them in parliament.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That a declaration signed by 110 Liberal members of
the House of Commons was presented last session to Mr. Gladstone
which set forth that, in the opinion of the memorialists, no
measure for the assimilation of the borough and county franchise
could be satisfactory unless it contained provisions for
extending the suffrage, without distinction of sex, to all
persons who possess the statutory qualifications for the
parliamentary franchise.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That this meeting calls upon those who signed this
declaration, and all other members who believe that the claim of
duly qualified women to the parliamentary franchise is reasonable
and just, to support the clause moved by Mr. Woodall, in
committee on the Franchise bill, for extending its provisions to
such women.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to Mr.
Gladstone and to every member of parliament.</p>

<p><i>Resolved</i>, That petitions to both houses of parliament in
support of Mr. Woodall's clause be adopted and signed by the
chairman on behalf of this meeting. </p></blockquote>

<p>Some members of parliament who attended this meeting explained that
though they were as firmly convinced as ever of the justice of the
claim, they could not vote for it after Mr. Gladstone's<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_886" id="Page_886">[Pg 886]</a></span> distinct
declaration that he would abandon the bill if the amendment were
passed. On June 12 Lord John Manners resumed the debate. He said:</p>

<blockquote><p>That although this proposal had never been of a party character,
it had always been a political question. There was no question
connected with the franchise which had been more thoroughly
discussed, threshed and sifted. Guided by every consideration of
justice and fairness, of equity, of analogy and experience, he
should give it his cordial and unhesitating support. </p></blockquote>

<p>The next speech of importance was Mr. Stansfeld's. He maintained
that the acceptance of the clause by the government would have
strengthened rather than weakened the bill, and that its insertion
certainly would not have rendered the bill less palatable to the
House of Lords:</p>

<blockquote><p>The principle of this bill is household suffrage. Household
suffrage is one of two things&mdash;it is either put as a rough test
of capable citizenship, or else it means what I will call the
family vote. The women to be enfranchised under this clause would
be first of all women of property, intelligence and education,
having a status in the country; secondly a large class of women
of exceptional competency, because having lost the services and
support of men who should be the bread-winners and the heads of
families, they are obliged to step into their shoes and to take
upon themselves the burdens and responsibilities which had
previously devolved upon men, and because they have done this
with success. I decline either by word or deed to make the
admission that these women are less capable citizens than the
2,000,000 whom the right honorable gentleman proposes to
enfranchise by this bill. Well, then, let it be the family
vote&mdash;that is to say, exceptions apart, let the basis of our
constitution be that the family, represented by its head, should
be the unit of the State. Now that is the idea which recommends
and has always recommended itself to my mind. But on what
principle, or with what regard to the permanence and stability of
that principle, can you exclude the head of the family and give
that family no voice, because the head happens to be a woman? If
this clause be excluded from the measure, as it will be, this
will not be a bill of one principle, but of two principles. It
will not be a bill containing only the principle of household
suffrage interpreted as the family vote, but one founded on these
two principles&mdash;first, a male householding vote; and, secondly,
the exclusion of the head of the household when the head is a
woman. That is a permanent principle of exclusion, and therefore
the bill with this clause left out is a declaration for ever
against the political emancipation of women. </p></blockquote>

<p>After some speeches against the motion Colonel King-Harman said:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the old state of the franchise it was not so much a matter of
importance to women whether they possessed votes or not, but now
that this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_887" id="Page_887">[Pg 887]</a></span> bill proposed to create two million new voters of a
much lower order than those now exercising the franchise, it
became of importance to secure some countervailing advantage.
They were told this was a matter which could wait. What were the
women to gain by waiting? They had waited for seventeen years
during which the subject had been discussed, and now they were
told to wait till two million of the common orders had been
admitted to a share in the parliamentary management of the
country. The honorable member for Huddersfield (Mr. Leatham) had
used an argument which he (Colonel King-Harman) thought a most
unworthy one, namely, that the franchise was not to be extended
to women, because, unhappily, there are women of a degraded and
debased class. Because there were 40,000 of them in this
metropolis alone, the remaining women who were pure and virtuous
were to be deprived of the power of voting. But would Mr. Leatham
guarantee that the 2,000,000 men he proposes to enfranchise shall
be perfectly pure and moral men? Would he propose a clause to
exclude from the franchise those men who lead and retain in vice
and degradation these unfortunate women? No&mdash;men may sin and be a
power in the State, but when a woman sins not only is she to have
no power, but her whole sisterhood are to be excluded from it. He
believed that every idea of common sense pointed to the
desirability of supporting the amendment, and he therefore had
great pleasure in doing so. </p></blockquote>

<p>There were also excellent speeches from Mr. Cowen (Newcastle),
General Alexander, Sir Wilfred Lawson and Mr. Story, and finally
from Sir Stafford Northcote the leader of the Conservative
opposition. He observed:</p>

<blockquote><p>That the prime minister had told them that they did not consider
this clause to be properly introduced now, because this was not
the time for the question. It seemed to him, on the contrary,
that it was the very best opportunity for dealing with it,
because they were going enormously to increase the electorate,
and would, therefore, make the inequality between men and women
much greater than it was before. It would be said they were going
to extend the property franchise if this amendment were carried.
On that issue they were prepared to join and to maintain that it
was a right thing, and it was the duty of that House to make
proper provision for those classes of property holders now
without a vote. Members who had canvassed boroughs would remember
that after going into two or three shops and asking for the votes
of those who were owners, they have come to one perhaps of the
most important shops and have been told, "Oh, it is of no use
going in, there is no vote there." Such women are probably of
education and gentle character, and perhaps live as widows and
take care of their families; they have every right to be
consulted as to who should be the man to represent the
constituency in which they lived and to take care of their
interests and the interests of those dependent on them. That was
the ground on which Lord Beaconsfield stood. They had adhered to
that ground for several years, and there they stood now. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_888" id="Page_888">[Pg 888]</a></span></p>

<p>The division took place at a late hour with the result that the
clause was defeated by 271 votes to 135, being a majority against
it of 136, or two to one. But though such a vote would have been a
sore discouragement if it had represented the real opinion of the
House, on the present occasion it meant little if anything. The
government had sent out a "five-line" whip for its supporters, and
so effective had this whip been, combined with Mr. Gladstone's
assertion that he would give up the responsibility of the bill if
the clause were carried, that 98 Liberals and 6 Home Rulers, known
to be supporters of our cause, voted with the government, even Mr.
Hugh Mason being among this number, while 34 Liberals and 7 Home
Rulers, also friends of ours, were absent from the division. We may
safely assume that had the government more wisely left it an open
question, upon which members were free to vote according to their
consciences, our defeat would have been turned into a victory. On
the other hand while our Liberal friends thus voted against the
amendment or abstained from voting, the bulk of our supporters in
this division were Conservatives, a circumstance unknown in the
previous history of the movement.</p>

<p>An important conference of friends and supporters was held the next
morning in the Westminster Palace Hotel at which Mr. Stansfeld
presided. To use Miss Tod's words:</p>

<blockquote><p>Never had a defeated army met in a more victorious mood. There
was much indeed to encourage in the degree of importance to which
the question had attained. It had risen from a purely speculative
into a pressing political question; it had been debated during
two days, and it was heartily supported by the Conservative
leader. </p></blockquote>

<p>The speeches at the conference were animated and full of hope for
the future. Mr. Stansfeld congratulated the meeting on having made
a new departure; their question had become one of practical
politics, and they had now to address themselves in all the
constituencies to the political organizations.</p>

<p>A magnificent meeting was held in St. James Hall the following
week. The hall was densely crowded in every part, and an overflow
meeting was arranged for those unable to gain admission. Some of
the speakers<a name="FNanchor_562_562" id="FNanchor_562_562"></a><a href="#Footnote_562_562" class="fnanchor">[562]</a> proposed as the best measure for agitation, a
determined resistance against taxation.<a name="FNanchor_563_563" id="FNanchor_563_563"></a><a href="#Footnote_563_563" class="fnanchor">[563]<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_889" id="Page_889">[Pg 889]</a></span></a></p>

<p>Repeated attempts to obtain a day for the debate and division were
followed by repeated disappointments. The session commenced in
November, 1884. Mr. Woodall at once gave notice of a bill. In
presenting it to the House, he concluded after consultation with
parliamentary friends, to add a clause defining the action of his
bill to be limited to unmarried women and widows.<a name="FNanchor_564_564" id="FNanchor_564_564"></a><a href="#Footnote_564_564" class="fnanchor">[564]</a> The enacting
clause of the bill was as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>For all purposes of and incidental to the voting for members to
serve in parliament, women shall have the same rights as men, and
all enactments relating to or concerned in such elections shall
be construed accordingly, provided that nothing in this act shall
enable women under coverture to be registered or to vote at such
elections. </p></blockquote>

<p>The addition of this clause excited much discussion. Those in favor
of it argued that this limitation would certainly be imposed in
committee of the House, which though it was in all probability
prepared to give the vote to women possessed of independence,
dreaded the extension of faggot votes which would have been the
almost inevitable consequence of admitting married women; while the
result would be the same whether the limitation clause was
introduced by the promoters of the bill or by a parliamentary
committee, and it would be more likely to obtain support at the
second reading if its intentions were made clear in the beginning.
On the other hand it was argued that the principle of giving the
vote to women in the same degree that it was given to men, was the
basis upon which the whole agitation rested; that marriage was no
disqualification to men, and therefore should not prove so to
women; and that, though it might be necessary to accept a
limitation by parliament, it was not right for the society to lower
its standard by proposing a compromise. This divergence in the
views of the supporters of the movement was the cause of much
discussion in the public press and elsewhere, and unfortunately
resulted in the abstention of some of the oldest friends of the
cause from working in support of this particular bill, although it
was admitted on all sides that if a day could be obtained its
chances in a division were very good.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_890" id="Page_890">[Pg 890]</a></span></p>

<p>The bill was introduced on November 19, 1884, and its opponents
took the unprecedented course of challenging a division at this
stage. Leave was however given to bring it in, and the second
reading was set down for November 25, and then for December 9; on
each occasion it was postponed owing to the adjournment of the
House. It was next set down for Wednesday, March 4, but its chance
was again destroyed by the appropriation by the government of all
Wednesdays for the Seats bill. Mr. Woodall then fixed on June 24,
but before that time the ministerial crisis occurred, and when that
day arrived the House had been adjourned for the reëlections
consequent upon a change of government. He then obtained the first
place on Wednesday, July 22, but again ministers appropriated
Wednesdays, and all chances for the session being over, Mr. Woodall
gave order to discharge the bill.</p>

<p>This delay stands in sharp and painful contrast with the promptness
with which parliament passed the Medical Relief bill. A clause had
been inserted in the Franchise bill disfranchising any man who had
been in receipt of parish medical aid for himself or family. This
clause caused great dissatisfaction as it was stated it would
disqualify from voting a large number of laborers in the
agricultural counties; parliament therefore found time amidst all
the press of business and party divisions to pass the Medical
Relief bill removing this disfranchisement from <i>men</i>, though we
are repeatedly assured that nothing but the want of time prevents
their fair consideration of the enfranchisement of <i>women</i>. It is
another proof that there is always time for a representative
government to attend to the wants of its constituents.</p>

<p>Another effort was made in the House of Lords by Lord Denman who
introduced a bill for extending the parliamentary vote to women.
The committees<a name="FNanchor_565_565" id="FNanchor_565_565"></a><a href="#Footnote_565_565" class="fnanchor">[565]</a> were unaware of his intention until<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_891" id="Page_891">[Pg 891]</a></span> they read
a notice of the bill in the newspapers. The enacting clause was as
follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>All women, not legally disqualified, who have the same
qualifications as the present and future electors for counties
and divisions of counties and boroughs, shall be entitled to vote
for knights of the shire for counties and divisions of counties
and for boroughs, at every election. </p></blockquote>

<p>A division was taken upon it on June 23, just after the Seats bill
had been passed and the peers were about to adjourn in consequence
of the change of government. Many protests were made that the time
was ill chosen, and some peers left the House to avoid recording
their votes while others voted against it without reference to its
merits as a question. The division showed 8 in favor and 36
against. There appears to be a strong impression that if a bill to
enfranchise women were passed by the Commons it would be accepted
by the Lords, while there is at the same time a feeling that any
measure dealing with the representation of the people should
originate with the Commons, and not in the upper House.</p>

<p>During the year 1885 we sustained the loss of many of the earliest
friends of the movement; chief among these Professor Fawcett, who
from the commencement of its history had given it his firm and
unflinching support. His conviction that justice and freedom must
gain the upper hand often caused him to take a more sanguine view
of the prospect than the event has justified. He was the firm
friend of women in all their recent efforts, and helped them to
obtain employment in the civil service, to enter the medical
profession, to open the universities, and in many other ways. Next
to be mentioned is the death of Mrs. Stansfeld. She was the
daughter of Mr. William H. Ashurst, who was a staunch advocate of
freedom and may be remembered as the first English friend of
William L. Garrison. She had been a member of the suffrage
committee in London for more than sixteen years, and gave unfailing
sympathy to all the efforts made by her noble husband, James
Stansfeld, in behalf of the rights of humanity. This year has also
been saddened by the death of Mrs. Ronald Shearer, formerly Helena
Downing, an able and true-hearted woman, who had devoted her
strength and talents to the furtherance of our cause at a time when
its advocates were still the objects of ridicule and attack.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_892" id="Page_892">[Pg 892]</a></span></p>

<p>The electorate of three millions of men is now increased to five
millions, and by this extension of the suffrage the difficulty of
waging an up-hill fight in the interests of the still excluded
class has also been increased. The interests of the newly
represented classes will imperatively claim precedence in the new
parliament. Like the emancipated blacks who received the vote after
the American civil war, while the women who had supported the cause
of the Union by their enthusiasm and their sacrifices were passed
over, the miners and laborers of English counties have received the
franchise for which they have never asked, in preference to the
women who have worked, petitioned and organized themselves for
years to secure it. Women have now to appeal to this new electorate
to grant that justice which the old electorate has denied them;
they have to begin again the weary round of educating their new
masters by appeals and arguments; they will once more see their
interests "unavoidably" deferred to the interests of the
represented classes; they will once again be bidden to stand aside
till it is time for another Reform bill to be considered!</p>

<p>In recounting the history of woman suffrage frequent allusion has
been made to the parallel movements which have been carried on
through the same course of years; the most important of these have
been: (1) The admission of women to fields of public usefulness;
(2) removal of legal disabilities and hardships; (3) admission to a
better education and greater freedom of employment. Much of the
progress that has been made has been the work of the active friends
of woman suffrage, and under the fostering care of the suffrage
societies.</p>

<p>Under the first division comes the work of women on the
school-boards. The education act of 1870 expressly guaranteed their
right of being elected, and even in the first year several were
elected. One, Miss Becker, in Manchester, has retained her seat
ever since. In London the number of lady members has greatly
varied. Beginning with two, Miss Jarrett and Miss Davis, in 1879 it
rose to nine, but now, 1885, has sunk again to three, Miss
Davenport Hill, Mrs. Westlake, and Mrs. Webster. Taken as a whole,
their influence has been very usefully exerted for the benefit of
the children and the young teachers. Under this head also comes
women's work as poor-law guardians. The first was elected in
Kensington in 1875. Six years afterwards a small society to promote
the election of women was founded by Miss Müller,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_893" id="Page_893">[Pg 893]</a></span> and the number
elected is steadily increasing. There are now in England and
Scotland in all forty-six. In Ireland women are still debarred from
this useful work. The election occurs every year, and it is one of
the local franchises that women as well as men exercise. Last year
three ladies were appointed members of the Metropolitan Board which
looks after London hospitals and asylums. In 1873 Mr. Stansford,
then president of the local government board, appointed Mrs. Hassan
Session assistant inspector of work-houses, and after an interval
of twelve years Miss Mason was appointed to the same position.
Women are also sometimes appointed as church wardens, overseers of
the roads, and registrars of births and deaths. These are the only
public offices they fill.</p>

<p>Under the second heading, the removal of legal disabilities, is
included the Married Woman's Property act, which was finally passed
in 1882, twenty-five years after it had been first brought forward
in parliament by Sir Erskine Perry. The ancient law of England
transferred all property held by a woman, except land, absolutely
to her husband. A step was gained in 1870 by which the money she
had actually earned became her own. This was followed by frequent
amendments, sometimes in Scotland, sometimes in England, and a
comprehensive bill met with frequent vicissitudes, now in the House
of Lords, now in the Commons. The honor of this long contest is
chiefly due to Mrs. Jacob Bright and Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy, whose
unwearied efforts were finally crowned with success by the act of
1882, under which the property of a married woman is absolutely
secured to her as if she were single, and the power to contract and
of sueing and being sued, also secured to her. The right to the
custody of their own children is another point for which women are
struggling. In 1884, Mr. Bryce, M. P., brought in a bill to render
a mother the legal guardian of her children after the father's
death. This was read a second time by a vote of 207 for, and only
73 against. In 1885, however, though passing the House of Lords, it
was postponed till too late in the Commons. Another important
alteration in the legal condition of married women was made in
1878. In that year Mr. Herschell introduced the Matrimonial Causes
act to remedy a gross injustice in the divorce law, and Lord
Pensance inserted a clause which provided that if a woman were
brutally ill-treated by her husband, a magistrate might order a
separate maintenance for her and assign her the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_894" id="Page_894">[Pg 894]</a></span> care of her
children. It is no secret that the original drafting of this clause
was due to Miss Frances Power Cobbe. The long struggle which is not
yet terminated against the infamous Contagious Diseases acts
belongs to this division of work. The acts were passed in 1866,
'69, and for many years were supported by an overpowering majority
of the House of Commons. Mr. Stansfeld, who has always been the
supporter of every movement advancing the influence of women, has
been the leader of this agitation. Mrs. Josephine Butler, Mrs.
Stewart of Ougar, and latterly Mrs. Ormiston Chant, have been the
most untiring speakers on this question. On April 26, 1883, Mr.
Stansfeld carried a resolution by a vote of 184 against 112 for the
abolition of the acts, since which time the acts have been
suspended, but we must look to the new parliament for their total
repeal. The Criminal-law Amendment act was the great triumph of
1885. It had been postponed session after session, but the bold
denunciation of Mr. Stead, editor of the <i>Pall Mall Gazette</i>,
finally roused the national conscience, and now a larger measure of
protection is afforded to young girls than has ever been known
before.</p>

<p>Of the successive steps by which colleges have been founded for
women, and the universities opened to them, it is impossible to
give any record. The London University and the Royal University of
Ireland, recognize fully the equality of women; nine ladies secured
the B. A. diploma from the latter university in 1884, and nine more
in 1885. Oxford and Cambridge extend their examinations to women.
The Victoria University acknowledges their claim to examination.
The London school of medicine gives a first rate education to women
(there are 48 this session), and the Royal College of Surgeons,
Dublin, admits them to its classes. There are now about 45 ladies
who are registered as medical practitioners. One of them, Miss
Edith Stone, was appointed by Mr. Fawcett medical superintendent of
the female staff at the general post-office, London. The success of
the movement for supplying women as physicians for the vast Indian
empire has attained remarkable success during the last two years.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_536_536" id="Footnote_536_536"></a><a href="#FNanchor_536_536"><span class="label">[536]</span></a> This was called out by the movement in America. A
report of a convention held in Worcester, Mass., published in the
New York <i>Tribune</i>, fell into the hands of Mrs. Taylor and aroused
her to active thought on the question. She comments on a very able
series of resolutions passed at this convention, in which such men
as Emerson, Parker, Channing, Garrison and Phillips took
part.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Editors</span>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_537_537" id="Footnote_537_537"></a><a href="#FNanchor_537_537"><span class="label">[537]</span></a> <i>Council of the Association</i>&mdash;Mrs. S. Turner, Mrs.
S. Bartholomew, Mrs. E. Stephenson, Mrs. M. Whalley, Mrs. E. Rooke,
Mrs. E. Wade, Mrs. C. Ash, president <i>pro tem.</i>, Mrs. E. Cavill,
treasurer, Mrs. M. Brook, financial-secretary, Mrs. A.
Higginbottom, corresponding secretary.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_538_538" id="Footnote_538_538"></a><a href="#FNanchor_538_538"><span class="label">[538]</span></a> Mrs. Biggs, Anna Knight, Mrs. Hugo Reid and many
other English women were roused to white heat on this question, by
the exclusion of women as delegates from the World's Anti-slavery
Convention held in London in 1840. That was the first pronounced
public discussion, lasting one entire day, on the whole question of
woman's rights that ever took place in England, and as the
arguments were reproduced in the leading journals and discussed at
every fireside, a grand educational work was inaugurated at that
time. The American delegates spent several months in
England&mdash;Lucretia Mott speaking at many points. She occupied the
Unitarian pulpit in London and elsewhere. As Mrs. Hugo Reid sat in
this convention throughout the proceedings and met Lucretia Mott
socially on several occasions, we may credit her outspoken
opinions, in 1843, in a measure to these influences.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Editors</span>.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_539_539" id="Footnote_539_539"></a><a href="#FNanchor_539_539"><span class="label">[539]</span></a> The committee as at first formed, consisted of the
following persons: The very Rev. the Dean of Canterbury, Dr.
Alford, Miss Jessie Boucherett, Professor Cairnes, Rev. W. L. Clay,
Miss Davies, the originator of Girton College, Lady Goldsmid, Mr.
G. W. Hastings, Mr. James Heywood, Mrs. Knox, Miss Manning, and
Mrs. Hensleigh Wedgwood. Mrs. Peter A. Taylor was treasurer, and
Mrs. J. W. Smith, <i>nee</i> Miss Garrett, honorary secretary. A few
months later Mrs. Smith's death left this post vacant, and Mrs. P.
A. Taylor then assumed the office of secretary which she retained
with the aid of Miss Caroline Ashurst Biggs till 1871. No one else
could have rendered such services to our movement while it was in
its infancy as Mrs. Taylor gave. Her gentle and dignified presence,
her untiring energy, the experience of organization and public life
which she already possessed, her influence with an extended circle
of friends chosen from among the most liberal thinkers of the
nation, secured at once attention and respect for any cause she
took up. Many years before she had worked hard for the association
of the Friends of Italy, and on the breaking out of the American
civil war her sympathies and practical knowledge led her to found a
society for assisting the freedmen. In acknowledgment of the
invaluable assistance she rendered, her friends in America sent a
book containing a complete set of photographs of all the chief
anti-slavery workers. When she began her efforts for women's
suffrage, the English Abolitionists were among the first
correspondents to whom she applied, and they nearly all responded
cordially. For years her house, Aubrey House, Kensington, was the
centre of the London organization to which she gave her time,
strength, and money, well earning the title of "Mother of the
Movement," which loving friends have since bestowed.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_540_540" id="Footnote_540_540"></a><a href="#FNanchor_540_540"><span class="label">[540]</span></a> In 1869, 255 petitions, signed by 61,475 persons; in
1870, 663 petitions, signed by 134,561 persons; in 1871, 622
petitions, signed by 186,976 persons (75 of these petitions were
from public meetings and signed only by the chairman, or from town
councils and sealed with the official seal); in 1872, 829 petitions
with 350,093 signatures; in 1873, 919 petitions, with 329,206
signatures; in 1874, 1,494 petitions with 430,343 signatures; and
in 1875, 1,273 petitions were sent in containing 415,622
signatures.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_541_541" id="Footnote_541_541"></a><a href="#FNanchor_541_541"><span class="label">[541]</span></a> This lady, sister of John and Jacob Bright, and wife
of the senior member for Edinburgh, Mr. Duncan McLaren, so much
esteemed that he was sometimes spoken of as the "Member for
Scotland," unites in her own person all the requisites for a leader
of the movement. She has the charm and dignified grace so generally
found among Quaker ladies, and the pathetic eloquence which belong
to her family. She is clear-sighted in planning action, and
enthusiastic and warm-hearted in carrying it out, and for the past
sixteen years the movement in Scotland has centered around her.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_542_542" id="Footnote_542_542"></a><a href="#FNanchor_542_542"><span class="label">[542]</span></a> Mr. Thomas Hare, Mr. Boyd Kinnear, Mr. Mill, who was
no longer in parliament, the Rev. Charles Kingsley (this was the
first and only meeting at which he was present), Prof. Fawcett, M.
P. and Mrs. Fawcett, Lord Houghton, Mr. John Morley, Sir Charles W.
Dilke, Bt. M. P., Mr. P. A. Taylor, M. P., Professor Masson of
Edinburgh, and Mr. Stamfeld, M. P.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_543_543" id="Footnote_543_543"></a><a href="#FNanchor_543_543"><span class="label">[543]</span></a> Mrs. Penington, Mr. Hopwood, Q. C. and Professor
Amos were honorary secretaries the first year, and succeeding them
Miss C. A. Biggs and Miss Agnes Garrett. The principal committees
united with the central, including Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester,
Edinburgh, Dublin and the North of Ireland.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_544_544" id="Footnote_544_544"></a><a href="#FNanchor_544_544"><span class="label">[544]</span></a> Minutes of a meeting at the House of Commons, June
23, 1875. Present: The Right Honorable E. P. Bouverie, in the
chair; and the following members of parliament: Right Hon. H. C.
Childers, Marquis of Hamilton, Lord Randolph Churchill, Hon. E.
Stanhope, Mr. Bentinck, Mr. Beresford Hope, Mr. Chaplin, Mr.
Hayter, Sir Henry Holland, Sir Henry James, Mr. Kay Shuttleworth,
Mr. Edward Leatham, Mr. Merewether, Mr. Newdegate, Mr. Raikes, Mr.
de Rothschild, Mr. Scousfield, Mr. Whitbread.
</p><p>
<i>Resolved</i>, That a committee of peers, members of parliament and
other influential men be organized for the purpose of maintaining
the integrity of the franchise, in opposition to the claims for the
extension of the parliamentary suffrage to women.
</p><p>
<i>Resolved</i>, That Mr. E. P. Bouverie be requested to act as
chairman, and Lord Claud John Hamilton and Mr. Kay Shuttleworth as
honorary secretaries.
</p><p>
The following members have since joined those named above: Lord
Elcho, Right Hon. E. Knatchbull-Hugessen, Right Hon. J. R. Mowbray,
Sir Thomas Bazley, Mr. Butt, Mr. Gibson and Colonel Kingscote.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_545_545" id="Footnote_545_545"></a><a href="#FNanchor_545_545"><span class="label">[545]</span></a> We must mention the names of the ladies who during
the previous two or three years had been most active in speaking
and organizing societies. So many meetings had been held that there
was hardly a town of any importance in England, Ireland or Scotland
where the principles of woman suffrage had not been explained and
canvassed. One of the foremost for her activity in this department
of work was Miss Mary Beedy, an American lady, resident for some
years in England. She had thoroughly mastered the legal and
political condition of the question in this country, and her
untiring energy, her clear common sense, and her ready logic made
her advocacy invaluable. The regret was general when she was
compelled to return to America. Miss Helena Downing, niece of Mr.
McCarthy Downing, member of parliament for Cork, arranged and gave
many lectures during 1873 and 1874. Miss. Lillias Ashworth,
honorary secretary of the Bristol committee, frequently spoke at
meetings about this time. In Scotland Miss Jane Taylour and others
still continued their indefatigable labors, in which they were
frequently assisted by Miss Isabella Stuart of Balgonie in
Fifeshire. In Ireland, in addition to the usual meetings in the
north, a series of meetings in the south was undertaken by Miss
Tod, Miss Beedy and Miss Downing. Other meetings were addressed by
Miss Fawcett, Miss Becker, Miss Caroline Biggs, Miss Eliza Sturge,
Miss Rhoda Garrett, Mrs. Fenwick-Miller and many others. During
1873 Mrs. Henry Kingsley, sister-in-law of one novelist and wife of
another, also spoke frequently. Space fails me to do justice to the
varied powers of the speakers who have carried our movement on
during these years of patient perseverance; to the clear logic and
convincing power of Mrs. Fawcett's speeches; to the thrilling
eloquence of her cousin, Rhoda Garrett, now, alas! no longer with
us; to Miss Becker's accurate legal knowledge and masterly
presentation of facts and arguments; to Miss Helena Downing's
eloquence marked by the humor, pathos and power which were hers by
national inheritance. During these years of trial, too, the cause
owed much to the strenuous advocacy of the Misses Ashworth, Anne
Frances and Lillias Sophia, nieces of Jacob Bright. Miss Ashworth
did not herself speak at meetings, but she comforted and helped
those who did, while Lillias possessed the family gift of eloquence
and charmed her audience by her witty, forcible and telling
speeches. So numerous and so well attended have been these meetings
during these and subsequent years, that it is impossible to
exonerate men and women from the charge of willful blindness if
they still misconstrue the plain facts of the question.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_546_546" id="Footnote_546_546"></a><a href="#FNanchor_546_546"><span class="label">[546]</span></a> First in the list came six ladies, members of
school-boards: Mrs. Buckton of Leeds, Miss Helena Richardson of
Bristol, Mrs. Surr, Mrs. Westlake, Mrs. Fenwick Miller and Miss
Helen Taylor, London; then followed the opinions of ladies who were
guardians of the poor. Forty ladies known as authoresses or
painters came next on the list; among these were Mrs. Allingham,
Mrs. Cowden Clarke, Mrs. Eiloart, Mary Howitt, Emily Pfeiffer,
Augusta Webster. Women doctors came next: Dr. Garrett Anderson, Dr.
Annie Barker, Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell, Dr. Sophia Jex-Blake, Dr.
Eliza Dunbar, Dr. Frances Hoggan, Dr. Edith Pechey; and next to the
doctors came Miss Eliza Orme, the only woman who was successfully
practicing law. The section of education included the names of Mrs.
Wm. Gray, and her sister. Miss Shirreff, Mrs. Nichol (Edinburgh),
Miss Emily Davies, founder of Girton College, Miss Byers, founder
of the Ladies' Collegiate School, Belfast, Mrs. Crawshay and Miss
Mary Gurney. Nineteen ladies, the heads of women's colleges and
high-schools, next gave their reasons why they desired the
suffrage. After these came ladies engaged in philanthropic work,
which included the sisters Rosamund and Florence Davenport Hill,
Florence Nightingale, Miss Ellice Hopkins, eminent for rescue work;
Miss Irby, well-known for her efforts among the starving Bosnian
fugitives; Miss Manning, secretary of the National Indian
Association; Mrs. Southey, secretary of the Women's Peace
Association; Mrs. Lucas, and Mrs. Edward Parker, president and
secretary of the British Women's Temperance Society. The opinions
were various, both in kind and in length, some being only a
confession of faith in a couple of lines, others a page of able
reasoning.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_547_547" id="Footnote_547_547"></a><a href="#FNanchor_547_547"><span class="label">[547]</span></a> Miss Tod gives the spirit to each movement in
Ulster, which is the intellectual headquarters of Ireland. She is
the pioneer in all matters of reform; she is asked to speak in
churches; she instigated the efforts which led to girls
participating in the benefits of the Irish Intermediate Education
act, which was being restricted to boys; she has organized and has
won friends and votes not only over her own district of Ulster, but
in many other quarters of Ireland; and often when in England some
indefinable torpor has crept over a meeting&mdash;as will happen at
times&mdash;a few eloquent and heart-stirring words from her have been
sufficient to raise the courage and revive the interest.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_548_548" id="Footnote_548_548"></a><a href="#FNanchor_548_548"><span class="label">[548]</span></a> Mrs. Peter A. Taylor, Mrs. Fawcett, Mrs. Lucas, Miss
Biggs, Miss Rhoda Garrett, Miss Jessie Boucherett, Mrs. Arthur
Arnold, Miss Frances Power Cobbe, Lady Harberton, Mrs. Pennington,
Miss Helen Taylor, step-daughter of John Stuart Mill, Miss
Henrietta Müller, member of the London school-board, and others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_549_549" id="Footnote_549_549"></a><a href="#FNanchor_549_549"><span class="label">[549]</span></a> Mrs. Jacob Bright, Miss Becker, Mrs. Scatcherd, Miss
Corbutt, Mr. Steinthal, Mrs. Thomasson, and others.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_550_550" id="Footnote_550_550"></a><a href="#FNanchor_550_550"><span class="label">[550]</span></a> Led by Mrs. Lillias Ashworth Hallett, Mrs. Helen
Bright Clark, niece and daughter of John Bright, Mrs. Beddoe, Miss
Snyder, Miss Estlin, the Priestman sisters, Miss Blackburn and Miss
Colby, Eliza Sturge, Mrs. Ashford, Mrs. Matthews. Mrs. Ann Comen
and Mrs. Alfred Osler, niece of Mrs. Peter Taylor, are the chief
Birmingham and Nottingham workers.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_551_551" id="Footnote_551_551"></a><a href="#FNanchor_551_551"><span class="label">[551]</span></a> Lady Harberton, Mrs. Scatcherd, Mrs. Ashworth
Hallet, Mrs. Josephine Butler, Mrs. Ellis, Miss Eliza Sturge, Mrs.
Wellstood (Edinburgh), Mrs. Haslam (Dublin), Miss Becker, Mrs.
Pearson, Miss Jessie Craigen, Miss Helena Downing, Miss Lucy
Wilson, Mrs. Nichols (Edinburgh), Mrs. O'Brien, and in the overflow
meeting Mrs. Lucas and Miss Biggs. At the close of the meeting the
enthusiastic and prolonged cheering which rose from the crowd, the
cordial hand-shakes of utter strangers with words of encouragement
and sympathy brought tears to the eyes of many who had the
privilege of being present on that occasion.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_552_552" id="Footnote_552_552"></a><a href="#FNanchor_552_552"><span class="label">[552]</span></a> Mrs. McLaren occupied the chair and was accompanied
by Mrs. Nichol, Miss Wigham, Miss Tod, Mrs. Charles McLaren, Miss
Craigen, Miss Becker, Miss Beddoe, Mrs. Shearer (formerly Miss
Helena Downing), Miss Flora Stevenson, Mrs. Wellstood, Miss Annie
Stoddart, Mrs. Burton and a distinguished visitor from New York,
Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who was able on this visit to England
to estimate the wide difference in the position of women since the
time&mdash;more than forty years before&mdash;she had been refused a seat as
a delegate in the World's Anti-Slavery Convention in London.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_553_553" id="Footnote_553_553"></a><a href="#FNanchor_553_553"><span class="label">[553]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Married Women's Property Committee</span>.&mdash;The committee,
at the time of the final meeting, November 18, 1882, consisted of
the following ladies and gentlemen: Mrs. Addey; Mr. Arthur Arnold,
M. P.; Mrs. Arthur Arnold; Mr. Jacob Bright, M. P.; Mrs. Josephine
E. Butler; Mr. Thomas Chorlton; Mr. L. H. Courtney, M. P.; Sir C.
W. Dilke, Bart., M. P.; Rev. Alfred Dewes, D.D., LL.D.; Mrs. Gell;
Lady Goldsmid; Rev. Septimus Hansard; Mr. Thomas Hare; Miss Ida
Hardcastle; Mrs. Hodgson; Mr. William Malleson; Mrs. Moore; Mr. H.
N. Mozley; Dr. Pankhurst; Mrs. Pankhurst; Mrs. Shearer; Mrs.
Sutcliffe; Mr. P. A. Taylor, M. P.; Mrs. P. A. Taylor; Mrs.
Venturi; Miss Alice Wilson; Miss Lucy Wilson; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs.
Jacob Bright. <i>Secretary</i>, Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy.
</p><p>
The immediate passage of this bill was in a large measure due to
Mrs. Jacob Bright, who was unwearied in her efforts, in rolling up
petitions, scattering tracts, holding meetings, and in company with
her husband having private interviews with members of parliament.
For ten consecutive years she gave her special attention to this
bill. I had the pleasure of attending the meeting of congratulation
November 18, and heard a very charming address from Mrs. Bright on
the success of the measure. Mr. Jacob Bright and other members of
the committee spoke with equal effect.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_554_554" id="Footnote_554_554"></a><a href="#FNanchor_554_554"><span class="label">[554]</span></a> The Contagious Diseases acts.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_555_555" id="Footnote_555_555"></a><a href="#FNanchor_555_555"><span class="label">[555]</span></a> Miss Henrietta Müller and her sister Mrs. Eva
McLaren, Mrs. Ormiston Chant, Mrs. Ashton Dilke, Mrs. Oliver
Scatcherd, Mrs. Charles McLaren, Miss Florence Balgarnie, Miss
Laura Whittle, Florence and Lillie Stacpoole, Miss Frances Lord,
Mrs. Stanton Blatch and Mrs. Helena Downing Shearer.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_556_556" id="Footnote_556_556"></a><a href="#FNanchor_556_556"><span class="label">[556]</span></a> The inscription was: "Women Claim Equal Justice with
Men. <i>The Friends of Women</i>: Henry Fawcett, John Stuart Mill, Chas.
Cameron, Jacob Bright, Leonard Courtney, Duncan McLaren, George
Anderson, James Stansfeld, Sir Wilfred Lawson, J.P. Thomasson."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_557_557" id="Footnote_557_557"></a><a href="#FNanchor_557_557"><span class="label">[557]</span></a> Mrs. Buchanan, Curriehill; Mrs. O. Scatcherd, Leeds;
Mrs. Nichol, Mrs. M'Laren, Miss Wigham, Dr. A. M'Laren, Miss
Hunter, Mrs. Paterson, Miss L. Stevenson, Miss F. Stevenson, Mrs.
M'Queen, Mrs. Hope, Mrs. M. Miller, Miss S.S. Mair, Miss R. Smith,
Miss E. Kirkland, Mrs. Raeburn and Miss A.G. Wyld, Edinburgh; Mrs.
O. Chant, Mrs. Hodgson, Bonaly; Miss Tod, Belfast; Mrs. Somerville,
Dalkeith; Mrs. Forbes, Loanhead; Mrs. D. Greig, Mrs. Erskine
Murray, Miss Greig, Mrs. Lindsay, Miss Barton and Mrs. A. Campbell,
Glasgow; Miss Simpson, Miss Caldwell, Portobello; Mrs. M'Kinnel,
Dumfries; Mrs. M'Cormick, Manchester; Miss Burton, Liberton; Miss
Balgarnie, Scarborough; Miss A.S. Smith, Gorebridge; Miss Drew,
Helensburgh; Miss Blair, Girvan; Mrs. Smith, Mrs. F. Smith,
Bothwell.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_558_558" id="Footnote_558_558"></a><a href="#FNanchor_558_558"><span class="label">[558]</span></a> Miss Helen Taylor, Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Fawcett, London;
Mrs. Thomasson, Bolton; Miss Orme, Miss Jane Cobden, Miss C. A.
Biggs, Mrs. Fenwick-Miller, Mrs. Ashton Dilke, London; Mrs. Hallet,
Bath; Miss Becker, Manchester; Miss Priestman, Bristol; Mrs. Helen
Bright Clark, Street, Somersetshire; Miss Müller, London; Mrs. Eva
M'Laren, Bradford; Mrs. Charles M'Laren, London; Mrs. Pochin,
Bodnant, Conway; Mrs. Campbell, Tilliechewan Castle; Mrs.
Charteris, Edinburgh; Mrs. Edward Caird, Mrs. Young, Mrs. Kinnear,
Mrs. A. B. M'Grigor, Glasgow; Mrs. Arthur, Barshaw, Paisley; Mrs.
Readdie, Perth; Miss Birrel, Cupar; Mrs. Dunn, Aberdeen; Miss
Duncan, Foxhall; Miss Chalmers, Slateford; Miss Smith, Linlithgow;
Miss Macrobie, Bridge of Allan; Mrs. Ritchie, Mrs. Greenlees,
Glasgow; Mrs. Ord, Nesbit, Kelso; Mrs. Gordon, Nairn; Mrs. Gerrard,
Aberdeen; Miss Stoddart, Kelso; Mrs. Robertson, Paisley; Miss
Maitland, Corstorphine.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_559_559" id="Footnote_559_559"></a><a href="#FNanchor_559_559"><span class="label">[559]</span></a> <span class="smcap">Edinburgh</span>.&mdash;The first resolution was moved by Miss
Tod and seconded by Mrs. Scatcherd:
</p>
<blockquote><p><i>Resolved</i>, That this meeting, whilst thanking the 110 Liberal
members who signed the memorial to Mr. Gladstone to the effect
that no measure of reform would be satisfactory which did not
recognize the claims of women householders, trusts that since the
bill unjustly excludes them, these members will be faithful to
the convictions expressed in that memorial, and will support any
amendment to the bill which has for its object the
enfranchisement of duly qualified women. </p></blockquote>
<p>
The second resolution, a memorial to Mr. Gladstone, was moved by
Miss Flora Stevenson, member of the Edinburgh school-board,
seconded by Mrs. McLaren and supported by Miss Florence Balgarnie
and Mrs. Ormiston Chant. The third resolution, the adoption of
petitions, was moved by Miss S. S. Mair, a grand-niece of Mrs.
Siddons, and Mrs. Lindsay of Glasgow.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Bath, Guild Hall</span>.&mdash;Presided over by the mayor. Among other speakers
were Mrs. Beddoe, Miss Becker, Mrs. Jeffrey and Mrs. Ashworth
Hallet.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">Newcastle, Town Hall</span>.&mdash;Followed on April 21, under the presidency
of the mayor. The crowd was so great that an overflow meeting had
to be arranged. The speakers were Mrs. Ashton Dilke, Miss Tod, Mrs.
Eva McLaren and Mrs. Scatcherd. The audience was largely composed
of miners and working people, and the enthusiasm manifested was
striking. A Newcastle paper reports that this was the first
occasion on which Mrs. Ashton Dilke had appeared in public since
her husband's death, and tears glistened in many eyes as the men
who were his constituents welcomed her among them once more. Some
miners walked twelve miles to hear her and twelve miles back after
the meeting, who had to go down the pit at 3 o'clock next morning.
Some could not get in, and pleaded piteously for an overflow
meeting. "We have come a long way to hear Mistress Dilke; do bring
her." Some women after hearing Miss Tod said: "She's worth hearing
twice, is that," and insisted on following her to the overflow
meeting.
</p><p>
<span class="smcap">London, St. James Hall</span>.&mdash;Three days later there was a great meeting
presided over by Sir Richard Temple G. C. S. I., and addressed by
Mr. W. Summers, M. P., Mrs. Fawcett, the Rt. Hon. Jas. Stansfeld,
M. P., Mrs. Charles McLaren, Mr. Woodall, M. P., Mr. J. Rankin, M.
P., Miss Tod, Mr. J. R. Hollond, M. P., Viscountess Harberton and
Miss Jane Cobden.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_560_560" id="Footnote_560_560"></a><a href="#FNanchor_560_560"><span class="label">[560]</span></a> The result is as follows:</p>


<div class="center">
<table class="dense" summary="Results">
<tr><td class="left">&nbsp;</td><td class="center" colspan="2">No. of Inhabited Houses.</td><td class="center" colspan="2">Estimated No. of<br />Women Householders.</td></tr>
<tr><td class="left"><span class="sc">England and Wales.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="indent left">Boroughs,</td><td class="right">2,098,476</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">340,746</td></tr>
<tr><td class="indent left">Counties,</td><td class="right bb">2,733,043</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right bb">390,434</td></tr>
<tr><td class="left">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">4,831,519</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">740,180</td></tr>
<tr><td class="left"><span class="sc">Scotland.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="indent left">Boroughs,</td><td class="right">329,328</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">54,888</td></tr>
<tr><td class="indent left">Counties,</td><td class="right bb" >409,677</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right bb">58,525</td></tr>
<tr><td class="left">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">739,005</td><td class="left">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">113,413</td></tr>
<tr><td class="left"><span class="sc">Ireland.</span></td></tr>
<tr><td class="indent left">Boroughs,</td><td class="right">129,837</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">21,339</td></tr>
<tr><td class="indent left">Counties,</td><td class="right bb">784,571</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right bb">98,034</td></tr>
<tr><td class="left">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">914,108</td><td class="left">&nbsp;</td><td class="right bb">119,373</td></tr>
<tr><td class="left">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">&nbsp;</td><td class="left">&nbsp;</td><td class="right">972,966</td></tr>
</table></div>

</div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_561_561" id="Footnote_561_561"></a><a href="#FNanchor_561_561"><span class="label">[561]</span></a> Signed by Eveline Portsmouth (Countess of
Portsmouth), E. P. Verney (Lady Verney), Florence Nightingale, Anne
J. Clough (Newham College), Clara E. L. Rayleigh (Lady Rayleigh),
Selina Hogg (Lady Hogg), Anna Swanwick, Julia Camperdown (Countess
of Camperdown), Mina E. Holland, (Mrs. John Holland), (Lady)
Dorothy Nevill, Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Helen P. Bright Clark,
Jane E. Cobden, Elizabeth Adelaide Manning, M. Power (Lady Power),
Louisa Colthurst (Dowager Lady Colthurst), Frances E. Hoggan, M.
D., Florence Davenport Hill (Poor-law Guardian), Louisa Twining
(Poor-law Guardian), Maryanne Donkin (Poor-law Guardian), Rosamond
Davenport Hill (M. L. S. B.), Mary Howitt, Maria G. Grey, Emily A.
E. Shireff, Deborah Bowring (Lady Bowring), Emily Pfeiffer, Barbara
L. S. Bodichon, Augusta Webster, Catherine M. Buckton, Frances M.
Buss (North London Collegiate School), Sophia Bryant, B. Sc.,
Malvira Borchardt (Head Mistress of Devonport High School), Louisa
Boucherett, Jessie Boucherett, Margaret Byers (Ladies' Collegiate
School, Belfast), Ellice Hopkins.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_562_562" id="Footnote_562_562"></a><a href="#FNanchor_562_562"><span class="label">[562]</span></a> Mrs. Lucas presiding, Dr. Garrett Anderson, Miss
Becker, Miss Orme, Mrs. Beddoe, Mrs. Scatcherd, Mrs. Eva M'Laren,
Mrs. Simcok, Mrs. Stanton Blatch, Mrs. Louisa Stevenson, Miss
Balgarnie, Miss Müller, Miss Wilkinson, Mrs. Ashworth Hallett, Miss
Tod.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_563_563" id="Footnote_563_563"></a><a href="#FNanchor_563_563"><span class="label">[563]</span></a> Miss Müller's spirited protest against taxation
without representation, owing to her official reputation as a
member of the London school-board, attracted unusual attention. For
some time she kept her doors barred against the coarse minions of
the law, but ultimately they entered the house, seized her goods
and carried them off to be sold at public auction, but they were
bought in by friends next day. Miss Charlotte E. Hall and Miss Babb
have protested and resisted taxation for many years.
</p><p>
It is probable that Miss Müller's example will be followed by many
others next year. This quiet form of protest used to be very
generally followed by members of the society of Friends, and must
command the sympathy of our co-workers in the United States, who
date their national existence from their refusal to submit to
taxation without representation.&mdash;[E. C. S.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_564_564" id="Footnote_564_564"></a><a href="#FNanchor_564_564"><span class="label">[564]</span></a> The bill was prepared and brought in by Mr. Woodall,
Mr. Illingworth, Mr. Coleridge Kennard, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Yorke
and Baron Henry de Worms.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_565_565" id="Footnote_565_565"></a><a href="#FNanchor_565_565"><span class="label">[565]</span></a> <i>Central Committee of the National Society for
Women's Suffrage</i>&mdash;Mrs. Ashford (Birmingham), Miss Lydia E. Becker
(Manchester), Alfred W. Bennett, esq., M. A., Miss Caroline Ashurst
Biggs, Miss Helen Blackburn, Miss Jessie Boucherett, Hon. Emmeline
Canning, Miss Frances Power Cobbe, Miss Jane Cobden, Miss
Courtenay, Leonard Courteny, esq., M. P., Mrs. Cowen (Nottingham),
Miss Mabel Sharman Crawford, Mrs. Ashton Dilke, Hon. Mrs. Maurice
Drummond (Hampstead), Mrs. Millicent G. Fawcett, Miss Agnes
Garrett, Rev. C. Green (Bromley), Mrs. Ashworth Hallett (Bristol),
Viscountess Harberton, Thomas Hare, esq., Mrs. Ann Maria Haslam
(Dublin), Frederick Hill, esq., Mrs. John Hollond, Mrs. Frank
Morrison, C. H. Hopwood, esq., Q. C., M. P., Mrs. John Hullah,
Coleridge Kennard, esq., M. P., Mrs. Margaret Bright Lucas, Mrs. E.
M. Lynch, Robert Main, esq., Mrs. Laura Pochin McLaren, Mrs. Eva
Müller McLaren (Bradford), Mrs. Priscilla Bright McLaren
(Edinburgh), Miss Henrietta Müller, Frederick Pennington, esq., M.
P., Mrs. F. Pennington, Miss Reeves, Mrs. Saville, Miss Lillie
Stacpole, Rev. S. A. Steinthal (Manchester), J. S. Symon, esq.,
Miss Helen Taylor, Sir Richard Temple, G. C. S. I.; J. P.
Thomasson, esq., M. P., Mrs. Katherine Lucas Thomasson (Bolton),
Miss Isabella M. Tod (Belfast), Miss Williams, William Woodall,
esq. M. P. <i>Secretary</i>, Miss Florence Balgarnie. <i>Assistant
Secretary</i>, Miss Torrance. <i>Organizing Agent</i>, Miss Moore.
<i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Laura Pochin McLaren. <i>Office</i>, 29 Parliament
street, London S. W.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_895" id="Page_895">[Pg 895]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LVII" id="CHAPTER_LVII"></a>CHAPTER LVII.</h2>

<h3>CONTINENTAL EUROPE.<a name="FNanchor_566_566" id="FNanchor_566_566"></a><a href="#Footnote_566_566" class="fnanchor">[566]</a></h3>

<h4>BY THEODORE STANTON.</h4>

<blockquote><blockquote><p>If you would know the political and moral status of a
people, demand what place its women occupy.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">L. Aimé
Martin.</span></p>

<p>There is nothing, I think, which marks more decidedly the
character of men or of nations, than the manner in which
they treat women.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">Herder.</span> </p></blockquote></blockquote>

<div class="chapter-summary"><p>The Woman Question in the Back-ground&mdash;In France the Agitation
Dates from the Upheaval of 1789&mdash;International Women's Rights
Convention in Paris, 1878&mdash;Mlle. Hubertine Auclert Leads the Demand
for Suffrage&mdash;Agitation began in Italy with the Kingdom&mdash;Concepcion
Arenal in Spain&mdash;Coëducation in Portugal&mdash;Germany: Leipsic and
Berlin&mdash;Austria in Advance of Germany&mdash;Caroline Svetlá of
Bohemia&mdash;Austria Unsurpassed in contradictions&mdash;Marriage
Emancipates from Tutelage in Hungary&mdash;Dr. Henrietta Jacobs of
Holland&mdash;Dr. Isala van Diest of Belgium&mdash;In Switzerland the
Catholic Cantons Lag Behind&mdash;Marie G&oelig;gg, the Leader&mdash;Sweden
Stands First&mdash;Universities Open to Women in Norway&mdash;Associations in
Denmark&mdash;Liberality of Russia toward Women&mdash;Poland&mdash;The
Orient&mdash;Turkey&mdash;Jewish Wives&mdash;The Greek Woman in Turkey&mdash;The Greek
Woman in Greece&mdash;An Unique Episode&mdash;Woman's Rights in the American
Sense not known. </p>
</div>


<p><span class="sc">The</span> reader of the preceding pages will be sorely disappointed if he
expects to find in this brief chapter a similar record of progress
and reform. If, however, he looks simply for an earnest of the
future, for a humble beginning of that wonderful revolution in
favor of women which has occurred in the United States, and to a
less degree in England, during the past quarter of a century, his
expectations will be fully realized. More than this; he will close
this long account of woman's emancipation in the new world
convinced that in due season a similar blessing is to be enjoyed by
the women of the old world.</p>

<p>For the moment, the woman question in Europe is pushed into the
background by the all-absorbing struggle still going on in various
forms between the republican and monarchical principle, between the
vital present and the moribund past; but the most<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_896" id="Page_896">[Pg 896]</a></span> superficial
observer must perceive, that the amelioration of the lamentable
situation of European womanhood is sure to be one of the first
problems to come to the front for resolution, as soon as liberty
gains undisputed control on this continent,&mdash;a victory assured in
the not-distant future. When men shall have secured their rights,
the battle will be half won; women's rights will follow as a
natural sequence.</p>

<p>The most logical beginning for a sketch of the woman movement on
the continent, and indeed of any step in advance, is of course
France, where ideas, not facts, stand out the more prominently;
for, in questions of reform, the abstract must always precede the
concrete,&mdash;public opinion must be convinced before it will accept
an innovation. This has been the <i>rôle</i> of France in Europe ever
since the great revolution; it is her <i>rôle</i> to-day. She is the
agitator of the old world, and agitation is the lever of reform.</p>


<div class="figcenter" style="width: 313px;">
<a name="v3_896" id="v3_896">
<img src="http://brian.carnell.com/wiki/lib/exe/fetch.php/etext:h:the-history-of-woman-suffrage-v3_896.jpg" width="313" height="500" alt="George Sand" title="" /></a>
</div>


<p>The woman movement in France dates from the upheaval of 1789.
Though the demands for the rights of man threw all other claims
into the shade, a few women did not fail to perceive that they also
had interests at stake. Marie Olympe de Gouges, for example, in her
"Declaration of the Rights of Woman," vindicated for her sex all
the liberties proclaimed in the famous "Declaration of the Rights
of Man." During the empire and the restoration the reform slept;
under the July monarchy there was an occasional murmur, which burst
forth into a vigorous protest when the revolution of 1848 awakened
the aspirations of 1789, and George Sand consecrated her talent to
the cause of progress. During the second empire, in spite of the
oppressive nature of the government, the movement took on a more
definite form; its advocates became more numerous; and men and
women who held high places in literature, politics and journalism,
spoke out plainly in favor of ameliorating the condition of French
women. Then came the third republic, with more freedom than France
had enjoyed since the beginning of the century. The woman movement
felt the change, and, during the past ten years, its friends have
been more active than ever before.</p>

<p>The most tangible event in the history of the question in France is
the International Woman's Rights Congress, the first international
gathering of the kind, which assembled in Paris in the months of
July and August during the exposition season of 1878. The committee
which called the congress contained representatives from six
different countries, viz.: France, Switzerland,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_897" id="Page_897">[Pg 897]</a></span> Italy, Holland,
Russia and America. Among the eighteen members from France were two
senators, five deputies and three Paris municipal councilors. Italy
was represented by a deputy and the Countess of Travers, an
indefatigable friend of the undertaking, who died just before the
opening of the congress. The American members of the committee were
Julia Ward Howe, Mary A. Livermore and Theodore Stanton. Among the
members<a name="FNanchor_567_567" id="FNanchor_567_567"></a><a href="#Footnote_567_567" class="fnanchor">[567]</a> of the congress, besides those just mentioned, were
deputies, senators, publicists, journalists, and men and women of
letters from all parts of Europe. Sixteen different organizations
in Europe and America sent delegates. The National Woman Suffrage
Association was represented by Jane Graham Jones and Theodore
Stanton, and the American Woman Suffrage Association by Julia Ward
Howe.</p>

<p>The work of the congress was divided into five sections, as
follows: the historical, the educational, the economic, the moral,
and the legislative. The congress was opened on July 25, by Léon
Richer, its promoter and originator, and one of the most
indefatigable friends of women's rights in France. He invited Maria
Deraismes, an able speaker well known among Paris reformers, to act
as temporary chairman. The next thing in order was the election of
two permanent presidents, a man and a woman. The late M. Antide
Martin, then an influential member of the Paris municipal council,
and Julia Ward Howe were chosen. Mrs. Howe, on taking the chair,
made a short speech which was very well received; Anna Maria
Mozzoni, of Milan, a most eloquent orator, followed; and then
Genevieve Graham Jones advanced to the platform, and in the name of
her mother, Jane Graham Jones, delegate of the National Woman
Suffrage Association, she conveyed to the congress messages of
good-will from the United States. This address, delivered with much
feeling, and appealing to French patriotism, was enthusiastically
received. When Miss Jones had taken her seat, M. Martin arose,
thanked the foreign ladies for their admirable words, and concluded
in these terms: "In the name of my compatriots, I particularly
return gratitude to Miss Graham Jones for the eloquent and cordial
manner in which she has just<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_898" id="Page_898">[Pg 898]</a></span> referred to France, and in turn, I
salute republican America, which so often offers Europe examples of
good sense, wisdom and liberty."</p>

<p>At the second session was read a long and eloquent letter from
Salvatore Morelli,<a name="FNanchor_568_568" id="FNanchor_568_568"></a><a href="#Footnote_568_568" class="fnanchor">[568]</a> the Italian deputy. Theodore Stanton read a
paper entitled, "The Woman Movement in the United States." The
third session was devoted to the educational phase of the woman
question. Tony Révillon, who has since become one of the radical
deputies of Paris, spoke, and Miss Hotchkiss presented an able
report on "The Education of Women in America." After Miss Hotchkiss
had finished, Auguste Desmoulins, now a member of the Paris
municipal council, offered, as president of the section, a
resolution advocating the principal reforms&mdash;the same studies for
boys and girls, and coëducation&mdash;demanded by Miss Hotchkiss. The
resolution was carried without debate. Aurelia Cimino Folliero de
Luna, of Florence, followed in a few remarks on the "Mission of
Woman." Eugénie Pierre, of Paris, spoke on the "Vices of Education
in Different Classes of Society," and in closing complimented
America in the highest terms for its progressive position on the
woman question. In fact, the example of the United States was
frequently cited throughout the proceedings of this congress, and
the reformers of America may find some joy in feeling that their
labors are producing fruit even in the old world.</p>

<p>At the last session of the congress, August 9, 1878, a permanent
international committee was announced. France, England, Italy,
Alsace-Lorraine, Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Sweden, Poland,
Russia, Roumania and the United States are all represented on this
committee.<a name="FNanchor_569_569" id="FNanchor_569_569"></a><a href="#Footnote_569_569" class="fnanchor">[569]</a> The chief duties of this committee were to be<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_899" id="Page_899">[Pg 899]</a></span> the
advancement of the reforms demanded by the congress and to issue
the call for the next international gathering. The congress ended
with a grand banquet on the evening of the last day's session, in
which about two hundred guests participated.</p>

<p>The present situation in France is full of interest and
encouragement. There are societies, journals, and different groups
of reformers all striving independently but earnestly to better the
situation of French women politically, civilly, morally and
intellectually. At the head of the agitation in favor of women's
political rights stand Hubertine Auclert and her vigorous monthly,
<i>La Citoyenne</i><a name="FNanchor_570_570" id="FNanchor_570_570"></a><a href="#Footnote_570_570" class="fnanchor">[570]</a>; the reformers of the code are lead by Léon
Richer and his outspoken monthly, <i>Le Droit des Femmes</i><a name="FNanchor_571_571" id="FNanchor_571_571"></a><a href="#Footnote_571_571" class="fnanchor">[571]</a>; the
movement in favor of divorce, which was crowned with success in the
summer of 1884, is headed by Alfred Naquet in the senate, and finds
one of its earliest and ablest supporters in Olympe Audouard; the
emancipation of women from priestly domination&mdash;and herein lies the
greatest and most dangerous obstacle that the reformers
encounter&mdash;counts among its many advocates Maria Deraismes; woman's
moral improvement, to be mainly accomplished by the abolition of
legalized prostitution, is demanded by Dr. and Mrs. Chapman and
Emilie de Morsier; while the great uprising in favor of woman's
education has such a host of friends and has already produced such
grand results, that the brief limits of this sketch will permit
neither an enumeration of the one nor the other.</p>

<hr class="short" />

<p>The transition from France to Italy is easy and natural, for it is
on the Cisalpine peninsula that Gallic ideas have always taken
deeper root than elsewhere on the Continent, and, as might be
expected, the Italian woman movement resembles in many respects
that of which we have just spoken.</p>

<p>With the formation of the kingdom of Italy in 1870 began a
well-defined agitation in favor of Italian women. The educational
question was first taken up. Prominent among the women who
participated in this movement were Laura Mantegazza, the
Marchioness Brigida Tanari, and Alessandrina Ravizza. Aurelia
Cimino Folliero de Luna, who has devoted her whole life to
improving the condition of her countrywomen, writes me from
Florence on this subject. "Here it was," she says, "that the
example of American and English women, who in this respect<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_900" id="Page_900">[Pg 900]</a></span> were
our superiors, was useful to us. While we were still under foreign
domination and ignorant of solidarity of sex, they were free and
united." The new political life produced a number of able women
orators and writers, such as Anna Mozzoni, Malvina Frank, Gualberta
Beccari, and many others. The last named founded at Venice <i>La
Donna</i>, and in 1872 Aurelia Cimino Folliero de Luna established in
Florence <i>La Cornelia</i>, which has since ceased to exist, while in
1882 Ernesta Napollon began at Naples the publication of the
short-lived <i>L'Umanitario</i>, the youngest of a goodly list of
journals which have done much to excite an interest in the woman
question. The Italian government has generously seconded the
efforts of the reformers. The code has been modified, schools have
been established, the universities thrown open and courses in
agriculture proposed.</p>

<p>But the most significant sign of progress in Italy was afforded by
the great universal suffrage convention, held at Rome on February
11, 12, 1881. Anna Mozzoni, delegate to the convention from the
Milan Society for the Promotion of Woman's Interests, of which she
is the able president, made an eloquent appeal for woman suffrage
and introduced a resolution to this effect which was carried by a
good majority.<a name="FNanchor_572_572" id="FNanchor_572_572"></a><a href="#Footnote_572_572" class="fnanchor">[572]</a> In 1876 a committee of the Chamber, of which
the deputy Peruzzi was chairman, reported a bill in favor of
conferring on women the right to vote on municipal and provincial
questions (<i>voto amministrativo</i>), a privilege which they had
formerly enjoyed in Lombardy and Venice under Austrian rule. This
bill was reïntroduced in 1882 by the Depretis ministry and was
reported upon favorably by the proper committee in June, 1884. It
is believed that the proposition will soon become a law. If such is
the case, Italian women will enjoy the same rights as Italian men
in municipal and provincial affairs, with this exception, that they
will not be eligible to office in the bodies of which they are
electors.<a name="FNanchor_573_573" id="FNanchor_573_573"></a><a href="#Footnote_573_573" class="fnanchor">[573]</a> Aurelia Cimino Folliero de Luna, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I make no doubt that in a few years the question of the
emancipation of women in Italy will be better understood; will be
regarded from a more elevated standpoint and will receive a more
general and greater support; for if we turn to the past, we shall
be astonished at what has already been accomplished in this
direction. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_901" id="Page_901">[Pg 901]</a></span></p>

<hr class="short" />

<p>Concepcion Arenal, the distinguished Spanish authoress, signals
several signs of progress in her country. This lady writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>In the schools founded by the Madrid Association for the
Education of Women, nearly five hundred girls pursue courses in
pedagogics, commercial studies, modern languages, painting, etc.
This instruction, for the most part gratis, is given by
professors who devote their time and strength to this noble
object without receiving any remuneration,&mdash;worthy continuators
of the grand work of the founder of the Madrid high-school for
women, Fernando de Castro, of blessed memory, one of the most
philanthropic men I ever met, who so loved mankind that his name
should be known in every land. Nine hundred and eighteen girls
attended the session of 1880-1881 of the school of music and
declamation at Madrid, and the number has since increased.</p>

<p>A few years ago a school of arts and trades was founded at the
capital, and women were admitted to the classes in drawing. In
1881, one hundred and thirty availed themselves of this
privilege. In 1882, one hundred and fifty-four female students
were present at the institutions (<i>institutos</i>) for intermediate
education in Spain. The coëducation of the sexes, therefore, is
not unknown to us. In that year Valencia, Barcelona, Gerona and
Seville each counted sixteen, while the single girl at Mahon
discontinued her studies on the ground that she preferred not to
mingle with boys. At Malaga, the only female aspirant for the
bachelor's degree took seven prizes, and was "excellent" in all
her studies. During the academic year, 1881-1882, twelve women
attended lectures in the Spanish universities. The three at
Madrid were all working for the doctorate, and one had passed the
necessary examinations; the two at Valladolid were occupied with
medicine, while at Barcelona five were studying medicine, one
law, and one pharmacy. Three of the medical students have passed
their examinations, but instead of the degrees, which are refused
them, they are granted certificates which do not allow them to
practice.</p>

<p>Our public opinion is progressing, as is evidenced by the laws,
and especially by the educational reforms, which are the
exclusive work of men. The council of public instruction, a
consulting body holding by no means advanced ideas, was called
upon a short time ago, to decide whether the university
certificates conferred upon women could be converted into regular
degrees, which would entitle the recipients to the enjoyment of
the privileges attached to these titles. The learned council
discussed, hesitated, tried to decide the question, but finally
left it in a situation which was neither clear nor conclusive.
This hesitancy and vagueness are very significant; a few years
ago a negative decision would have been given promptly and in the
plainest terms. </p></blockquote>

<hr class="short" />

<p>Portugal is following closely upon the steps of Spain, and, in the
former as in the latter country, it is in the department of
education that the most marked signs of an awakening are to be
found. Rodrigues de Freitas, the well-known publicist and
republican statesman of Porto, says:<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_902" id="Page_902">[Pg 902]</a></span></p>

<blockquote><p>There is not a single intermediate school for girls in all
Portugal. In 1883, the Portugese parliament took up the subject
of intermediate instruction, and discussed the question in its
relation to women, and the progress in this direction realized in
France during the last few years. A deputy who opposed the
reform, recalled the words of Jules Simon, pronounced in a recent
sitting of the council of public instruction at Paris. The
philosopher remarked:</p>

<blockquote><p>We are here a few old men, very fortunate gentlemen, in being
excused from having to marry the girls you propose to bring up. </p></blockquote>

<p>Our minister of the interior, who has charge of public instruction,
followed, and declared that he was in favor of the establishment of
girls' colleges. He said:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is true that M. Jules Simon considers himself fortunate in not
having to marry a girl educated in a French college; but I think
I have discovered the reason for this aversion. He is getting in
his dotage, otherwise he would experience no repugnance in
proposing to such a girl, provided, of course, that, along with
an education, she was at the same time pretty and virtuous. </p></blockquote>

<p>The chamber laughed. And such is the situation to-day: the minister
favorable to the better instruction of women, while neither
minister nor deputies make an earnest effort to bring it about.</p>

<p>This dark picture is relieved, however, by one or two bright
touches. There are many private boarding schools where families in
easy circumstances send their daughters, who learn to speak several
languages, are taught a little elementary mathematics and
geography, and acquire a few accomplishments. Some of the pupils of
these institutions pass with credit the examinations of the boys'
lyceums or colleges. Article 72, of the law of June 14, 1880, on
intermediate instruction, reads as follows: "Students of the female
sex, who wish to enter the State schools, or pass the examinations
of said schools, come within the provisions of this law, except as
regards the regulations concerning boarding scholars." That is to
say, girls enjoy in the State intermediate schools the same
privileges as male day scholars. Many girls have availed themselves
of this opportunity and have passed the lyceum examinations. </p></blockquote>

<hr class="short" />

<p>Crossing the Rhine into the Teutonic countries, we find less
progress on the whole, than among the Latin races. Germany,
however, if behind France and Italy, is far ahead of Spain and
Portugal. The agitation is divided into two currents: the Leipsic
and the Berlin movements. The former is the older, the General
Association of German Women having been founded in Leipsic in
October, 1865. Louise Otto-Peters, the prime mover in the
organization of this association, may be considered the originator
of the German movement. A novelist of much power, whose stories all
teach a lesson in socialism, she established in 1848, the year of
the great revolutionary fermentation throughout Europe, the first
paper which advocated the interests of women in Germany. The aims
of the Leipsic and Berlin reformers<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_903" id="Page_903">[Pg 903]</a></span> were of an economic and
educational nature. It was felt that the time had come when woman
must have wider and better paid fields of work, and when she must
be more thoroughly educated in order to be able the easier to gain
her livelihood. A paper, <i>New Paths</i> (<i>Neue Bahnen</i>), was
established as the organ of the association. It still exists. The
plan of holding annual conventions&mdash;much like those which have been
in progress in America for so many years&mdash;in the chief cities of
Germany was settled upon, and numerous meetings of this kind have
already occurred. At these gatherings all questions pertaining to
woman's advancement are discussed, and auxiliary associations
organized. The General Association of German Women has sent several
petitions to the Reichstag, or imperial parliament, demanding
various reforms and innovations. The principal members of the
association are Louise Otto-Peters, the president and editor of the
<i>Neue Bahnen</i>; Henriette Goldschmidt, the most effective speaker of
the group; and Mrs. Winter, the treasurer, all of whom live in
Leipsic; Miss Menzzer of Dresden; Lina Morgenstern, the well-known
Berlin philanthropist; and Marie Calm of Cassel, perhaps the most
radical of the body, whose ideas on woman suffrage are much the
same as those entertained in England and the United States. In
fact, an American is frequently struck by the similarity between
many of the features of the General Association of German Women,
and the Woman's Rights Association in the United States.</p>

<hr class="short" />

<p>The Berlin movement, which resembles that of Leipsic in everything
except that it is rather more conservative, owes its origin to that
distinguished philanthropist, Dr. Adolf Lette. The Lette Verein, or
Lette Society, so called in honor of its founder, was organized in
December, 1865, but a few months after the establishment of the
Leipsic association. The object of the society is, as has already
been said, to improve the material condition of women, especially
poor women, by giving them a better education, by teaching them
manual employments, by helping to establish them in business&mdash;in a
word, by affording them the means to support themselves. The Lette
Society has become the nucleus of similar organizations scattered
all over the German empire. Its organ, the <i>German Woman's
Advocate</i> (<i>Deutcher Frauenanwalt</i>), is a well-conducted little
monthly, edited by the secretary of the society, Jenny Hirsch. Anna
Schepeler-Lette, daughter of the founder, has been for many<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_904" id="Page_904">[Pg 904]</a></span> years
and is still at the head of this admirable society. She writes me:</p>

<blockquote><p>If we are asked whether we would have women enter public life,
whether we would wish them to become professors in the
university, clergymen in the church, and lawyers at the bar, as
is the case in America, we should make no response, for they are
but idle questions. These demands have not yet been made in
Germany, nor will they be made for a long time to come, if ever.
But why peer into the future? We have to-day many institutions,
many customs, which past centuries would have looked upon as
contrary to Divine and human law. In this connection we would say
with Sancho Panza: "What is, is able to be." </p></blockquote>

<p>The German philosopher, Herr von Kirchmann, is more decided in his
views concerning the future of his countrywomen. In one of his last
works, entitled "Questions and Dangers of the Hour" (<i>Zeitfragen
und Abenteuer</i>) is a chapter on "Women in the Past and Future,"
where it is shown that the female sex has been gradually gaining
its freedom, and the prediction is made that the day is near at
hand when women will obtain their complete independence and will
compete with men in every department of life, not excepting
politics.</p>

<hr class="short" />

<p>Turning to the other great Germanic nation, Austria, we find still
less progress than in the north. In fact, the movement in the south
is little more than a question of woman's self-support. The
important problem of woman's education is not yet resolved in
Germany, and in Austria still less has been done. "In two
particulars," writes a Berlin correspondent, "Austria may be said
to be in advance of Germany. The admission of women to the
university does not present such insurmountable difficulties, and
her employment in railroad, post, and telegraph offices does not
encounter such strong opposition." But it must not be supposed from
this statement that the Austrian universities are open to women.
"Our universities are shut against women," Professor Wendt, of
Troppau, informs me; "but they may pass the same examinations as
boys who have finished their preparatory studies, though it is
distinctly stated in the women's diplomas that they may not
continue their studies in the university." The professors, however,
sometimes allow foreign girls to attend lectures. Professor Bruhl,
of Vienna, for example, has lectured to men and women on anatomy.
The Academy of Fine Arts at Vienna is not open to women, though the
Conservatory of Music is much frequented by them. In 1880, in fact,
three women received<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_905" id="Page_905">[Pg 905]</a></span> prizes for musical compositions. Johanna
Leitenberger, of Salzburg, writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>Several newspapers are devoted to the different phases of the
woman's movement in Austria. Some years ago an ex-officer,
Captain A. D. Korn, who, if I am not mistaken, had passed some
time in England and America, founded the <i>Women's Universal
Journal</i> (<i>Allgemeine Frauen Zeitung</i>). This newspaper was wholly
devoted to women's interest, but it soon died. The same thing is
true of the <i>Women's Journal</i> (<i>Frauenblätter</i>) of Gratz, which
appeared for a short time under my editorship. <span class="spacious">* * * *</span> On October
9, 10, 11, 1872, the third German women's convention (<i>Deutsche
Frauenkonferenz</i>) was held at Vienna, under the auspices of the
general society for popular education and the amelioration of
women's condition. The other two sittings of this society had
been held at Leipsic and Stuttgart. The soul of this new movement
was Captain Korn, whom I have already mentioned. His study of the
woman question in the United States may have prompted him to
awaken a similar agitation among the women of the Austrian
empire. Addresses were delivered at this convention by ladies
from Vienna, Hungary, Bohemia and Styria and all the various
interests of women were discussed. <span class="spacious">* * * *</span> The proceedings of the
convention attracted considerable attention, and produced
favorable impressions on the audience, which was recruited from
the better classes of the population. But the newspapers of
Vienna ridiculed the young movement, its friends grew lukewarm,
and every trace was soon lost of this first and last Austrian
women's rights convention. </p></blockquote>

<p>In one important particular the Austro-Hungarian empire treats
women more fairly than is the case in other European countries.
Elise Krásnohorská, the Bohemian author, writes me:</p>

<blockquote><p>Women have a voice in the municipal, provincial and national
elections, though male citizens duly authorized by them cast
their vote. With this single reserve&mdash;a very important one, it
must be confessed&mdash;our women are politically the equals of men.
At Prague, however, this is not the case. The Bohemian capital
preserves an ancient privilege which is in contradiction to the
Austrian electoral law, and which excludes us from the elective
franchise. Universal suffrage does not exist in the empire, but
the payment of a certain amount of taxes confers the right to
vote. I do not enter into the details of the electoral law, which
is somewhat complicated, which has its exceptions and
contradictions, and is in fact an apple of discord in Austria in
more than one respect; but, speaking generally, it may be said
that a woman who owns property, who is in business, or who pays
taxes, may designate a citizen possessing her confidence to
represent her at the polls. Our women are satisfied with this
system, and prefer it to casting their ballot in person.</p>

<p>It may be said, also, that women are eligible to office, or at
least that there is no law against their accepting it, while
there are instances of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_906" id="Page_906">[Pg 906]</a></span> their having done so. In southern
Bohemia, a short time ago, a countess was chosen member of a
provincial assembly (<i>okresni zastupitestvo</i>) with the approval
of the body, on the condition that she should not participate
personally in its deliberations, but should be represented by a
man having full power to act for her. At Agram in Croatia, a
woman was elected, a few years ago, member of the municipal
council, and no objection was made. Of course such cases are very
rare, but they have their significance. </p></blockquote>

<p>Carolina Svetlá, the distinguished poet and author, has done,
perhaps, the most to awaken thought on the woman question in
Bohemia. She stands at the head of a talented group of literary
women, which plays a brilliant part in the fatherland of Huss. The
means for woman's instruction, however, are most lamentable in
Bohemia. The universities are shut against women, and though two
women have been graduated in Switzerland, their degrees are not
recognized in their native land. Beyond primary instruction the
State does almost nothing for its women, though they outnumber the
other sex by two hundred thousand. In several of the large cities
of Bohemia something has been accomplished for girls' high-school
and normal-school instruction; but, in general, we may say that the
intellectual development of Bohemian girls is left to private
instruction. Associations of women have done much to fill this
void, one of which, founded by Carolina Svetlá, is devoted to the
industrial and commercial instruction of girls. Two thousand women
belong to this association, and five hundred girls attend its
school annually, while many young women frequent its school for the
training of nurses. This vigorous organization has disarmed
prejudices by the success of its schools and by the arguments of
its monthly organ, the <i>Zenské Listy</i>, ably edited by Elise
Krásnohorská, one of the best known Bohemian poets, and a leader in
the work of improving the condition of her countrywomen. Vojtá
Náprstek, a man who has justly been named "the woman's advocate,"
has founded at Prague the Women's American Club, whose object is
charity and the intellectual elevation of women, and has presented
the club a valuable collection of books and objects of art. A lady,
writing me from Prague, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The club has always been in a most flourishing condition,
although it has never had a constitution or by-laws to hold it
together,&mdash;nothing but the single bond of philanthropy. At first
it had not even a name. But outsiders began to call its members
'the Americans,' because they adopted American improvements in
their homes. The appellation was accepted<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_907" id="Page_907">[Pg 907]</a></span> by the club as an
honorable title, and from that time it formally called itself the
"American Club." </p></blockquote>

<p>The Austrian code, in its treatment of women, is unsurpassed in
contradictions. Women, for example, may testify in criminal
actions, but they may not be witnesses to the simplest legal
document. There are many absurdities of this sort in the existing
law which were unknown in the ancient code of independent Bohemia,
which was more liberal in its treatment of women. Divorce exists,
but divorced persons cannot marry again. Bohemia being a part of
Austria, women vote in the same way as has already been mentioned
in what was said of the latter country. But at Prague, however,
women do not vote, the capital still retaining its old laws on this
subject.</p>

<p>Concerning the other grand division of the empire of the Hapsburgs,
Hungary, much the same may be said as of Bohemia. It is only within
the last forty years that Hungary has striven to attain to the
level of occidental civilization and culture, so that the question
of the amelioration of women's condition is of very recent origin
in that country. Rose Revai, of Budapest, writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>Hungarian legislators have always treated us favorably in all
matters pertaining to the family, marriage and inheritance. By
the mere act of marriage we attain our majority and are
emancipated from tutelage. As heirs, our interests are not
forgotten, and as widows, we have the control over our own
children. In business and trade we enjoy equal rights with men.
And Hungarian women have not been slow to take advantage of these
privileges, as is shown by those of our sex who occupy worthy
positions in literature, art, commerce, industry, the theater and
the school-room. </p></blockquote>

<p>Although the Hungarian universities are still closed against women,
there are many girls' industrial and normal schools and colleges.
The impetus given to female education in Hungary is chiefly due to
the late Baron Joseph E&oelig;tv&oelig;s, the savant, poet and
philanthropist, who was minister of public instruction in 1867.
Women are employed in the postal and telegraphic service.</p>

<hr class="short" />

<p>Returning north, to Holland, we find much the same situation as in
the other Teutonic nations. "The women of Holland are
unquestionably better educated, and entertain as a body more
liberal ideas than French women," said a Dutch lady to me, who had
lived many years at Paris; "but, on the other hand, there is not
the little group of women in the Netherlands who grasp the real
meaning of the woman question as is the case here in France."
Woman's social position is a little better in Holland<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_908" id="Page_908">[Pg 908]</a></span> than in the
Catholic countries. In 1870 an essay on the woman question "by a
lady" demanded political rights for women, and there are a few
instances of women having lectured on that subject. The Dutch
universities are open to female students, and Aletta Henriette
Jacobs, the first and only female physician in Holland, has a
successful practice at Amsterdam. Dr. Jacobs recently attempted to
vote, and carried the question before the courts. Elise A.
Haighton, of Amsterdam, writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>A few of our women do not hesitate to participate in political
and social discussions. The Union (<i>Unic</i>), a society which aims
to promote popular interest in politics by meetings, debates,
tracts, etc.; the Daybreak (<i>Dageraad</i>), a radical association
which holds very ultra opinions on politics, religion and
science, and supports a magazine to which many scientific men
contribute; and the New Malthusian Band, an organization
sufficiently explained by its name, all count several women among
their members. </p></blockquote>

<p>Elise van Calcar, the veteran Dutch authoress, sums up the
situation in Holland, as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>I am sorry to have to confess that, as regards the general
emancipation of women, we have accomplished but very little. Our
work is indirect; we can only proclaim the injustice of our
position. </p></blockquote>

<hr class="short" />

<p>Two countries, the product of Latin and Teutonic civilization,
Belgium and Switzerland, must be touched upon before we turn to the
Scandinavian people. Of the first, Belgium, about the same may be
said as of Holland with which she was so long united politically. A
correspondent in Belgium writes me as follows:</p>

<blockquote><p>There cannot be said to be any movement in this country in favor
of the emancipation of women. No journal, no association, no
organization of any kind exists. </p></blockquote>

<p>But public opinion is said to be quite favorable. Women are making
their way slowly into certain callings. The professors of the
universities of Liege and Ghent, when asked their opinion not long
ago by the minister of public instruction, expressed a desire to
see women admitted to the privileges of these institutions on the
same terms as men, and to-day female students are found at all the
institutions for higher education. Another correspondent writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>Within the past few years an effort has been made among the women
of the middle classes in the large cities, and secondary and
professional schools have been established for girls, which are
already producing good fruit. This movement is beginning to make
itself felt among the upper classes, and it is to be hoped that
the next generation will make<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_909" id="Page_909">[Pg 909]</a></span> longer strides in the direction of
instruction than is the case with the present generation. </p></blockquote>

<p>In one respect at least Belgium is far behind her neighbor,
Holland. Dr. Isala van Diest, the first and so far the only female
physician in Belgium, although she has passed successfully all the
necessary examinations and taken all the necessary degrees, may not
practice medicine in her own country. She wrote me recently:</p>

<blockquote><p>I fear I shall soon be obliged to give up the fight and go to
France, England or Holland, unless I wish to lose the fruit of
all my studies. </p></blockquote>

<p>Concerning the higher education of women Dr. van Diest writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>There existed in Belgium some years ago a law which required
students who would enter the university, to pass the examination
of graduate in letters (<i>gradué-en-lettres</i>). Candidates for this
degree were expected to know how to translate Greek and write
Latin. But as there were no schools where girls could study the
dead languages with the thoroughness of boys who were trained six
years in the classics, the former were almost entirely shut out
from enjoying the advantages of an university course. This
<i>graduat</i>, however, no longer exists, and the entrance of women
into our universities is now possible. Female students are found
to-day at Brussels, Liege and Ghent, but their number is still
very small. It was in 1880 that the first woman entered the
university of Brussels, but it was not until 1883 that their
admission became general. They pursue, for the most part,
scientific studies, thereby securing more lucrative positions as
teachers, and pass their examinations for graduation with
success. </p></blockquote>

<p>Switzerland being made up of more than a score of separate cantons
closely resembling our States in their political organization, it
is difficult to arrive at the exact situation throughout the whole
country&mdash;small though it be. However, generally speaking, it may be
said that the Helvetic republic has remained almost a passive
spectator of the woman movement, though a few signs of progress are
worthy of note. The Catholic cantons lag behind those that have
adopted Protestantism, and the latter are led by Geneva. Though
subject to the Napoleonic code, Geneva has never known that
debasing law of the tutelage of women which existed for so long a
time in the other cantons, even in the intelligent canton of Vaud,
where it was abolished only in 1873. It was not until 1881 that a
federal statute put an end to the law throughout all Switzerland.
Geneva has always been very liberal in its treatment of married
women&mdash;divorce exists, excellent intermediate girls' schools were
created more than thirty years ago, and women are admitted to all
the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_910" id="Page_910">[Pg 910]</a></span> university lectures. Marie G&oelig;gg, the untiring leader of the
movement in that country, writes me:</p>

<blockquote><p>However, notwithstanding these examples of liberality, which
denote that the law-makers had a breadth of view in accord with
their time, Switzerland, as a whole, has been one of the least
disposed of European States to accept the idea of the civil
emancipation of woman, much less her political emancipation, so
that from 1848 to 1868 the demands of American women were
considered here to be the height of extravagance.... The seed
planted in America in 1848, though its growth was difficult,
finally began to take root in Europe. The hour had come. </p></blockquote>

<p>In March, 1868, Marie G&oelig;gg published a letter, in which she
invited the women of all nations to join with her in the formation
of a society. In July of that same year the Woman's International
Association was founded at Geneva with Marie G&oelig;gg as president.
The organization began immediately an active work, and through its
efforts, several of the reforms already mentioned were brought
about, and public opinion in Switzerland considerably enlightened
on the question. Mrs. G&oelig;gg says:</p>

<blockquote><p>With the object of advancing the young movement, I established at
my own risk a bi-monthly, the <i>Woman's Journal</i> (<i>Journal des
femmes</i>). But this was a violation of that good Latin motto,
<i>festina lenté</i>, and, at the end of a few months the paper
suspended publication. Swiss public opinion was not yet ready to
support such a venture.</p>

<p>It may be pointed out here that, except in England, all the
women's societies created in Europe had, up to the time of the
organization of the International Association refrained from
touching the question of the political rights of women. The Swiss
association, on the contrary, always included this subject in its
programme. But, unfortunately, at the moment when our efforts
were meeting with success, and the future was full of promise for
the cause which we advocated, the terrible Franco-German war
broke out, and, for various reasons unnecessary to go into here,
I felt constrained to resign the presidency, and the association
came to an end. </p></blockquote>

<p>Two years later the International Association was revived in the
form of the Solidarity (<i>Solidarité</i>), whose name signified the
spirit which ought to unite all women. In 1875 Mrs. G&oelig;gg became
president of the new organization as well as founder and editor of
its organ, the <i>Solidarity Bulletin</i> (<i>Bulletin de la Solidarité</i>).
But on September 20, 1880, both society and journal ceased to
exist. The president in her farewell address said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The dissolution of the Solidarity ought not to discourage us, but
ought rather to cause us to rejoice, for the recent creation of
so many women's national societies in different countries proves
that the Solidarity has accomplished its aim, so that we have
only to retire. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_911" id="Page_911">[Pg 911]</a></span></p>

<p>The striking success of university coëducation in Switzerland calls
for a few words of notice. Mrs. G&oelig;gg writes:</p>

<blockquote><p>In October, 1872, I sent a petition to the grand-council of
Geneva, asking that women be admitted to the university of Geneva
on the same footing as men. The state of public opinion on this
subject in Switzerland, and especially in Geneva, may be judged
from the fact that, fearing to compromise the demand if I acted
in my own name or that of the Solidarity, the petition was
presented as coming from "the mothers of Geneva." Our prayer was
granted. </p></blockquote>

<p>The number of women who have pursued studies at Geneva has steadily
increased every year. In 1878 the university of Neufchatel was
thrown open to women, while the university of Zurich has long had a
large number of female students. Professor Pflüger, of the
university of Bern, writing to me in April, 1883, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>From February 2, 1876, to the present time, thirty-five women
have taken degrees at our medical school. The lectures are
attended each semester on an average by from twenty-five to
thirty women, while from three to six follow the lectures on
philosophy and letters. The presence of women at our university
has occasioned no serious inconvenience and many colleagues favor
it. </p></blockquote>

<p>The rector of the university of Geneva wrote, February, 1883:</p>

<blockquote><p>Up to the present time the attendance of women at our university
has occasioned us no inconvenience except in some lectures of the
medical school, where the subjects are not always of a nature to
admit of their treatment before mixed classes. </p></blockquote>

<hr class="short" />

<p>We shall now glance at the situation of woman in the three
Scandinavian countries, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Sweden stands
first, just as Germany does among the Teutonic nations, and France
among the Latin nations; in fact we may perhaps go farther and say
that of all Continental States, Sweden leads in many respects at
least, in the revolution in favor of women.</p>

<p>The State, the royal family, private individuals, and, above all,
women themselves have all striven to outstrip each other in the
emancipation of Swedish women. Normal schools, high schools,
primary schools, the Royal Academy of Music and the Royal Academy
of Fine Arts, both at Stockholm, dairy schools and a host of other
educational institutions, both private and public, are thrown wide
open to women. The State has founded scholarships for women at
Upsala University and at the medical school of the university of
Lund. Numerous benevolent, charitable and<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_912" id="Page_912">[Pg 912]</a></span> industrial societies
have been established and in many instances are managed by women.
But the best idea may be gained of the liberal spirit which
prevails in Sweden by showing what the State has done for the
emancipation of women. For instance, in 1845, equality of
inheritance for son and daughter was established, and the wife was
given equal rights with the husband as regards the common property;
in 1846, woman was permitted to practice industrial professions and
to carry on business in her own name; in 1861, the professions of
surgery and dentistry were opened to her; in 1864, her rights in
trade and industrial pursuits were enlarged; in 1870, she was
admitted to the universities and medical profession; in 1872, a
woman of twenty-five was given the full right of disposing of
herself in marriage, the consent of parents and relations having
been necessary before that time; and in 1874, a married woman
became entitled to control that part of her private property set
aside for her personal use in the marriage contract, as well as to
possess her own earnings. The reforms in favor of married women are
in no small measure due to the society founded in 1871 by Mrs. E.
Anckarsvärd and Anna Hierta Retzius, whose aim was the
accomplishment of these very reforms.</p>

<p>A good beginning has been made toward securing full political
rights for Swedish women. In many matters relative to the
municipality, women vote on the same terms with men, as for
example, in the choice of the parish clergy, in the election of
municipal councilors, and members of the county council. This
latter body elects the House of Lords, so that woman's influence,
through an intermediate electoral body, is felt in the upper
chamber. May this not be one reason why the Swedish legislature has
been so liberal toward women? Demands have been made, but in vain,
for the complete franchise which would confer upon women the
privilege of voting for members of the diet. Woman's interests have
found a warm and energetic advocate in the <i>Home Review</i>
(<i>Tidskrift för Hemmet</i>), which was founded in 1859 by the Hon.
Rosalie d'Olivecrona and the Baroness Leyonhufoud, to-day the Hon.
Mrs. Adlersparre. The paper is still edited by the latter; Rosalie
d'Olivecrona, who has always been a most active friend of the woman
movement, having retired in 1868.</p>

<hr class="short" />

<p>If we cross the boundaries of Sweden into the sister kingdom of
Norway, we find the condition of woman absolutely changed.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_913" id="Page_913">[Pg 913]</a></span>
"Concerning Norway, I have said almost nothing," writes Camilla
Collett, the distinguished Norwegian author, in some notes which
she sent me recently on the situation of women in Scandinavia, "for
the very simple reason that there is little to say." The long and
oppressive domination of Denmark prostrated Norway, but her close
union with Sweden since the fall of Napoleon, has begun to have a
good effect, and the liberal influence of the latter country in
favor of woman is already beginning to be felt in the other half of
the Scandinavian peninsula. One step in advance has been the
opening of the university to women&mdash;"The best thing that can be
said of Norway," says Camilla Collett. Miss Cecilie Thoresen, the
first female student to matriculate at Christiania University,
writing to me from Eidsvold, Norway, in December, 1882, says it was
in 1880 that she decided to try and take an academic degree. Her
father, therefore, applied to the minister of public instruction
for the necessary authorization; the latter referred the
application to the university authorities, who, in their turn,
submitted the portentous question to the faculty of the law-school.
In due season Miss Thoresen received this rather unsatisfactory
response:</p>

<blockquote><p>The admission of women to the university is denied, but we
recognize the necessity for changing the law on the subject. </p></blockquote>

<p>Thereupon Mr. H. E. Berner, the prominent liberal member of the
Storthing, or Norwegian parliament, introduced a bill permitting
women to pursue university studies leading to the degrees in arts
and philosophy (<i>examen artium</i> and <i>examen philosophicum</i>). The
committee reported unanimously in favor of the bill; on March 30,
1882, it passed without debate the Odelsthing, one of the two
chambers of the Storthing, with but one dissenting voice&mdash;that of a
clergyman; on April 21, 1882, it received the unanimous vote of the
other house, the Lagthing; and it finally became a law on June 15,
1882. But Mr. Berner did not stop here. He once wrote me:</p>

<blockquote><p>In my opinion there hardly exists nowadays another social problem
which has a better claim on public attention than that of the
emancipation of women. Until they are placed on an equal footing
with men, we shall not have departed from the days of barbarism. </p></blockquote>

<p>In 1884, Mr. Berner succeeded in making it possible for women to
take all university degrees, the law of 1882 having opened to them
only the degrees in arts and philosophy. He is now pressing<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_914" id="Page_914">[Pg 914]</a></span> on the
attention of parliament other reforms in favor of women; and he has
recently written me that he believes that his efforts will be
crowned with success.</p>

<hr class="short" />

<p>In Denmark nothing has been done in the direction of political
rights, nothing for school suffrage, though the liberal movement of
1848 improved woman's legal position slightly. But the situation of
married women is still very unsatisfactory, for it may be summed up
by saying that her property and her children are controlled by the
husband. In 1879 many thousand women petitioned the legislature for
the right to their own earnings, and a law was passed to this
effect. During the last twenty years, thanks to the example set by
Sweden, much has been done to open to women the field of work. In
1875 the university consented to receive women, but as the State
furnishes them only primary instruction, and does nothing for their
intermediate instruction, leaving this broad gap to be filled by
private efforts, the educational situation of Danish women leaves
much to be desired. But the women themselves have turned their
attention to this matter, and high schools and professional schools
for women, and generally managed by women, are springing up.</p>

<p>Denmark has produced several journals devoted to the interests of
women and edited by women. The <i>Friday</i> (<i>Fredagen</i>), issued from
July, 1875, to 1879, was edited by Vilhelmine Zahle. It was a bold,
radical little sheet. The name was probably taken from the <i>Woman's
Journal and Friday Society</i>, which appeared at Copenhagen in 1767,
under the anonymous editorship of a woman. The <i>Woman's Review</i>
(<i>Tidsskrift for Kvinder</i>) began to appear in January, 1882. Its
editor, Elfride Fibiger, has associated with her Mr. Friïs, a very
earnest friend of the women's movement, who has given a more
progressive turn to the paper, which has come out for women's
suffrage&mdash;the first journal in Denmark to take this radical step.</p>

<p>Perhaps the most encouraging sign of progress is the foundation,
during the past few years, of numerous associations of women with
different objects in view. John Stuart Mill's "Subjection of
Women," which was translated into Danish and widely read; the
"Letters from Clara Raphael," of Mathilde Fibiger, which appeared
still earlier, in 1850; the writings of Camilla Collett, of Norway;
the liberal utterances of the great poets of the North, Björnsen,
Hostrup and Ibsen, whose "Nora" has<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_915" id="Page_915">[Pg 915]</a></span> rightfully procured for him
the title of "Woman's Poet"; the great progress in America, England
and Sweden; all these influences stimulated thought, weakened
prejudices and prepared the way for reforms in the Danish
peninsula. Kirstine Frederiksen, of Copenhagen, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is plainly evident that Danish women are weary of the part
allotted to them in the old society, a part characterized by the
sentiment that the best that can be said of a woman is that there
is nothing to say about her.... When, in due time, the claim for
political rights is made here in Denmark, then will women from
all classes unite in their efforts to secure the palladium which
alone can protect them from arbitrariness and subjection. </p></blockquote>

<hr class="short" />

<p>We shall now take up the Slavonic countries, beginning with Russia,
which stands first, not only because of its vastness, but also
because of its liberality toward women. The position of the Russian
women before the law is very peculiar. Children, whatever their age
and whether male or female, are never emancipated from the control
of their parents. The daughter can only escape from this authority,
and then only in a limited degree, by marriage, and the son by
entering the service of the State. In the provinces alone girls of
twenty-one may marry without the parents' consent. The married
woman is in the full power of her husband, though she is the
mistress of her own fortune. Divorce exists. Russian women vote on
an equality with men for members of the municipal councils and
county assemblies, and these two bodies choose the boards which
transact the public business, such as superintending the collection
of taxes, keeping the roads in order, directing the schools, etc.
The Russian woman does, not however, appear at the polls, but is
represented by some male relative or friend (as we have already
seen in Austria) who casts the vote for her. Thus the Russian
woman, except that she is ineligible to office, possesses all the
political rights of the Russian man&mdash;a privilege, however, that is
of little value in a country where liberty is crushed under the
iron heel of autocracy. The position of the Russian peasant women
is not as good as that of the women of the upper classes. They find
some comfort, however, in the doctrines of the rapidly spreading
religious sects, which resemble somewhat the American Revivalists
or Anabaptists. In fact, the subject condition of Russian women is
one of the chief causes of the growth of these sects; down-trodden
by society and the State, they seek liberty in religion. In some of
these sects women preach. Miss Maria<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_916" id="Page_916">[Pg 916]</a></span> Zebrikoff, an able Russian
writer, sends me this curious information:</p>

<blockquote><p>We have lately heard of a new sect which preaches a doctrine
exalting woman. She is placed above man, because she can give
birth to another being. Her pain and travail are so great, that
alleviating the other sufferings and annoyances of woman would be
but a poor reward; she is entitled to the deepest gratitude of
mankind. </p></blockquote>

<p>Thought concerning the emancipation of woman was first awakened
among the upper classes about 1840, inspired by George Sand, but
was confined to a narrow circle of men of science and authors. The
new ideas continued to exist in a latent form until the freedom of
the serfs in 1860, when they burst forth into life. The reforms of
the last reign, the abolishment of bureaucratic government and the
emancipation of the slaves, advanced the cause of woman, for the
daughters of the office-holders and land-owners, reduced to poverty
by these changes, were forced to go forth into the world and earn
their own living. Woman's success in the walks of higher
education&mdash;especially in medicine&mdash;has been a great victory for the
friends of the rights of woman. The government, the professors of
the university and women themselves have all united, more or less
heartily, in a common effort to give Russian women facilities for a
complete education. The first woman's medical school in Russia owes
its origin to a donation of 50,000 rubles from a woman. The war
department&mdash;for Russia thinks of medicine only in its relation to
the army&mdash;came to the aid of the new movement, and the medical
profession, though in a restricted manner, was thrown open to
women.<a name="FNanchor_574_574" id="FNanchor_574_574"></a><a href="#Footnote_574_574" class="fnanchor">[574]</a> As yet women physicians may treat only diseases of
women and children, but, notwithstanding this drawback, there are
fifty-two women physicians in St. Petersburg and two hundred and
fifty in Russia. During the last war with Turkey twenty women
physicians did noble work in the army. Women flock to the
universities in great numbers. An attempt has been made to render
the profession of law accessible to them, but the government has
prohibited it. It is expected that ere long women will be
professors in the university. The chemical, medical and legal
associations have already received women into membership.</p>

<p>In literature Russian women take an active part; reviews,
magazines, and political journals counting many women among their<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_917" id="Page_917">[Pg 917]</a></span>
contributors and in some cases their directors. Writes Maria
Zebrikoff:</p>

<blockquote><p>It is especially in the domain of fiction that Russian women
excel. After the two renowned names of Tourguéneff and Tolstoi,
the greatest genius of which our contemporary literature can
boast is Krestowsky, the pseudonym of woman. </p></blockquote>

<p>"The reäctionary party," exclaims the same lady with enthusiasm,
"counts in its ranks no woman distinguished for thought or talent."
Even this brief glance at woman's position in Russia conclusively
proves that when the day of liberty comes to the great Cossack
empire, the women will be as thoroughly fitted to enter upon all
the duties of citizenship as the men. The women of no other
continental nation are perhaps better prepared for complete
emancipation than those of Russia. Here, as in several other
respects, autocratic Russia resembles free America. The good-will
of every transatlantic friend of woman's elevation should ever go
forth to this brave, struggling people of the North.</p>

<p>The civil law of the kingdom of Poland, a part of Russia, has been,
since 1809, the Napoleonic code; the other Polish provinces of
Russia are subject to Russian law. Under the former, the woman has
an equal share in the patrimony; but the married woman is a
perpetual minor. According to the Russian code, on the contrary, a
girl receives only a fourteenth part of the patrimony; and when a
distant relative dies, brothers alone inherit. But a woman has
absolute control of her own property: and when she becomes of age,
at twenty-one, she may buy, own, sell, without being subjected to
any tutelage, without requiring the consent of the husband&mdash;the
very contrary of the Napoleonic code. This same thing is true in
several other particulars, a striking illustration of the fact that
much-abused Russian civilization is in some respects superior to
the much-vaunted Latin civilization. In regard to education, the
Polish woman is not so well off. In the primary schools alone does
she enjoy equal rights; in secondary education she has far fewer
advantages than the boy; while as for university instruction, she
is forced to seek it in Russia or in foreign lands, the Polish
universities being absolutely closed against her. In the Polish
provinces under direct Russian authority, the State does nothing
whatever for woman's instruction; and in the kingdom of Poland, the
same thing is true except in the matter of primary instruction.
Polish<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_918" id="Page_918">[Pg 918]</a></span> women may practice medicine, if, besides this foreign
diploma, they also pass an examination before the medical school of
St. Petersburg. Tomaszewicz Dobrska is one of the few Polish women
who has succeeded in this difficult field.</p>

<p>The Academy of Fine Arts at Cracow is open to men alone, but
Madeline Andrzejkowicz has endeavored to fill the gap by
establishing at Warsaw a school of painting for women. The first
woman's industrial school was founded in 1874 at Warsaw, and during
the first six years, to 1880, it had 743 scholars. Establishments
of this kind are now quite numerous in the kingdom, but, for
political reasons, they have not been founded in the Polish
provinces of Russia. The unfortunate political situation of Poland,
which robs even men of their rights, is an insurmountable obstacle
in the way of the emancipation of women. There are, however, many
encouraging signs of progress. At Warsaw there is more than one
newspaper edited by a woman. Marie Ilnicka has owned and edited for
more than sixteen years, at the capital, a paper which is widely
read and which has great influence. It is no uncommon thing for
women to deliver public lectures, which are very popular and draw
large houses. Elise Orzeszko, the distinguished Polish novelist,
tells me:</p>

<blockquote><p>We have confidence in the efforts of the men who are leading
society and who are sacrificing their talents and earnestly
toiling to advance liberal ideas. In the meanwhile our duty is to
awaken thought on the question of woman's rights, so that when a
better day does come to Poland, women may be ready to participate
in the common welfare. </p></blockquote>

<hr class="short" />

<p>But we cannot close this brief sketch without mentioning the
Orient, that region of transition between the darkness of Asia and
the light of occidental Europe; for, though the position of woman
is in general so lamentable that at first glance it seems best to
pass over this portion of the continent in silence, one catches
here and there a glimmer of progress that portends a better day in
the still distant future. And, too, regenerate Greece commands our
attention, for she indeed is a rich oasis in this desert of
Mohammedan conquest.</p>

<p>There are many Ottoman women, especially among the rich families,
who desire to change their dress and enter into relations with the
women of other religions, but the ecclesiastical and civil
authorities are always ready to check this tendency and to
rigorously enforce the ancient customs. In certain harems earnest<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_919" id="Page_919">[Pg 919]</a></span>
efforts have been made to establish true family life and to bring
up the children under the eye and care of the parents, with the aid
of foreign governesses, who, along with the languages, inculcate
the habits and manners of occidental nations. Vain attempts have
been made to found girls' schools. There are noble natures who long
for amelioration of their state, and for progress, but fanaticism
condemns everything to mortal stagnation.</p>

<p>The Jewish woman leads a contracted, monotonous existence under the
authority of the priest. The wives of many rich bankers have tried
to do something to improve the condition of Hebrew women by
founding aid societies, primary schools, and normal schools. The
Bulgarian women of the country enjoy an agricultural and pastoral
life, and those of the city are simple and primitive in their
habits and customs. But little has been done for woman's
instruction, though some worthy attempts have been made to
establish schools. The hope of the regeneration of the Oriental
woman lies in the influence of Greek civilization. The emancipation
of the Greek woman means the emancipation of the Turkish woman.</p>

<p>The Greek woman in the Orient must be studied under two heads: the
Greek woman in Turkey and the Greek woman in Greece. In both cases
we find them filled with the spirit of western
civilization&mdash;perhaps it would be better to say, with the spirit of
their classic ancestors. Primary, secondary and normal schools,
asylums, hospitals, societies&mdash;all for women and generally managed
by women&mdash;are found in all the Greek centers of Turkey. Calliope A.
Kechayia, the cultured principal of the Zappion, the famous girls'
college at Constantinople, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>The intellectual condition of the Greek woman in the Orient is,
generally speaking, not inferior to that of women in many parts
of Europe; and as regards the instruction of the girls of the
lower classes, it is much superior to that of several Latin
countries. </p></blockquote>

<p>The Greek woman in Greece differs essentially from the Oriental
woman. With the independence of Greece came a great patriotic
movement for the building up of the new nationality, a movement in
which women took a most active and prominent part. Several American
women, especially Mrs. Hill, lent their aid and founded the first
girls' school at Athens. "A whole generation of women," says a
Greek lady, "distinguished for their social and family virtues,
received their education in this<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_920" id="Page_920">[Pg 920]</a></span> college." An association of
Greeks soon afterward established a normal school for women. The
Greek government also early took up the question of popular
education without excluding women from its plans. The way in which
young Greek schoolmistresses hastened all over the peninsula,
spreading knowledge, the Greek language and their own enthusiasm
throughout the newly liberated nation, is one of the most unique
episodes in modern history. "It is true and beyond dispute," I am
told by Miss Kechayia, "that the Greece of to-day owes its rapid
progress and its Greek instruction to its women." But the Greek
woman is more than a school-mistress. The wife of a public man has
other than social duties to occupy her. She often represents her
husband before his constituents. She participates actively and
usefully in many of his political affairs. It frequently happens
that the wife goes into the provinces to solicit votes for her
husband, and sometimes in drawing-room lectures she defends his
political conduct. "In truth these facts would not be believed by a
foreigner if he had not seen them with his own eyes," I was once
told by a Greek. Associations of various kinds have been formed by
women during the past few years, and there is at least one instance
of a woman lecturing in public on literary topics. However, woman's
rights in the American sense has not yet penetrated into Greece,
but from what has just been said it will be seen that when that day
comes, the reform will find a soil well prepared for its reception.</p>

<hr class="short" />

<p>Such is a brief and general view of the present status of the Woman
Question on the European Continent. It will have been constantly
noticed in the preceding pages that in every country there are
evidences of progress. Public opinion in the Old World is slowly
but surely accepting Voltaire's statement when the broad-minded
philosopher says, with a dash of French gallantry: "Women are
capable of doing everything we do, with this single difference
between them and us, that they are more amiable than we are." In
matters of instruction, the ideas of Montesquieu and Aimé Martin
are gaining ground. "The powers of the sexes," wrote the
penetrating author of the "Spirit of the Laws," "would be equal if
their education were, too. Test women in the talents that have not
been enfeebled by the way they have been educated, and we will then
see if we are so strong." "It is in spite of our stupid system of
education," declared Aimé Martin,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_921" id="Page_921">[Pg 921]</a></span> more than fifty years ago, "that
women have an idea, a mind and a soul." And even the more radical
utterances of the late Eugène Pelletan find an echo. "By keeping
women outside of politics," once said the distinguished senator,
"the soul of our country is diminished by one-half." No wonder then
that Frances Power Cobbe likens this revolution to the irresistible
waves of the ocean. "Of all the movements, political, social and
religious, of past ages, there is, I think," writes Miss Cobbe,
"not one so unmistakably tide-like in its extension and the
uniformity of its impulse, as that which has taken place within
living memory among the women of almost every race on the globe.
Other agitations, reforms and revolutions have pervaded and lifted
up classes, tribes, nations, churches. But this movement has
stirred an entire sex, even half the human race. * * * When the
time comes to look back on the slow, universal awakening of women
all over the globe, on their gradual entrance into one privileged
profession after another, on the attainment by them of rights of
person and property, and, at last, on their admission to the full
privileges of citizenship, it will be acknowledged that of all the
'Decisive Battles of History,' this has been, to the moralist and
philosopher, the most interesting; even as it will be (I cannot
doubt) the one followed by the happiest Peace which the world has
ever seen."</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_566_566" id="Footnote_566_566"></a><a href="#FNanchor_566_566"><span class="label">[566]</span></a> This chapter is, in large part, a résumé of Mr.
Stanton's valuable work "The Woman Question in Europe," published
in 1884 by the Putnams of New York, to which we refer the reader
who desires to study more in detail the European movement for
women.&mdash;[<span class="smcap">The Editors.</span></p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_567_567" id="Footnote_567_567"></a><a href="#FNanchor_567_567"><span class="label">[567]</span></a> The United States was represented by Albert Brisbane
and Mrs. Brisbane, of New York; Elizabeth Chalmers and Mrs.
Gibbons, of Philadelphia; Colonel T. W. Higginson, of
Massachusetts; Miss Hotchkiss, Fernando Jones and his wife and
daughter, Jane Graham Jones and Genevieve Graham Jones (now Mrs.
Geo. R. Grant), Mrs. Klumpke and her two daughters, of Chicago;
Mrs. Party and Louisa Southworth, of Ohio.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_568_568" id="Footnote_568_568"></a><a href="#FNanchor_568_568"><span class="label">[568]</span></a> Before closing this brief sketch, I desire to
mention with deep gratitude the name of the man who first lifted up
his voice in the Italian parliament to defend and protect women.
Salvatore Morelli deserves the veneration of every Italian woman.
His first book, "Woman and Science" (<i>La Donna e la Scienza</i>),
dedicated to Antona Traversi, was animated by a just and noble
spirit, too radical, however, to meet with universal approbation.
When he entered parliament, Morelli, with the same courage,
constancy, and radicalism, demanded the complete emancipation of
women. Conservatives laughed, and many friends of our movement
trembled for the cause. Ably seconded by Mancini, he succeeded in
securing for women the right to testify in civil actions, a dignity
which they had not previously enjoyed, although, by an absurd
contradiction they could be witnesses in criminal cases, convict of
murder by a single word and send the criminal to the scaffold. One
of Morelli's last acts was a divorce bill which was examined by the
Chamber. Guardasigilli Tomman Villa, the then Minister of Justice,
was inclined to accept it, but death, which occurred in 1880, saved
poor Morelli the pain of seeing his proposition rejected. An appeal
to women has been made to raise a modest monument to Salvatore
Morelli in memory of his good deeds, by Aurelia Cimino Folliero de
Luna. The author of this essay has been requested to receive
subscriptions to this fund. Such subscriptions will be acknowledged
and forwarded to the Italian Committee. They should be addressed to
Theodore Stanton, 9 rue de Bassano, Paris, France.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_569_569" id="Footnote_569_569"></a><a href="#FNanchor_569_569"><span class="label">[569]</span></a> The American members are as follows: Massachusetts,
Julia Ward Howe, Lucy Stone; Illinois, Jane Graham Jones, Miss
Hotchkiss; New York, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony,
Theodore Stanton; Pennsylvania, Mrs. Gibbons, of Philadelphia.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_570_570" id="Footnote_570_570"></a><a href="#FNanchor_570_570"><span class="label">[570]</span></a> The office of this journal is 12, rue de Cail,
Paris.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_571_571" id="Footnote_571_571"></a><a href="#FNanchor_571_571"><span class="label">[571]</span></a> The office of this journal is 4, rue des Deux-Gares,
Paris.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_572_572" id="Footnote_572_572"></a><a href="#FNanchor_572_572"><span class="label">[572]</span></a> See the <i>Index</i>, of Boston, May 19, 1881, where I
give in full this remarkable speech.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_573_573" id="Footnote_573_573"></a><a href="#FNanchor_573_573"><span class="label">[573]</span></a> What is said of Austria in this respect further on
in this chapter will apply to Italy if the proposed reform is
finally accepted by parliament.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_574_574" id="Footnote_574_574"></a><a href="#FNanchor_574_574"><span class="label">[574]</span></a> Recent reforms in the war department call for
economy, and the minister has been forced to refuse the usual
subsidy for the support of the woman's medical courses and they are
unfortunately in a very critical situation. The result will
probably be the foundation of medical colleges for women
independent of government aid.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_922" id="Page_922">[Pg 922]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="CHAPTER_LVIII" id="CHAPTER_LVIII"></a>CHAPTER LVIII.</h2>

<h3>REMINISCENCES.</h3>

<h4>BY E. C. S.</h4>


<p><span class="sc">Reaching</span> London amidst the fogs and mists of November, 1882, the
first person I met, after a separation of many years, was our
revered and beloved friend, William Henry Channing. The tall,
graceful form was somewhat bent; the sweet, thoughtful face
somewhat sadder; the crimes and miseries of the world seemed more
heavy on his heart than ever. With his refined, nervous
organization, the gloomy moral and physical atmosphere of London
was the last place on earth where that beautiful life should have
ended. I found him in earnest conversation with my daughter and a
young Englishman soon to be married, advising them not only as to
the importance of the step they were about to take, but as to the
minor points to be observed in the ceremony. At the appointed time
a few friends gathered in Portland-street chapel, and as we
approached the altar, our friend appeared in surplice and gown, his
pale, spiritual face more tender and beautiful than ever. This was
the last marriage service he ever performed, and it was as pathetic
as original, his whole appearance so in harmony with the exquisite
sentiments he uttered that we who listened felt as if for the time
being we had entered with him into the Holy of Holies.</p>

<p>Some time after, Miss Anthony and I called on him, to return our
thanks for the very complimentary review he had written of the
History of Woman Suffrage. He thanked us in turn for the many
pleasant memories we had revived in those pages, which he said had
been as entertaining as a novel; "but," said he, "they have filled
me with indignation, too, over the repeated insults offered to
women so earnestly engaged in honest endeavors for the uplifting of
mankind. I blushed for my sex more than once in reading these
volumes." We lingered long in talking over the events connected
with this great struggle for freedom. He dwelt with tenderness on
our divisions and disappointments, and entered<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_923" id="Page_923">[Pg 923]</a></span> more fully into the
humiliations suffered by women than any man we ever met. His
conversation that day was fully as appreciative of the nice points
in the degradation of sex as is John Stuart Mill in his wonderful
work on "The Subjection of Woman." He was intensely interested in
Frances Power Cobbe's efforts to suppress the vivisectionists, and
the last time I saw him he was presiding at a parlor meeting at
Mrs. Wolcott Brown's, when Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell gave an
admirable address on the causes and cure of the social evil. Mr.
Channing spoke beautifully in closing, paying a warm and merited
compliment to Miss Blackwell's clear and concise review of all the
difficulties involved in the question.</p>

<p>Reading so much of English reformers in our journals, of the
Brights, the McLarens, the Taylors, of Lydia Becker, Caroline
Biggs, Josephine Butler and Octavia Hill, and of their great
demonstrations with lords and members of parliament in the chair,
we had longed to compare the actors in those scenes with our
speakers and conventions on this side the water. At last we met
them, one and all, in London, York, Manchester, Liverpool, Glasgow,
Edinburgh, in great public meetings and parlor reunions, at dinners
and receptions, listened to their public men in parliament, the
courts and the pulpit, to the women in their various assemblies,
and came to the conclusion that Americans surpass them in oratory
and the spirited manner in which they conduct meetings. They have
no system of elocution in England such as we have&mdash;a thorough
training of the voice, in what is called vocal gymnastics. A
hesitating, apologetic way seems to be the national idea for an
exordium on all questions. Even their ablest men who have visited
this country, such as Kingsley, Stanley, Arnold, Spencer, Tyndal,
Huxley, and Canon Farrar, have all been criticised by the American
public for their stammering enunciation. They have no speakers to
compare with Wendell Phillips and George William Curtis, or Anna
Dickinson and Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins. John Bright is without a peer
among his countrymen, as are Mrs. Bessant and Miss Helen Taylor
among the women. Miss Tod, from Belfast, is a good speaker. The
women, as a general thing, are more fluent than the men; those of
the Bright family in all its branches have deep, rich voices.</p>

<p>Among the young women, Mrs. Fawcett, Mrs. Charles McLaren, Mrs.
Scatcherd, Miss Henrietta Müller, Mrs. Fenwick<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_924" id="Page_924">[Pg 924]</a></span> Miller, and Lady
Harberton, all speak with comparative ease and self-possession. The
latter is striving to introduce for her countrywomen a new style of
dress, in which all the garments are bifurcated, but so skillfully
adjusted in generous plaits and folds, that while the wearer enjoys
the utmost freedom, the casual observer is quite ignorant of the
innovation. We attended one of their public meetings for the
discussion of that question, at which Miss King, Mrs. Charles
McLaren, and Lady Harberton appeared in the new costume. All spoke
in its defense, and were very witty and amusing in criticising the
present feminine forms and fashions. Lady Harberton gave us a
delightful entertainment one evening at her fine residence on
Cromwell Road, where we laughed enough to dissipate the depressing
effect of the fogs for a week to come over the recitations of
Corney Green on the piano. There, among many other celebrities, we
met Moncure D. Conway<a name="FNanchor_575_575" id="FNanchor_575_575"></a><a href="#Footnote_575_575" class="fnanchor">[575]</a> and his charming wife.</p>

<p>I reached England in time to attend the great demonstration in
Glasgow to celebrate the extension of the municipal franchise to
the women of Scotland. It was a remarkable occasion. St. Andrew's
immense hall was packed with women; a few men were admitted to the
gallery at half a crown apiece. It was said there were 5,000 people
present. When a Scotch audience is thoroughly roused, nothing can
equal the enthusiasm. The arriving of the speakers on the platform
was announced with the wildest applause, the entire audience
rising, waving their handkerchiefs, and clapping their hands, and
every compliment paid the people was received with similar
outbursts of pleasure. Mrs. McLaren, a sister of John Bright,<a name="FNanchor_576_576" id="FNanchor_576_576"></a><a href="#Footnote_576_576" class="fnanchor">[576]</a>
presided, and made the opening speech. I had the honor, on this
occasion, of addressing an audience for the first time in the old
world. Many others spoke briefly. There were too many speakers; no
one had time to warm up to the point of eloquence. Our system of
conventions of two or three days, with long speeches discussing
pointed and radical resolutions, is quite unknown in England. Their
meetings consist of one session of a few hours into which they
crowd all the speakers they can summon together. They have a few<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_925" id="Page_925">[Pg 925]</a></span>
tame resolutions on which there can be no possible difference of
opinion printed, with the names of those who are to speak appended.
Each of these is read, a few short speeches made, that may or may
not have the slightest reference to the resolution, which is then
passed. The last is usually one of thanks to some lord or member of
parliament who may have condescended to preside at the meeting, or
to do something for the measure in parliament; it is spoken to like
all that have gone before. The Queen is referred to tenderly in
most of the speeches, although she has never done anything to merit
the approbation of the advocates of suffrage for woman. As on this
occasion a woman conducted the meeting, much of the usual red tape
was omitted.</p>

<p>From Glasgow quite a large party of the Brights and McLarens went
to Edinburgh, where the Hon. Duncan McLaren gave us a warm welcome
to Newington House, under the very shadow of the Salisbury crags.
These and the Pentland Hills are the remarkable feature in the
landscape as you approach this beautiful city, with its monuments
and castles on which are written the history of the centuries. We
passed a few charming days driving about, visiting old friends, and
discussing the status of woman on both sides of the Atlantic. Here
we met Elizabeth Pease Nichol, Jane and Eliza Wigham, whom I had
not seen since we sat together in the World's Anti-slavery
Convention in London in 1840, Yet I knew Mrs. Nichol at once; her
strongly-marked face is one not readily forgotten.</p>

<p>I went with the family on Sunday to Friends' meeting, where a most
unusual manifestation for that decorous sect occurred. I had been
told that if I felt inclined, it would be considered quite proper
for me to make some remarks, and just as I was revolving an opening
sentence to a few thoughts I desired to present, a man arose in a
remote part of the house, and began in a low voice to give his
testimony as to the truth that was in him. All eyes were turned
toward him, when suddenly a friend leaned over the back of the
seat, seized his coat-tails and jerked him down in a most emphatic
manner. The poor man buried his face in his hands, and maintained a
profound silence. I learned afterwards that he was a bore, and the
friend in the rear thought it wise to nip him in the bud. This
scene put to flight all intentions of speaking on my part, lest I,
too, might get outside the prescribed limits, and be suppressed by
force. I dined with Mrs. Nichol at Huntly Lodge, where she has
entertained in turn many of our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_926" id="Page_926">[Pg 926]</a></span> American reformers. Her walls have
echoed to the voices of Garrison, Rogers, Samuel J. May, Parker
Pillsbury, Henry C. Wright, Douglass and Remond, and hosts of
English philanthropists. Though over eighty, she is still awake on
all questions of the hour, and generous in her hospitalities as of
yore.</p>

<p>Later, Miss Anthony, in company with Mrs. Rebecca Moore, spent
several weeks in Edinburgh looking over Mrs. Nichol's voluminous
correspondence with the anti-slavery apostles, to see if anything
of interest could be gleaned for these volumes. She found Mrs.
Moore as a traveling companion better than the most approved
encyclopedia, as she possessed all possible information on every
subject and locality, so that all Miss Anthony had to do was to
keep her ears open whenever she was sufficiently rested to listen.
There, too, Miss Anthony visited Dr. Agnes McLaren, in her
<i>recherché</i> home, and found her as charming in the social circle as
she was said to be skillful in her profession. She spent several
days also with Dr. Jex Blake, and from her lips heard the full
account of her prolonged struggle to open the medical college to
women, and to secure for them as students equal recognition. After
listening to all the humiliations to which they had been subjected,
and their final expulsion from the university, and of the riots in
Edinburgh, Miss Anthony felt that Dr. Jex Blake had fought the
battle with great wisdom and heroism. The failure of the experiment
in that university was not due to a want of tact in the women who
led the movement, but to the natural bigotry and obstinacy of the
Scotch people, the universal hostility of the medical professors to
all innovations, and the antagonism men feel towards women as
competitors in the sciences and professions. Before leaving
Edinburgh a public reception was tendered to Miss Anthony, Mrs.
Nichol presiding. Professor Blackie, Mrs. Jessie Wellstood, and the
honored guest herself, did the speaking. With refreshments and
conversation it was altogether a pleasant occasion.</p>

<p>In the meantime I was making new friends in the other parts of the
kingdom. Mrs. Margaret Lucas, whose whole soul is in the temperance
movement, escorted me from Edinburgh to Manchester, to be present
at another great demonstration in the Town Hall, the finest
building in that district. It had just been completed, and, with
its ante-rooms, dining hall, and various apartments for social
entertainments, was altogether the most perfect hall I had seen in
England. There I was entertained by Mrs.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_927" id="Page_927">[Pg 927]</a></span> Matilda Roby, who, with
her husband, gave me a most hospitable reception. She invited
several friends to luncheon one day, among others, Miss Lydia
Becker, editor of the <i>Suffrage Journal</i> in that city, and the Rev.
Mr. Steinthal, who had visited this country and spoken on our
platform. The chief topic at the table was John Stuart Mill, his
life, character, writings, and his position with reference to the
political rights of woman. In the evening we went to see Ristori in
Queen Elizabeth. Having seen her many years before in America, I
was surprised to find her still so vigorous. And thus, from week to
week, were suffrage meetings, receptions, dinners, luncheons and
theatres pleasantly alternated.</p>

<p>The following Sunday we heard a grand sermon from Moncure D.
Conway, and had a pleasant interview with him and Mrs. Conway at
the close of the sessions. Later we spent a few pleasant days at
their artistic home, filled with books, pictures, and mementoes
from loving friends. A billiard-room with well-worn cues and balls
may in a measure account for his vigorous sermons&mdash;quite a novel
adjunct to a parsonage. A garden reception there to Mr. and Mrs.
Howells, gave us an opportunity to see the American novelist
surrounded by his admiring friends. Howells and Hawthorne seemed to
be great favorites in the literary circles of England at that time,
but I never read one of their novels without regretting for the
honor of American women that they had not painted more vigorous and
piquant characters for their heroines.</p>

<p>One was always sure of meeting some Americans worth knowing at the
Conway's in Bedford Park. We dined there with Mary Clemmer and Mr.
Hudson, just after their marriage, and a bright, pretty daughter of
Murat Halstead, who chatted as gaily among the staid English as on
her native heath. There, too, we first saw Mrs. William Mellen with
her daughters, from Colorado Springs, now residing in London for
the purpose of educating a family of seven children,<a name="FNanchor_577_577" id="FNanchor_577_577"></a><a href="#Footnote_577_577" class="fnanchor">[577]</a> although
there is no so fitting place to educate children to the duties of
citizens of a republic, as under our own free institutions. If
possessed of wealth, they readily adopt aristocratic ideas, and
enjoy the distinctions of class they find in all monarchical
countries, which totally unfit them for<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_928" id="Page_928">[Pg 928]</a></span> properly appreciating the
democratic principles it is our interest to cherish at home.</p>

<p>The Sunday after Mr. Conway left for Australia, I was invited to
fill his pulpit. Spending a few days with Mrs. Conway, we attended
the Ladies' Club one afternoon. The leading spirits seemed to be
Miss Orme and Miss Richardson, both attorneys in practice, with an
office in London, though not yet regularly admitted to the Queen's
Bench. The topic of discussion was the well-worn theme&mdash;the
education of girls; but no one seemed quite prepared to take off
all the ligatures from their bodies and the fears of everything
known or unknown from their minds, and leave them for a season to
grow as nature intended, that we might find out by seeing them in
their normal condition what their real wants and needs might be. I
suggested for their next topic, the proper education of boys, which
was accepted. I retired that night very nervous over my sermon for
the next day, and the feeling steadily increased until I reached
the platform; but once there, my fears were all dissipated, and I
never enjoyed speaking more than on that occasion, for I had been
so long oppressed with the degradation of woman under canon law and
church discipline that I had a sense of relief in pouring out my
indignation.</p>

<p>My theme was, "What has Christianity done for Woman?" and by the
facts of history, I showed clearly that to no form of religion was
woman indebted for one impulse of freedom, as all alike have taught
her inferiority and subjection to man. No lofty virtues can emanate
from such a condition. Whatever heights of dignity and purity women
have individually attained, can in no way be attributed to the
dogmas of their religion.</p>

<p>With my son Theodore, always deeply interested in my friends and
public work, we called on Mrs. Gray, Miss Jessie Boucherett and Dr.
Hoggan, who had written essays for "The Woman Question in Europe";
on our American minister, Mr. Lowell, Mr. and Mrs. George W.
Smalley, and many other notable men and women. By appointment we
had an hour with the Hon. John Bright at his residence on
Piccadilly. As his photograph, with his fame, had reached America,
his fine face and head, as well as his political opinions, were
quite familiar to us. He received us with great cordiality, and
manifested a clear knowledge, and deep interest in regard to all
American affairs. Free trade and woman suffrage formed the basis of
our conversation; the literature of our respective countries, our
great men and women, the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_929" id="Page_929">[Pg 929]</a></span> lighter topics of the occasion. He is not
sound in regard to the political rights of women, but it is not
given to any one man to be equally clear on all questions. He voted
for John Stuart Mill's amendment to the "Household Suffrage Bill,"
in 1867, but, as he said, as a personal favor to a friend, without
any strong convictions as to the merits of what he considered "a
purely sentimental measure."</p>

<p>We attended the meeting called to rejoice over the passage of the
Married Woman's Property bill, which gave to the women of England
in 1882 what we had enjoyed in many States in this country since
1848. Mrs. Jacob Bright, Mrs. Scatcherd, Mrs. Almy, and several
members of parliament made short speeches of congratulation to
those who had been instrumental in carrying the measure. It was
generally conceded that to the tact and persistence of Mrs. Bright,
more than to any other one person, belonged the credit of that
achievement. Hon. Jacob Bright was at that time a member of
parliament, and fully in sympathy with the bill; and while Mrs.
Bright exerted all her social influence to make it popular with the
members, her husband, thoroughly versed in parliamentary tactics,
availed himself of every technicality to push the bill through the
House of Commons. Mrs. Bright's chief object in securing this bill,
aside from establishing the right every human being has to his own
property, was, to lift married women on an even plane with widows
and spinsters, thereby making them qualified voters.</p>

<p>The next day we went out to Barn Elms to visit Mr. and Mrs. Chas.
McLaren. Mr. McLaren, a Quaker by birth and education, has
sustained to his uttermost the suffrage movement, and his charming
little wife, the daughter of Mrs. Pochin, is worthy the noble
mother who was among the earliest leaders on this question,
speaking and writing with equal ability on all phases of the
subject. Barn Elms is a grand old estate, a few miles out of
London. It was the dairy farm of Queen Elizabeth, and presented by
her to Sir Francis Walsingham. Since then it has been inhabited by
many persons of note. It has existed as an estate since the time of
the early Saxon Kings, and the record of the sale of Barn Elms in
the time of King Athelston is still extant. What with its well-kept
lawns, fine old trees, and glimpses here and there of the Thames
winding round its borders, and its wealth of old associations, it
is indeed a charming spot. Our memory of those days will not go
back to Saxon Kings, but remain<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_930" id="Page_930">[Pg 930]</a></span> with the liberal host and hostess,
the beautiful children and the many charming acquaintances we met
at that fireside. I doubt whether any of the ancient lords and
ladies who dispensed their hospitalities under that roof, did in
any way surpass the present occupants. Mrs. McLaren, interested in
all the reforms of the day, is radical in her ideas, a brilliant
talker, and, for one so young, remarkably well informed on all
political questions. One thing is certain, those old walls never
echoed to more rebellious talk among women against existing
conditions,<a name="FNanchor_578_578" id="FNanchor_578_578"></a><a href="#Footnote_578_578" class="fnanchor">[578]</a> than on that evening.</p>

<p>It was at Barn Elms I met for the first time Mrs. Fannie Hertz, to
whom I was indebted for many pleasant acquaintances afterwards. She
is said to know more distinguished literary people than any other
woman in London. I saw her, too, several times in her own cozy
home, meeting at her Sunday-afternoon receptions many persons I was
desirous to know. On one occasion I found George Jacob Holyoake
there, surrounded by a bevy of young ladies, all stoutly defending
the Nihilists in Russia, and their right to plot their way to
freedom; they counted a dynasty of Czars as nothing in the balance
with the liberties of a whole people. As I joined the circle Mr.
Holyoake called my attention to the fact that he was the only one
in favor of peaceful measures among all those ladies. "Now," said
he, "I have often heard it said on your platform, that the feminine
element in politics would bring about perpetual peace in
government, and here all these ladies are advocating the worst
forms of violence in the name of liberty." "Ah," said I, "lay on
their shoulders the responsibility of governing, and they would
soon become as mild and conservative as you seem to be." He then
gave us his views on coöperation, the only remedy for many existing
evils, which he thought would be the next step toward a higher
civilization.</p>

<p>There, too, I met some Positivists, who, though quite reasonable on
religious questions, were very narrow on the sphere of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_931" id="Page_931">[Pg 931]</a></span> woman. The
difference in sex, which is the very reason why men and women
should be associated in all spheres of activity, they make the
strongest reason why they should be separated. Mrs. Hertz belongs
to the Harrison school of Positivists. I went with her to one of
Mrs. Orr's receptions, where we met Robert Browning, a fine looking
gentleman of seventy years, with white hair and mustache. He is
frank, easy, playful, and a good talker. Mrs. Orr seemed to be
taking a very pessimistic view of our present sphere of action,
which Mr. Browning, with poetic coloring, was trying to paint more
hopeful.</p>

<p>The next day I dined with Mrs. Margaret Bright Lucas, in company
with Mr. John P. Thomasson, member of parliament, and his wife, and
afterwards we went to the House of Commons and had the good fortune
to hear Gladstone, Parnell, and Sir Charles Dilke. Seeing Bradlaugh
seated outside the charmed circle, I sent my card to him, and in
the corridor we had a few moments' conversation. I asked him if he
thought he would eventually get his seat; he replied, "Most
assuredly I will. I shall open the next campaign with such an
agitation as will rouse our politicians to some consideration of
the changes gradually coming over the face of things in this
country."</p>

<p>The place assigned ladies in the House of Commons is really a
disgrace to a country ruled by an Empress. This dark perch is the
highest gallery immediately over the speaker's desk and government
seats, behind a fine wire-work, so that it is quite impossible to
see or hear anything. The sixteen persons who can crowd in the
front seat, by standing with their noses partly through some open
work, can have the satisfaction of seeing the cranial arch of their
rulers, and hearing an occasional pean to liberty, or an Irish
growl at the lack of it. I was told this net work was to prevent
the members on the floor from being disturbed by the beauty of the
women. On hearing this I remarked that I was devoutly thankful that
our American men were not so easily disturbed, and that the beauty
of our women was not of so dangerous a character.</p>

<p>I could but contrast our spacious galleries in that magnificent
capitol at Washington, as well as in our grand State capitols,
where hundreds of women can sit to see and hear their rulers at
their ease, with these dark, dingy buildings, and such inadequate
accommodations for the people. My son, who had a seat on the floor
just opposite the ladies' gallery, said he could compare our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_932" id="Page_932">[Pg 932]</a></span>
appearance to nothing better than birds in a cage. He could not
distinguish an outline of anybody. All he could see was the moving
of feathers and furs, or some bright ribbon or flower.</p>

<p>In the libraries, the courts, and the House of Lords, I found many
suggestive subjects of thought. Our American inventions seem to
furnish them cases for litigation. A suit in regard to Singer's
sewing machine was just then occupying the attention of the Lord
Chancellor. Not feeling much interest in the matter, I withdrew and
joined my friends, to examine some frescoes in the ante-room. It
was interesting to find so many historical scenes in which women
had taken a prominent part. Among others, there is Jane Lane
assisting Charles II. to escape, and Alice Lisle concealing the
fugitives after the battle of Sedgemoor. Six wives of Henry VIII.
stand forth a solemn pageant when one recalls their sad fate. Alas!
whether for good or ill, woman must ever fill a large space in the
tragedies of the world.</p>

<p>I passed a few pleasant hours in the house where Macaulay spent his
last years. The once spacious library and the large bay window
looking out on a beautiful lawn, where he sat from day to day
writing his flowing periods, possessed a peculiar charm for me, as
the surroundings of genius always do. I thought as I stood there
how often he had unconsciously gazed on each object in sight in
searching for words rich enough to gild his ideas. The house is now
owned and occupied by Mr. and Mrs. Stephen Winckworth. It was at
one of their sociable Sunday teas that many pleasant memories of
the great historian were revived.</p>

<p>We went with Mrs. Lucas to a meeting of the Salvation army, in
Exeter Hall, which holds 5,000 people. It was literally packed&mdash;not
an inch of standing-room even, seemed to be unoccupied. This
remarkable movement was then at its height of enthusiasm in
England, and its leaders proposed to carry it round the world, but
it has never been so successful in any other latitude. They not
only hold meetings, but they march through the streets, men and
women, singing and playing on tambourines. The exercises on this
occasion consisted of prayers, hymns, and exhortations by Mr. and
Mrs. Booth. When this immense audience all joined in the chorus of
their stirring songs, it was indeed very impressive. The whole
effect was like that of an old-fashioned Methodist revival meeting.
I purchased their paper, <i>The War Cry</i>, and pasted it in my journal
to show the wild vagaries to which the human mind is subject. There
is nothing too ridiculous or monstrous<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_933" id="Page_933">[Pg 933]</a></span> to be done under the
influence of religious enthusiasm. In spite, however, of the
ridicule attached to this movement, it is at least an aspiration
for that ignorant, impoverished multitude. The first thing they
were urged to do was to give up intoxicating drinks, and their
vicious affiliations. If some other organization could take hold of
them at that point, to educate them in the rudiments of learning
and right living, and supplement their emotions with a modicum of
reason and common sense in the practical affairs of life, much
greater good might result from this initiative step in the right
direction.</p>

<p>One of the most remarkable and genial women we met was Miss Frances
Power Cobbe. She called one evening at 10 Duchess street, and
sipped with us the five o'clock cup of tea, a uniform practice in
England. She is of medium height, stout, rosy, and vigorous
looking, with a large, well-shaped head, a strong, happy face, and
gifted with rare powers of conversation. I felt very strongly
attracted to her. She is frank and cordial and pronounced in all
her opinions. She gave us an account of her efforts to rescue
unhappy cats and dogs from the hands of the vivisectionists. We saw
her, too, in her own cozy home and in her office in Victoria Row.
The perfect order in which her books and papers were all arranged,
and the exquisite neatness of the apartments were refreshing to
behold.</p>

<p>My daughter, having decided opinions of her own, was soon at
loggerheads with Miss Cobbe on the question of vivisection. After
showing us several German and French books with illustrations of
the horrible cruelty inflicted on cats and dogs, enlarging on the
hypocrisy and wickedness of these scientists, she turned to my
daughter and said, "Would you shake hands with one of these
vivisectionists?" "Yes," said Harriot, "I should be proud to shake
hands with Virchow, the great German scientist, for his kindness to
a young American girl. She applied to several professors to be
admitted to their classes, but all refused except Virchow; he
readily assented, and requested his students to treat her with
becoming courtesy. 'If any of you behave otherwise,' said he, 'I
shall feel myself personally insulted.' She entered his classes and
pursued her studies unmolested and with great success. "Now," said
she, "would you refuse to shake hands with any of your statesmen,
scientists, clergymen, lawyers or physicians, who treat women with
constant indignities and insults?" "Oh, no"; said Miss Cobbe.
"Then," said Mrs.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_934" id="Page_934">[Pg 934]</a></span> Blatch, "you estimate the physical suffering of
cats and dogs as of more consequence than the humiliation of human
beings. The man who tortures a cat for a scientific purpose is not
as low in the scale of being, in my judgment, as one who sacrifices
his own daughter to some cruel custom." Though Miss Cobbe weighs
over two hundred pounds, she is as light on foot as a deer and is
said to be a great walker. After seeing her I read again some of
her books. Her theology now and then evidently cramps her, yet her
style is vigorous, earnest, sarcastic, though at times playful and
pathetic. In regard to her theology, she says she is too liberal to
please her orthodox friends and too orthodox to please the
liberals, hence in religion she stands quite solitary.</p>

<p>Suffering from the effects of the prolonged fogs, we took our
letters of introduction from Dr. Bayard of New York to the two
leading high-dilution homeopathic physicians in London, Drs. Wilson
and Berridge. We found the former a good talker and very original.
We were greatly amused with his invectives against the quacks in
the profession; the "mongrels," as he called the low dilutionists.
The first question he asked my daughter was if she wore high heels;
he said he would not attempt to cure any woman of any disease so
long as she was perched on her toes with her spine out of plumb.
His advice to me was to get out of the London fogs as quickly as
possible. No one who has not suffered a London fog can imagine the
terrible gloom that pervades everywhere. One can see nothing out of
the windows but a dense black smoke. Drivers carry flambeaux in the
streets to avoid running into each other. The houses are full; the
gas burns all day, but you can scarcely see across the room;
theaters and places of amusement are sometimes closed, as nothing
can be seen distinctly. We called on Dr. Berridge, also, thinking
it best to make the acquaintance of both that we might decide from
their general appearance, surroundings, conversation and
comparative intelligence, which one we would prefer to trust in an
emergency. We found both alike so promising that we felt we could
trust either to give us our quietus, if die we must, on the high
dilutions. It is a consolation to know that one's closing hours at
least are passed in harmony with the principles of pure science. On
further acquaintance we found these gentlemen true disciples of the
great Hahneman.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_935" id="Page_935">[Pg 935]</a></span></p>

<p>As we were just then reading Froude's "Life of Carlyle," we drove
by the house where he lived and paused a moment at the door, where
poor Jennie went in and out so often with a heavy heart. It is a
painful record of a great soul struggling with poverty and
disappointment; the hope of success as an author so long deferred
and never wholly realized. His foolish pride of independence and
headship, and his utter obliviousness as to his domestic duties and
the comfort of his wife, made the picture still darker. Poor
Jennie, fitted to shine in any circle, yet doomed all her married
life to domestic drudgery, with no associations with the great man
for whose literary companionship she had sacrificed herself. It
adds greatly to one's interest in Scott, Dickens, Thackeray,
Charlotte Bronté, Bulwer, James and George Eliot, to read them
amidst the scenes where they lived and died. Thus in my leisure
hours, after the fatigues of sight-seeing and visiting, I re-read
many of these authors near the places where they spent their last
days on earth.</p>

<p>As I had visited Ambleside forty years before and seen Harriet
Martineau in her prime, I did not go with Miss Anthony to Lake
Windermere. She found the well-known house occupied by Mr. William
Henry Hills, a liberal Quaker named after William Henry Channing.
Mrs. Hills received the party with great hospitality, showed them
through all the apartments and pointed out the charming views from
the windows. They paused a few moments reverently in the chamber
where that grand woman had passed her last triumphant days on
earth. On the kitchen hearth was still sitting her favorite cat,
sixteen years old, the spots in her yellow and black fur as marked
as ever. Puss is the observed of all observers who visit that
sacred shrine, and it is said she seems specially to enjoy the
attention of strangers. From here Miss Anthony drove round
Grasmere, the romantic home of Wordsworth, wandered through the old
church, sat in the pew he so often occupied and lingered near the
last resting-place of the great poet. As the former residence of
the anti-slavery agitator, Thomas Clarkson, was on Ulswater,
another of the beautiful lakes in that region, Miss Anthony
extended her excursion still further and learned from the people
many pleasing characteristics of these celebrated personages. On
her way to Ireland she stopped at Ulverston and visited Miss Hannah
Goad, who was a descendant of the founder of Quakerism, George Fox.
She was in the old house in which he was married<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_936" id="Page_936">[Pg 936]</a></span> to Margaret Fell
and where they lived many years; attended the quaint little church
where he often spoke from the high seats, looked through his
well-worn Bible, and the minutes of their monthly meetings, kept by
Margaret Fell two centuries ago.</p>

<p>Returning to London we attended one of Miss Biggs' receptions and
among others met Mr. Stansfeld, M. P., who had labored faithfully
for the repeal of the Contagious Diseases acts, and in a measure
been successful. We had the honor of an interview with Lord
Shaftsbury at one of his crowded receptions, and found him a little
uncertain as to the wisdom of allowing married women to vote, for
fear of disturbing the peace of the family. I have often wondered
if men see in this objection what fatal admissions they make as to
their own selfishness and love of domination.</p>

<p>Miss Anthony was present at the great Liberal conference at Leeds
on October 17, to which Mrs. Helen Bright Clark, Miss Jane Cobden,
Mrs. Tanner, Mrs. Scatcherd and several other ladies were duly
elected delegates from their respective Liberal leagues, and
occupied seats on the floor. Mrs. Clark and Miss Cobden, daughters
of the great Corn-law reformers, spoke eloquently in favor of the
resolution to extend parliamentary suffrage to women, which was
presented by Walter McLaren of Bradford. As these young women made
their impassioned appeals for the recognition of woman's political
equality in the next bill for the extension of suffrage, that
immense gathering of 1,600 delegates was hushed into profound
silence. For a daughter to speak thus in that great representative
convention in direct opposition to her loved and honored father,
the acknowledged leader of that party, was an act of heroism and
fidelity to her own highest convictions almost without a parallel
in English history, and the effect on the audience was as thrilling
as it was surprising. The resolution was passed by a large
majority. At the reception given to Mr. John Bright that evening,
as Mrs. Clark approached the daïs on which her noble father stood
shaking the hands of passing friends, she remarked to her husband,
"I wonder if father has heard of my speech this morning, and if he
will forgive me for thus publicly differing with him?" The query
was soon answered. As he caught the first glimpse of his daughter
he stepped down and, pressing her hand affectionately, kissed her
with a fond father's warmth on either cheek in turn. The next
evening the great<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_937" id="Page_937">[Pg 937]</a></span> Quaker statesman was heard by the admiring
thousands who could crowd into Victoria Hall, while thousands,
equally desirous to hear, failed to get tickets of admission. It
was a magnificent sight, and altogether a most impressive gathering
of the people. Miss Anthony with her friends sat in the gallery
opposite the great platform, where they had a fine view of the
whole audience. When John Bright, escorted by Sir Wilfred Lawson,
took his seat, the immense audience rose, waving hats and
handkerchiefs and with the wildest enthusiasm giving cheer after
cheer in honor of the great leader. Sir Wilfred Lawson in his
introductory remarks facetiously alluded to the resolution adopted
by the conference as somewhat in advance of the ideas of the
speaker of the evening. The house broke into roars of laughter,
while the father of Liberalism, perfectly convulsed, joined in the
general merriment.</p>

<p>But when at length his time to speak had come, and Mr. Bright went
over the many steps of progress that had been taken by the Liberal
party, he cunningly dodged all in the direction of the emancipation
of the women of England. He skipped round the agitation in 1867 and
John Stuart Mill's amendment presented at that time in the House of
Commons; the extension of the municipal suffrage in 1869; the
participation of women in the establishment of national schools
under the law of 1870, both as voters and members of school-boards;
the Married Woman's Property bill of 1882; the large and increasing
vote for the extension of parliamentary suffrage in the House of
Commons, and the adoption of the resolution by that great
conference the day before. All these successive steps towards
woman's emancipation he carefully remembered to forget.</p>

<p>During Miss Anthony's stay in Leeds she and her cousin, Dr. Fannie
Dickinson, were guests of Mrs. Hannah Ford at Adel Grange, an old
and lovely suburban home, where she met many interesting women,
members of the school-board, poor-law guardians and others. The
three daughters of Mrs. Ford, though possessed of ample incomes,
have each a purpose in life; one had gathered hundreds of factory
girls into evening schools, where she taught them to cut and make
their garments, as well as to read and write; one was an artist and
the third a musician, having studied in London and Florence. It was
during this ever-to-be-remembered week that Miss Anthony, escorted
by Mrs. Ford, visited Haworth, the bleak and lonely home of the
Brontés. It was a<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_938" id="Page_938">[Pg 938]</a></span> dark, drizzly October day, intensifying all the
gloomy memories of the place. She sat in the old church pew where
those shivering girls endured such discomforts through the fearful
services, with their benumbed feet on the very stone slab that from
time to time was taken up to deposit in the earth beneath their
loved dead! She was shown through the house, paused at the place
under the stairs where the imperial Shirley had her fierce
encounter with that almost human dog, Keeper; she stood in the
drawing-room where the sainted three sisters, arm-in-arm, paced up
and down plotting their weird stories. She walked through the same
old gate, on the same single stone pavement and over the same stile
out into the same heather fields, gazing on the same dreary sky
above and the same desolate earth on every side. She dined in the
same old "Black Bull"; sat in poor Branwell's chair and was served
by the same person who dealt out the drinks to that poor
unfortunate&mdash;then a young bar-maid, now the aged proprietor.</p>

<p>Miss Anthony crossed from Barrow to Belfast, where she was given a
most cordial reception at the house of one of Ireland's
distinguished orators, Miss Isabella M. Tod, who took her to one of
her Ulster temperance meetings at Garvah, where they were the
guests of Rev. Thomas Medill, a cousin of the distinguished Chicago
editor. There, as Miss Anthony listened to the prayers and
exhortations of the Presbyterian ministers and to the arguments of
Miss Tod, and heard no appeals to the audience to join in the work
of suppressing the traffic, a realizing sense of the utter
powerlessness of the queen's subjects in Ireland dawned upon her
for the first time. In all that crowd there was not one who had any
voice in the decision of that question. The entire control of the
matter rested with three magistrates appointed by the queen, who
are in nowise responsible to the tax-paying people to whom they
administer the laws. Had Miss Tod been addressing an American
audience, she would have appealed to every man to vote only for
candidates pledged to no-license. From Garvah they made a
pilgrimage to the Giant's Causeway. Miss Anthony had, when at Oban,
visited Fingal's Cave, and the two wonders that always fix
themselves upon the imagination of the youthful student of the
world's geography fully matched her expectations.</p>

<p>At Dublin she visited the Castle, the old parliament building, now
a bank; Kings and Queens College, that gives diplomas to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_939" id="Page_939">[Pg 939]</a></span> women;
the parks, the cemeteries, the tomb of Daniel O'Connell. She
attended a meeting of the common council, of which Alfred Webb, the
only surviving son of the old abolitionist, Richard D. Webb, was a
member, and there she listened to a discussion on a petition to the
queen that the people of Dublin might be allowed to elect their own
tax-collector instead of having one placed over them by "the powers
that be" at London, as the official thus appointed had just proved
a defaulter. In listening to the outrages perpetrated upon a
helpless people by foreign officials, the one wonder to her was,
not that so many of Ireland's sons are discontented, but that they
are not in open rebellion.</p>

<p>There Miss Anthony made the acquaintance of numbers of excellent
Friends,<a name="FNanchor_579_579" id="FNanchor_579_579"></a><a href="#Footnote_579_579" class="fnanchor">[579]</a> and with Mrs. Haslam visited their large free library
and attended their First-day meeting. In Dublin, too, she met
Michael Davitt, who seemed to her a most sincere champion of
liberty for himself and his people. Miss Anthony spent a week with
Mr. and Mrs. Haslam in Cork, visiting Blarney Castle, the old
walled city of Youghal with its crumbling Quaker meeting-house and
fine old mansion in which Sir Walter Raleigh lived, and thence to
the beautiful Lakes of Killarney, and in a jaunting-car through the
evicted tenants' district, entering the hovels and talking with the
inmates. The sad stories poured into her ears, and the poverty and
wretchedness she saw, proved to her that none of Mr. Redpath's
revelations, so shocking to the humanity of our people, were in the
least over-drawn. The circuit through Limerick, Galway, Clifton and
Belfast was made in third-class cars, that she might talk with the
people of the working class. This was the season for their county
fairs, which gave her an opportunity to see the farmers driving
their cattle and taking their meagre products to the fair. The
women and girls were uniformly barefooted, while some of the men
and boys wore shoes. In reply to her query why this was so, one man
said, "It is all we can do to get shoes for them as airnes the
money." The same old story; woman's work, however arduous, brings
no price in the market.</p>

<p>While in London we attended several large and enthusiastic reform
meetings. We heard Bradlaugh address his constituency on that
memorable day at Trafalgar Square, at the opening of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_940" id="Page_940">[Pg 940]</a></span> parliament,
when violence was anticipated and the parliament houses were
surrounded by immense crowds, with the military and police in large
numbers to maintain order. We heard Michael Davitt and Miss Helen
Taylor at a great meeting in Exeter Hall, the former on home-rule
for Ireland, and the latter on the nationalization of land, showing
that in ancient times the people had many privileges long since
denied. They even had forests and commons and the road-side, where
their cows, sheep and geese could glean something. The facts and
figures given in these two lectures as to the abject poverty of the
people and the cruel system by which every inch of land had been
grabbed by their oppressors, were indeed appalling. A few days
before sailing we made our last visit to Ernestine L. Rose and
found our noble coadjutor, though in delicate health, pleasantly
situated in the heart of London, as deeply interested as ever in
the struggles of the hour.</p>

<p>Dining one day with Mrs. Lucas, we were forcibly impressed with the
growing liberality of people of all shades of belief and of all
professions. The guests on that occasion were Mrs. Hallock,
sister-in-law of Robert Dale Owen, thoroughly imbued with his
religious and social ideas; Dr. Mary J. Hall, the only woman
practicing homeopathy in England; Miss Henrietta Müller, member of
the London school-board; Miss Clara Spence, a young actress from
America, who gave us some fine recitations; and such liberals in
politics and religion as Mrs. Stanton Blatch and myself, while our
hostess was an orthodox Friend. However we were all agreed on one
point, the right of women to full equality everywhere. In the
evening we went to see Mrs. Hallock's daughter, Ella Deitz, in the
play of "Impulse." We urged Mrs. Lucas to accompany us, but she
said she had never been to a theater in her life.</p>

<p>A great discomfort in all English homes is the cold draughts
through their halls and unoccupied rooms. A moderate fire in the
grates in the family apartments is their only mode of heating, and
they seem quite oblivious as to the danger of throwing a door open
into a cold hall on one's back while the servants pass in and out
with the various courses' at dinner. As we Americans were sorely
tried under such circumstances, it was decided in the Basingstoke
mansion to have a hall stove, which, after a prolonged search, was
found in London and duly installed as a presiding deity to defy the
dampness that pervades all those<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_941" id="Page_941">[Pg 941]</a></span> ivy-covered habitations, as well
as the neuralgia that wrings their possessors. What a blessing it
proved, more than any one thing making the old English house seem
like an American home! The delightful summer heat we in America
enjoy in the coldest weather is quite unknown to our Saxon cousins.
Although many came to see our stove in full working order, yet we
could not persuade them to adopt the American system of heating the
whole house at an even temperature. They cling to the customs of
their fathers with an obstinacy that is incomprehensible to us, who
are always ready to try experiments. Americans complain bitterly of
the same freezing experiences in France and Germany, and in turn
foreigners all criticise our over-heated houses and places of
amusement.</p>

<p>An evening reception at Mrs. Richardson's, in the city of York,
gave us an opportunity of a personal greeting with a large circle
of ladies identified with the suffrage movement, and a large public
meeting the next day in the Town Hall enabled us to judge still
further of the merits of English women as speakers. Here I was
entertained by Mrs. Lucretia Kendall Clarke, an American, who had
spent five years as a student in Dresden, where she made the
acquaintance of Mr. Clarke. It is said in England that the American
girls capture all the choice young men; that our rich
cattle-dealers get all their best horses, cows, sheep, dogs, and
that in time we shall rob them of all that is best in the country.
One thing is certain, we shall always regret our hospitable
invitation to the sparrows, as they are making war on our native
birds instead of fulfilling their mission to the "Diet of Worms."
In company with Mrs. Scatcherd we spent an hour in that magnificent
York cathedral, said to be one of the finest in England. Being
there at the time for service we had the benefit of the music. To
us, lost in admiration of the wonderful architecture and the
beautiful carving in wood and stone, the solemn strains of the
organ reverberating through those vast arches made the whole scene
very impressive. As women in many of the churches are not permitted
to take part in the sacred ceremonies, the choir is composed of
men, and boys from ten to fifteen who sing the soprano and alto.
But these old ideas, like the old Roman wall that still surrounds
that city, time only can remove.</p>

<p>We had a merry trip from York to London. Miss Müller, Mrs. Chant,
Mrs. Shearer, Miss Stackpole, in our compartment, discussed freely
the silly objections to woman's enfranchisement<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_942" id="Page_942">[Pg 942]</a></span> usually made by
our legislators. We found on comparing notes that the arguments
usually made were the same in the House of Commons as in the halls
of Congress. If the honorable gentlemen could only have heard their
stale platitudes with good imitations in voice and manner, I doubt
whether they would ever again air their absurdities. I regretted
that our Caroline Gilkey Rogers had not been there to have given
her admirable impersonation of a Massachusetts legislator.</p>

<p>A few days later I attended another meeting in Birmingham and
stayed with a relative of Joseph Sturge, at whose home I had
visited forty years before. This was called to discuss the
degradation of women under the Contagious Diseases acts. Led by
Josephine Butler, the women of England have been deeply stirred on
the question of repeal, and are very active in their opposition to
the law. We heard Mrs. Butler speak in many of her society
meetings, as well as on several public occasions. Her style is not
unlike that we hear in Methodist class-meetings from the best
cultivated of that sect; her power grows out of her deeply
religious enthusiasm.</p>

<p>In London we met Emily Faithful, who had just returned from a
lecturing-tour in the United States, and were much amused with her
experiences. Having taken prolonged trips over the whole country
from Maine to Texas for many successive years, Miss Anthony and I
could easily add the superlative to all her narrations. She dined
with us one day at Mrs. Mellen's, where we also had the pleasure of
meeting Miss Jane Cobden, a daughter of the great Corn-law
reformer, who was much interested in forming Liberal leagues, to
encourage the Liberal party and interest women in the political
questions under consideration. She passed a day with us at
Basingstoke, and together we visited Mrs. Caird, the author of
"Whom Nature Leadeth," an interesting story of English life. I
found the author a charming woman, but in spite of the title I
really could not find one character in the three volumes that
seemed to follow the teachings of nature.</p>

<p>Two weeks again in London, visiting picture-galleries, museums,
libraries, going to teas, dinners, receptions, concerts, theaters
and reform-meetings; it is enough to turn one's head to think of
all the different clubs and associations managed by women. It was a
source of constant pleasure to me to drive about in hansoms and try
to take in the vastness of that wonderful city; to see the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_943" id="Page_943">[Pg 943]</a></span>
beautiful equipages, fine saddle-horses and riders and the skill
with which the bicycles were so rapidly engineered through the
crowded streets. The general use of bicycles and tricycles all over
England, even for long journeys, is fast becoming the favorite mode
of locomotion both for ladies and gentlemen.</p>

<p>It was a pleasant surprise to meet the large number of Americans
usually at the receptions of Mrs. Peter Taylor.<a name="FNanchor_580_580" id="FNanchor_580_580"></a><a href="#Footnote_580_580" class="fnanchor">[580]</a> Graceful and
beautiful in full dress, standing beside her husband, who evidently
idolizes her, Mrs. Taylor appeared quite as refined in her
drawing-room as if she had never been "exposed to the public gaze,"
while presiding over a suffrage convention. Mr. Peter Taylor, M.
P., has been untiring in his endeavors to get a bill through
parliament against "compulsory vaccination." Mrs. Taylor is called
the mother of the suffrage movement. The engraving of her sweet
face which adorns the English chapter will give the reader a good
idea of her character. The reform has not been carried on in all
respects to her taste, nor on what she considers the basis of high
principle. Neither she nor Mrs. Jacob Bright has ever been
satisfied with the bill asking the right of suffrage for "widows
and spinsters" only. To have asked this right "for all women duly
qualified," as but few married women are qualified by possessing
property in their own right, the result would have been
substantially the same without making any invidious distinctions.
Mrs. Taylor and Mrs. Bright felt that as married women were the
greatest sufferers under the law, they should be the first rather
than the last to be enfranchised. The others, led by Miss Becker,
claimed that it was good policy to make the demand for "spinsters
and widows," and thus exclude the "family unit" and "man's
headship" from the discussion; and yet these were the very points
on which the objections were invariably based. They claimed that if
"spinsters and widows" were enfranchised they would be an added
power to secure to married women their rights. But the history of
the past gives no such assurance. It is not certain that women
would be more just than men, and a small privileged class of
aristocrats have long governed their fellow-countrymen. The fact
that the spinsters in the movement advocated such a bill shows that
they are not to be trusted in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_944" id="Page_944">[Pg 944]</a></span> extending it. John Stuart Mill, too,
was always opposed to the exclusion of married women in the demand
for suffrage.</p>

<p>If our English friends had our system of conventions and
discussions in which every resolution is subject to criticism,
changes could be more readily effected. But as their meetings are
now conducted, a motion to amend a resolution would throw the
platform into the wildest confusion and hopelessly bewilder the
chairman. We saw this experiment made at the great demonstration in
St. James' Hall the night before Mr. Mason's bill was to be acted
on in the House of Commons. For its effect on their champions some
were desirous that a resolution should be endorsed by that great
audience proposing higher ground; that instead of "spinsters and
widows," the demand should be for "all duly qualified women." After
the reading of one of the resolutions Miss Jessie Craigen arose and
proposed such an amendment. Mr. Woodhall, M. P., in the chair,
seemed quite at a loss what to do. She was finally, after much
debate and prolonged confusion, suppressed, whether in a
parliamentary manner or not I am unable to say. Here we should have
discussed the matter at length if it had taken us until midnight,
or adjourned over until next day, "the spinsters and widows" having
been the target for all our barbed arrows until completely
annihilated.</p>

<p>Spending two months in traveling on the continent, Miss Anthony had
many amusing experiences. While visiting our minister and his wife,
Mr. and Mrs. Sargent, at Berlin, she occupied some rainy days, when
sight-seeing was out of the question, in doing up papers and
writing a large number of letters on our official paper, bearing
the revolutionary mottoes, "No just government can be formed
without the consent of the governed," "Taxation without
representation is tyranny." For a brief period she was in the full
enjoyment of that freedom one has when a pressing duty to family
and friends has been thoroughly discharged. But alas! her
satisfaction was soon turned to disappointment. After a few days a
dignified official appeared at the American Legation with a large
package bearing the proscribed mottoes, saying, "such sentiments
cannot pass through the post-office in Germany." So all that form
of propagandism was nipped in the bud, and in modest, uncomplaining
wraps the letters and papers started again for the land of the free
and reached their destination.</p>

<p>But this experience did not satisfy the "Napoleon of our<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_945" id="Page_945">[Pg 945]</a></span> movement"
that the rulers in the old world could securely guard their
subjects from those inflammable mottoes to which from long use we
are so indifferent. She continued to sow the seeds of rebellion as
she had opportunity, in Germany, France, Switzerland and Italy. It
is well for us that she did not experiment in Russia, or we should
now be mourning her loss as an exile in Siberia. At all points of
interest books are kept for visitors to register their names; Miss
Anthony uniformly added some of our Pilgrim Fathers' heroic
ejaculations in their struggle for liberty, which friends visiting
the same places afterwards informed us were carefully crossed out
so as to be quite illegible. But we may hope for their restoration
in the near future and that they may yet do an effective work. Thus
circumscribed with her pen and not being able to speak a foreign
language, happily no rebellions were fomented by her rapid transit
through their borders.</p>

<p>My sense of justice was severely tried with all I heard of the
persecutions of Mrs. Besant and Mr. Bradlaugh for their
publications on the right and duty of parents to limit population.
Who can contemplate the sad condition of multitudes of young
children in the old world whose fate is to be brought up in
ignorance and vice&mdash;a swarming, seething mass whom nobody
owns&mdash;without seeing the need of free discussion of the
philosophical principles that underlie these tangled social
problems. The trials of Foote and Ramsey, too, for blasphemy,
seemed unworthy a great nation in the nineteenth century. Think of
well-educated men of good moral standing, thrown into prison in
solitary confinement for speaking lightly of the Hebrew idea of
Jehovah and the New Testament account of the birth of Jesus! Our
Protestant clergy never hesitate to make the dogmas and
superstitions of the Catholic church seem as absurd as possible,
and why should not those who imagine they have outgrown Protestant
superstitions make them equally ridiculous? Whatever is true can
stand investigation and ridicule.</p>

<p>The last of April, when the wild-flowers were in their glory, Mrs.
Mellen and her lovely daughter, Daisy, came down to Basingstoke to
enjoy its beauty. As Mrs. Mellen had known Charles Kingsley and
entertained him at her residence in Colorado, she felt a desire to
see his former home. Accordingly, one bright morning Mr. Blatch
drove us through Stralfieldsage over the grounds of the Duke of
Wellington, well stocked with fine<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_946" id="Page_946">[Pg 946]</a></span> cattle, sheep and deer. This
magnificent place was given him by the English government after the
battle of Waterloo. A lofty statue of the duke that can be seen for
miles around stands at the entrance. A drive of a few miles further
brought us to Eversley, the home of Canon Kingsley, where he
preached many years and where all that is mortal of him now lies
buried. We wandered through the old church, among the moss-covered
tombstones and into the once happy home, now silent and deserted,
his loved ones scattered in different quarters of the globe.
Standing near the last resting-place of the author of "Hypatia,"
his warning words for woman, in a letter to John Stuart Mill,
seemed like a voice from the clouds, saying with new inspiration
and power, "This will never be a good world for woman until the
last remnant of the canon law is civilized off the face of the
earth."</p>

<p>Mrs. Mellen's spacious home in Pembroke Gardens, Kensington, was
thrown open for her American friends in London to celebrate the
Fourth of July. A large number of our English acquaintances were
also present, who very kindly congratulated us on the stirring
events of that day in 1776. Of the Americans assembled, many
contributed to the general entertainment. Grace Greenwood, Miss
Rachel Foster, Miss Kate Hillard and Miss Mildred Conway gave
recitations. Miss Lippincott, daughter of Grace Greenwood, sang
some fine operatic music; Mrs. Carpenter of Chicago sang sweetly,
playing her own accompaniment; Mr. Frank Lincoln gave some of his
amusing impersonations; Miss Maud Powell of Chicago, only fourteen
years of age, who had been taking lessons in France and Germany for
some years, played exquisite airs on the violin; Mrs. Flora Stark,
Miss Alice Blatch and Miss Conway gave us some fine classical music
on the piano, and Nathaniel Mellen sang some pathetic negro
melodies.<a name="FNanchor_581_581" id="FNanchor_581_581"></a><a href="#Footnote_581_581" class="fnanchor">[581]</a> Altogether it was a pleasant occasion and I felt
quite proud of the varied talents manifested by our young people.
Some English friends remarked on their cleverness and readiness,
all spontaneously called out without any time for preparation.</p>

<p>We heard Mr. Fawcett speak to his Hackney constituents at<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_947" id="Page_947">[Pg 947]</a></span> one of
his campaign meetings. In the course of his remarks he mentioned
with evident favor as one of the coming measures the
disestablishment of the church, and was greeted with loud applause.
Soon after he spoke of woman suffrage as another question demanding
consideration, but this was received with laughter and jeers,
although the platform was crowded with advocates of the measure,
among whom were the wife of the speaker and her sister, Dr. Garrett
Anderson, who sat just behind him. The audience were evidently in
favor of releasing themselves from being taxed to support the
church, forgetting that women were taxed also not only to support
the church, in which they had no voice, but the State, too, with
its army and navy. Mr. Fawcett was not an orator, but a simple,
straightforward speaker. He made but one gesture, striking his
right clenched fist into the palm of the left hand at the close of
all his strongest assertions; but being sound and liberal, he was a
great favorite with his constituents.</p>

<p>A pleasant trip southward through Bath to Bristol brought us to the
home of the Misses Priestman and Mrs. Tanner, sisters-in-law of
John Bright. I had stayed at their father's house forty years
before, so we felt like old friends. I found them all charming,
liberal women, and we enjoyed a few days together, talking over our
mutual struggles, and admiring the beautiful scenery for which that
part of the country is quite celebrated. The women of England were
just then organizing political clubs, and I was invited to speak
before the one in Bristol. They are composed of men and women
alike, for the discussion of all political questions. The next day
I spoke to women alone in the church on the Bible view of woman's
creation and destiny. It is strange that those who pretend to be
well-versed in Scripture do not see that the simultaneous creation
of man and woman and the complete equality of the sexes are as
clearly taught in the first chapter of Genesis as the reverse is in
the allegorical garden-scene in the second. The drive over the
suspension-bridge by moonlight to dine with Mrs. Garnet, a sister
of John Thomasson, M. P., was a pleasant episode to public speaking
and more serious conversation. There, too, we had an evening
reception. There is an earnestness of purpose among English women
that is very encouraging under the prolonged disappointments
reformers inevitably suffer. There is something so determined and
heroic in what Mary Priestman does and says that one would readily
follow<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_948" id="Page_948">[Pg 948]</a></span> her through all dangers. It added much to my comfort in
this visit to have an escort in Mrs. Lucas.</p>

<p>Later Miss Anthony visited Bristol and had a complimentary
reception at the Misses Priestman's. She was the guest of Miss Mary
Estlin, who had spent some time in America, a dear friend of Sarah
Pugh and Parker Pillsbury. Miss Estlin was from home during my
visit, so that I did not see her while in England. The order of
English homes among the wealthy classes is very enjoyable. All goes
on from year to year with the same servants, the same surroundings,
no changes, no moving, no building even; in delightful contrast
with our periodical upheavings, always uncertain where we shall go
next, or how long our main dependents will stand by us.</p>

<p>From Bristol we went to Greenbank to visit Mrs. Helen Bright Clark,
a daughter of the great orator. In the evening the parlors were
crowded, and I was asked to give an account of the suffrage
movement in America. Some clergymen questioned me in regard to the
Bible position of woman, whereupon I gave quite an exposition of
its general principles in favor of liberty and equality. As two
quite distinct lines of argument can be woven out of those pages on
any subject, on this occasion I selected all the most favorable
texts for justice to woman, and closed by stating the limits of its
authority. Mrs. Clarke, though thoroughly in sympathy with the
views I had expressed, feared lest my very liberal utterances might
have shocked some of the strictest of the laymen and clergy.
"Well," I said, "if we who do see the absurdities of the old
superstitions never unveil them to others, how is the world to make
any progress in the theologies? I am now in the sunset of life, and
I feel it to be my special mission to tell people what they are not
prepared to hear, instead of echoing worn-out opinions." The result
showed the wisdom of my speaking out of my own soul. To the
surprise of Mrs. Clark, the primitive Methodist clergyman called on
Sunday morning to invite me to occupy his pulpit in the afternoon
and present the same line of thought I had the previous evening. I
accepted his invitation. He led the services and I took my text
from Genesis i., 27, 28, showing that man and woman were a
simultaneous creation, endowed with equal power in starting.</p>

<p>Mr. and Mrs. Clark I found very agreeable, progressive people, with
a nice family of boys and girls. Like all English children, they
suffered too much repression, while our American children<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_949" id="Page_949">[Pg 949]</a></span> have too
much latitude. If we could strike the happy medium between the two
systems, it would be a great benefit to the children of both
countries. The next day we drove down to see Glastonbury cathedral.
England is full of these beautiful ruins, covered with flowers and
ivy, but the saddest spectacles, with all this fading glory, are
the men, women and children whose nakedness neither man nor nature
seeks to drape.</p>

<p>Returning to London we accepted an invitation to take tea with Mrs.
Jacob Bright. A choice circle of three it was, and a large server
of tempting viands was placed on a small table before us. Mrs.
Bright, in earnest conversation, had helped us each to a cup of
tea, and was turning to help us to something more, when over went
table and all, tea, bread and butter, cake, strawberries and cream,
silver, china, in one conglomerate mass. Silence reigned. No one
started; no one said "Oh!" Mrs. Bright went on with what she was
saying as if nothing unusual had occurred, rang the bell, and when
the servant appeared, pointing to the <i>débris</i>, she said, "Charles,
remove this." I was filled with admiration at her coolness, and
devoutly thankful that we Americans maintained an equally dignified
silence.</p>

<p>At a grand reception given in our honor by the National Central
Committee, in Princess' Hall, Mr. Jacob Bright, M. P., presided and
made an admirable opening speech, followed by his sister, Mrs.
McLaren, with a highly complimentary address of welcome. By
particular request Miss Anthony gave a presentation of the
industrial, legal and political status of American women; while I
set forth their educational, social and religious limitations. Mr.
John P. Thomasson, M. P., made the closing address, expressing his
satisfaction with the addresses of the ladies and the progress made
in both countries.<a name="FNanchor_582_582" id="FNanchor_582_582"></a><a href="#Footnote_582_582" class="fnanchor">[582]</a></p>

<p>Mrs. Thomasson, daughter of Mrs. Lucas, gave several delightful
evening parties,<a name="FNanchor_583_583" id="FNanchor_583_583"></a><a href="#Footnote_583_583" class="fnanchor">[583]</a> receptions and dinners, some for ladies
alone, where an abundant opportunity was offered for a critical
analysis of the idiosyncracies of the superior sex, especially in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_950" id="Page_950">[Pg 950]</a></span>
their political dealings with women. The patience of even such
heroic souls as Lydia Becker and Caroline Biggs was almost
exhausted with the tergiversations of members of the House of
Commons. Alas for the many fair promises broken, the hopes
deferred, the votes fully relied on and counted, all missing in the
hour of action. One crack of Mr. Gladstone's whip put a hundred
Liberals to flight in a twinkling, members whom these noble women
had spent years in educating. I never visited the House of Commons
that I did not see Miss Becker and Miss Biggs trying to elucidate
the fundamental principles of just government to some of them.
Verily their divine faith and patience merited more worthy action
on the part of their representatives.</p>

<p>We formed very pleasant friendships with Miss Frances Lord and Miss
Henrietta Müller, spending several days with the latter at 58
Cadogan square, and both alike visited us at different times in
Basingstoke. Miss Lord has translated some of Ibsen's plays very
creditably to herself, and, we understand, to the satisfaction of
the Swedish poet. Miss Lord is a cultured, charming woman,
attractive in society, and has a rare gift in conversation; she is
rather shrinking in her feelings. Miss Müller, her devoted friend,
is just the opposite; fearless, aggressive and self-centered. Miss
Lord discharged her duties as poor-law guardian faithfully, and
Miss Müller, as member of the London school-board, claimed her
rights when infringed upon, and maintained the dignity of her
position with a good degree of tact and heroism. We met Miss
Whitehead, another poor-law guardian, at Miss Müller's, and had a
long talk on the sad condition of the London poor and the grand
work Octavia Hill had done among them. Miss Müller read us a paper
on the dignity and office of single women. Her idea seems to be
very much like that expressed by St. Paul in his epistles, that it
is better for those who have a genius for public work in the church
or State not to marry; and Miss Müller carries her theory into
practice thus far. She has a luxurious establishment of her own, is
fully occupied in politics and reform, and though she lives by
herself she entertains her friends generously, and does whatever it
seems good to her to do. As she is bright and entertaining and has
many worshipers, she may fall a victim to the usual fate in spite
of her admirable essay, which has been printed in tract form and
circulated extensively in England and America. Miss Müller gave
Miss Anthony and myself a farewell reception on the eve of our
departure for America, when we had<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_951" id="Page_951">[Pg 951]</a></span> the opportunity of meeting once
more most of the pleasant acquaintances we had made in London.
Although it was announced for the afternoon, we did in fact receive
all day as many as could not come at the hour appointed. Dr.
Elizabeth Blackwell took breakfast with us; Mrs. Fawcett, Mrs.
Seville<a name="FNanchor_584_584" id="FNanchor_584_584"></a><a href="#Footnote_584_584" class="fnanchor">[584]</a> and Miss Lord were with us at luncheon; Harriet Hosmer
and Olive Logan soon after; Mrs. Peter Taylor later, and from three
to six o'clock the parlors were crowded.</p>

<p>Returning from London I passed my birthday, November 12, in
Basingstoke. It was a sad day to us all, knowing that it was the
last before my departure for America. When I imprinted the farewell
kiss on the soft cheek of little Nora in the cradle, she in the
dawn and I in the sunset of life, I realized how widely the long
years and the broad ocean would separate us forever. Miss Anthony,
who had been visiting Mrs. Parker, near Warrington, met me at
Alderly Edge, where we spent a few days in the charming home of Mr.
and Mrs. Jacob Bright. There we found their noble sisters, Mrs.
McLaren and Mrs. Lucas, young Walter McLaren and his lovely bride,
Eva Müller, whom we had heard several times on the suffrage
platform. We rallied her on the step she had lately taken,
notwithstanding her sister's able paper on the blessedness of a
single life. While here we visited Dean Stanley's birthplace; but
on his death the light and joy went out, and the atmosphere of the
old church whose walls had once echoed to his voice, and the house
where he had spent so many useful years, seemed sad and deserted.
But the day was bright and warm, the scenery all around was
beautiful, cows and sheep were still grazing in the meadows, the
grass as green as in June. This is England's chief charm, forever
green, some compensation for the many cloudy days. An evening
reception in Mrs. Bright's spacious parlors, with friends from
Manchester and other adjoining towns, with speeches of welcome and
farewell, finished our visit at Alderly Edge.</p>

<p>As our good friends Mrs. McLaren and Mrs. Lucas had determined to
see us safely on board the Servia, they escorted us to Liverpool,
where we met Mrs. Margaret Parker, Mrs. Scatcherd and Dr. Fanny
Dickinson of Chicago. Another reception was<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_952" id="Page_952">[Pg 952]</a></span> given us at the
residence of Dr. Ewing Whittle. Several short speeches were made,
all cheering the parting guests with words of hope and
encouragement for the good cause.</p>

<p>Here the wisdom of forming an international association was
considered. The proposition met with such favor from those present
that a committee was appointed to correspond with the friends in
different nations. As Miss Anthony and myself are members of that
committee,<a name="FNanchor_585_585" id="FNanchor_585_585"></a><a href="#Footnote_585_585" class="fnanchor">[585]</a> now that these volumes are finished and we are at
liberty once more, we shall ascertain as soon as possible the
feasibility of a grand international conference in New York in
1888, to celebrate the fourth decade of our movement for woman's
enfranchisement. Such conventions have been held by the friends of
anti-slavery, peace, temperance, social purity and evangelical
christianity, and why may not the suffrage cause, too, receive a
new impetus from the united efforts of its friends in all
countries.</p>

<p>On the broad Atlantic for ten days we had many opportunities to
review all we had seen and heard. There we met our noble friends,
Mr. and Mrs. Hussey of New Jersey; also Mrs. Margaret Buchanan
Sullivan of Chicago, just returning from an extended tour in
Ireland, who gave us many of her rich experiences. Sitting on deck
hour after hour, how often I queried with myself as to the
significance of the boon for which women were so earnestly
struggling. In asking for a voice in the government under which we
live, have we been pursuing a shadow for forty years? In seeking
political power, are we abdicating that social throne where they
tell us our influence is unbounded? No! no! the right of suffrage
is no shadow, but a substantial entity that<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_953" id="Page_953">[Pg 953]</a></span> the citizen can seize
and hold for his own protection and his country's welfare. A direct
power over one's own person and property, an individual opinion to
be counted on all questions of public interest, is better than
indirect influence, be it ever so far-reaching.</p>

<p>Though influence, like the pure white light, is all-pervading, yet
it is oft-times obscured with passing clouds and nights of
darkness; like the sun's rays, it may be healthy, genial,
inspiring, though sometimes too direct for comfort, too oblique for
warmth, too scattered for any given purpose. But as the prism by
dividing the rays of light reveals to us the brilliant coloring of
the atmosphere, and as the burning-glass by concentrating them in a
focus intensifies their heat, so does the right of suffrage reveal
the beauty and power of individual sovereignty in the great drama
of national life, while on a vital measure of public interest it
combines the many voices of the people in a grand chorus of protest
or applause.</p>

<p>After an unusually calm, pleasant voyage, for November, we sailed
up our beautiful New York harbor just as the sun was rising in all
his glory, gilding every hill-top and distant spire in the
landscape, and with grateful hearts we celebrated the national
Thanksgiving-day once more with loving friends in the great
Republic.</p>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_575_575" id="Footnote_575_575"></a><a href="#FNanchor_575_575"><span class="label">[575]</span></a> He asked me confidentially if I knew what the "D" in
his name stood for. "Why," said I, "in line with your profession,
it must be for 'Divinity,' or 'Doxology.'" "No," said he, "for
'Dynamite.'" As we were being blown up just then in all parts of
London, I begged him not to explode until Sunday morning in old
South Church, as I would rather see a wreck of the old theologies
than of our charming hostess and Corney Green, who were giving us
this pleasant entertainment.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_576_576" id="Footnote_576_576"></a><a href="#FNanchor_576_576"><span class="label">[576]</span></a> She says she prefers to be known as the wife of
Duncan McLaren, a member of parliament from Edinburgh for sixteen
years, who always voted right on the woman question, while John
Bright is opposed to the movement.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_577_577" id="Footnote_577_577"></a><a href="#FNanchor_577_577"><span class="label">[577]</span></a> She occupies the home of an English woman who has
taken her seven children to Germany for their education. How
strange it is that so many parents imagine that they can educate
their children better in a foreign land.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_578_578" id="Footnote_578_578"></a><a href="#FNanchor_578_578"><span class="label">[578]</span></a> After dinner, while the gentlemen still lingered at
the table, the ladies being alone, an unusual amount of heresy as
to the rights of "the divinely appointed head of the house" found
expression. A young English-woman, who had been brought up in great
retirement, turned to me and said, "I never heard such declarations
before; do you ladies all really believe that God intended men and
women to be equal, and do you really feel that girls have a right
to enjoy as many privileges as boys?" In chorus we all promptly
said, "We do," and I added, "If you will recall all the events of
your life thus far, and your own feelings at times, you will find
that again and again your own heart has protested against the
injustice to which you have been subjected. Now," said I, "think a
little, and see if you can recall no sense of dissatisfaction at
the broad difference made between your sisters and brothers."
"Well," said she, "I did often wonder why father gave the boys half
a crown a week for spending money, and us girls a few pence; why so
much thought and money were expended on their education, and so
little on ours; but as I saw that that was the custom everywhere, I
came to the conclusion that they were a superior order of beings,
and so thought no more about it, and I never heard that theory
contradicted until this evening."</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_579_579" id="Footnote_579_579"></a><a href="#FNanchor_579_579"><span class="label">[579]</span></a> Among these were Mr. and Mrs. Haslam, Mr. Wigham,
brother of Eliza Wigham, and his cultured wife; Hannah Webb, the
daughter of Richard, and Thomas Webb and daughters, in whose old
family-record book of visitors she was shown the autographs of
William Lloyd Garrison and Nathaniel P. Rogers over the date of
1840.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_580_580" id="Footnote_580_580"></a><a href="#FNanchor_580_580"><span class="label">[580]</span></a> On one occasion I counted fourteen: Miss Risley
Seward, Mrs. Louise Chandler Moulton, Mrs. Laura Curtis Bullard,
Miss Rachel Foster, Mrs. William Mellen and two sons and daughters,
Mr. Theodore Tilton. Miss Anthony, Mrs. Stanton Blatch and myself.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_581_581" id="Footnote_581_581"></a><a href="#FNanchor_581_581"><span class="label">[581]</span></a> Aside from those already mentioned were William
Henry Channing, L. N. Fowler, the phrenologist, and his daughter;
Mrs. Louise Chandler Moulton, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Stanton Blatch,
Miss Anthony, Mrs. Powell, Mrs. Wilson, Mrs. Phillips, several
members from the Bright, the McLaren and the Cobden families, Mrs.
Conway, Miss Emily Faithful, Mr. William Henry Blatch, Mr. Stark,
the artist; Philip Marston, the blind poet; Miss Orme and Miss
Richardson, attorneys-at-law; Judge Kelley, wife and daughter
Florence, Miss Lydia Becker, Miss Caroline Biggs and sisters, Miss
Julia Osgood.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_582_582" id="Footnote_582_582"></a><a href="#FNanchor_582_582"><span class="label">[582]</span></a> Among the distinguished persons on the platform were
Frances Power Cobbe, Dr. Garrett Anderson, Mrs. Fawcett, Mrs. Jacob
Bright, Mrs. Lucas, Mrs. Thomasson, Mrs. Margaret Parker, Mrs.
Alice Scatcherd, Miss Becker, Miss Biggs, Mrs. Moore, Mr. and Mrs.
Conway, Oscar Wilde and his queenly mother, Charles McLaren, M. P.,
Mrs. Peter A. Taylor, Miss Helen Taylor, Miss Orme, Miss Müller,
Miss Lord, Miss Foster, Mrs. and Miss Blatch, Mrs. Mellen, Miss Tod
of Belfast, Mrs. Chesson, daughter of George Thompson, the great
anti-slavery orator, and very many others whose names we cannot
recall.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_583_583" id="Footnote_583_583"></a><a href="#FNanchor_583_583"><span class="label">[583]</span></a> Where we met Mrs. Fawcett, Dr. Garrett Anderson, Sir
Hugh Staples, Mr. Mitchell, the Misses Stackpole and brothers,
Madame Venturi, Miss Biggs and sisters, Miss Frances Lord and her
sister, who is doing a noble work in her kindergarten.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_584_584" id="Footnote_584_584"></a><a href="#FNanchor_584_584"><span class="label">[584]</span></a> Mrs. Seville, whose husband was a professor at
Sandhurst College, having recently awoke to the indignities the
church heaps upon women, made her protest in discarding her bonnet
and appearing on Sundays with her head uncovered, contrary to
Paul's injunctions. Having thus attended church for two years,
involving much criticism and disturbance, both the vicar and the
bishop labored with her to resume the bonnet, but she remained
incorrigible. She read us a letter of remonstrance from the bishop,
over which we all had a hearty laugh.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_585_585" id="Footnote_585_585"></a><a href="#FNanchor_585_585"><span class="label">[585]</span></a> The following is the report of the action prepared
that evening by Mrs. Parker: "At a large and influential gathering
of the friends of woman suffrage, at Parliament Terrace, Liverpool,
November 16, 1883, convened by E. Whittle, M. D., to meet Mrs.
Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Miss Susan B. Anthony prior to their
return to America, it was proposed by Mrs. Margaret E. Parker of
Penketh (near Warrington), seconded by Mrs. McLaren of Edinburgh,
and unanimously passed:
</p><p>
"That this meeting, recognizing that union is strength and that the
time has come when women all over the world should unite in the
just demand for their political enfranchisement; therefore
</p><p>
"<i>Resolved</i>, That we do here appoint a committee of correspondence,
preparatory to forming an International Woman Suffrage Association.
</p><p>
"<i>Resolved</i>, That the committee consist of the following friends,
with power to add to their number:
</p><p>
"<i>For the American Center</i>&mdash;Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Miss Susan
B. Anthony, Miss Rachel Foster. <i>London Center</i>&mdash;Mrs. Peter A.
Taylor, Mrs. Margaret B. Lucas, Miss Helen Taylor, Miss Henrietta
Müller, Miss Caroline A. Biggs, Mr. and Mrs. Charles McLaren, Miss
Eliza Orme, Miss Rebecca Moore, London; Mrs. Harriot Stanton
Blatch, Basingstoke. <i>Manchester Center</i>&mdash;Mr. and Mrs. Jacob
Bright, Manchester; Mr. and Mrs. J. P. Thomasson, Bolton; Mrs.
Margaret E. Parker, Penketh; Dr. and Mrs. Whittle, Liverpool; Mrs.
Oliver Scatcherd, Leeds; Mr. and Mrs. Walter McLaren, Bradford;
Mrs. Philips, Liverpool; Mr. and Mrs. Crook, Bolton; Mr. Berners,
Mr. Russell, Liverpool; Miss Becker, Manchester. <i>Bristol
Center</i>&mdash;Miss Helen Bright Clarke, Street; Mrs. Alfred Ostler,
Birmingham; Miss Priestman, Bristol. <i>Center for Scotland</i>&mdash;Mrs.
Duncan McLaren, Mrs. Elizabeth Pease Nichol, Miss Eliza Wigham,
Edinburgh. <i>Center for Ireland</i>&mdash;Miss Tod, Belfast; Mrs. Haslam,
Dublin. <i>Center for France</i>&mdash;M'lle Hubertine Auclert, Mr. and Mrs.
Theodore Stanton, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Paris.</p></div>
</div>


<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_955" id="Page_955">[Pg 955]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="APPENDIX" id="APPENDIX"></a>APPENDIX.</h2>

<div class="appendix">

<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER XXVII.</h3>

<h4>THE CENTENNIAL YEAR.</h4>

<p>Among those who sent most cordial letters of greeting, with
requests that their names should be enrolled in the centennial
autograph-book as signers of the woman's declaration of sentiments,
were: <i>Maine</i>, Lavinia M. Snow, Lucy A. Snow; <i>New Hampshire</i>,
Marilla M. Ricker, Abby P. Ela; <i>Massachusetts</i>, E. T. Strickland,
Sarah E. Wall; <i>Rhode Island</i>, Paulina Wright Davis; <i>Connecticut</i>,
Isabella Beecher Hooker, Frances Ellen Burr, Julia and Abby Smith;
<i>New York</i>, Clemence S. Lozier, Henrietta Paine Westbrook, Nettie
A. Ford, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Charlotte A. Cleveland, Elizabeth M.
Atwell; <i>Pennsylvania</i>, E. A. Stetson Lozier, Anna Thomson; <i>New
Jersey</i>, Ellen Dickinson, S. Mary Clute, Mary M. Van Clief, S. H.
Cornell, Emma L. Wilde, Jennie Dixon, Casa Tonti, Marie Howland,
Lucinda B. Chandler; <i>District of Columbia</i>, Addie T. Holton,
Margaret E. Johnson, Sabra P. Abell, Ruth Carr Dennison, Ellen H.
Sheldon, Mary Shadd Cary and ninety-four others, Mary F. Foster,
Susan A. Edson; <i>Virginia</i>, Sally Holly, Carrie Putnam; <i>Kentucky</i>,
Annie Laurie Quinby; <i>Tennessee</i>, Elizabeth Avery Meriwether;
<i>Louisiana</i>, Elizabeth Lisle Saxon; <i>Michigan</i>, Sarah C. Owen,
Margaret J. E. Millar; <i>Illinois</i>, A. J. Grover, Edward P. Powell,
Cynthia A. Leonard, Susan H. Richardson; <i>Missouri</i>, Francis Minor,
Annie R. Irvine; <i>California</i>, Sarah L. Knox, Sarah J. Wallis,
Carrie M. Robinson, Mary E. Kellogg, Georgiana Bruce Kirby;
<i>Oregon</i>, Mrs. A. J. Johns, Eveline Merrick Roork, Charles A. Reed;
<i>Washington Territory</i>, Mary Olney Brown, Abby H. H. Stuart; <i>Utah
Territory</i>, Annie Godbe; <i>Iowa</i>, Amelia Bloomer, Submit C. Loomis,
Philo A. Lyon and seventy-five others of Humboldt, Jane A. Telker,
Nancy R. Allen, Margaret Euart Colby, Mrs. Ellen M. Robinson, Mrs.
G. R. Woodworth, Mrs. W. W. Johnson, Mrs. Caroline A. Ingham, Mrs.
Mabel A. Stough, Mrs. R. H. Spencer, Mrs. J. W. Kenyon, Mrs. A. M.
Horton, Miss L. T. Dood, Mary L. Watson, Mrs. Sarah A. McCoy, Mrs.
J. J. Wilson, Mrs. F. L. Calkins, Mrs. L. H. Smith, Mrs. Emma C.
Spear, Mrs. M. L. Burlingame, Mrs. G. W. Blanchard, Mrs. D. L.
Ford, Mrs. E. C. Buffam, Mrs. Cora A. Jones, Mrs. Clara M. Wilson;
<i>Wisconsin</i>, Laura Ross Wolcott, M. Josephine Pearce, Eliza T.
Wilson, H. S. Brown; <i>Minnesota</i>, Sarah Burger Stearns; <i>Kansas</i>,
Susan E. Wattles, Elsie Stewart, Henrietta L. Miller, Lottie
Griffin, Jane M. Burke, Malura Hickson, Elsie J. Miller;
<i>Colorado</i>, Alida C. Avery; <i>Ohio</i>, Sarah R. L. Williams, Margaret
V. Longley; <i>England</i>, Lydia E. Becker, Caroline A. Biggs, Jessie
M. Wellstood.</p>

<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER XXX.</h3>

<h4 class="sc">Constitution of the National Woman Suffrage Association.</h4>

<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 1. This organization shall be called the <span class="smcap">National Woman
Suffrage Association</span>.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_956" id="Page_956">[Pg 956]</a></span></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 2. The object of this Association shall be to secure
<span class="smcap">National</span> Protection for women in the exercise of their right to
vote.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 3. All citizens of the United States subscribing to this
Constitution, and contributing not less than one dollar annually,
shall be considered members of the Association, with the right to
participate in its deliberations.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 4. The officers of this Association shall be a President, a
Vice-President from each of the States and Territories,
Corresponding and Recording Secretaries, a Treasurer and an
Executive Committee of not less than five.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 5. A quorum of the Executive Committee shall consist of
nine, and all officers of this Association shall be <i>ex-officio</i>
members of the committee, with power to vote.</p>

<p><span class="smcap">Article</span> 6. All woman suffrage societies throughout the country
shall be welcomed as auxiliaries, and their accredited officers or
duly appointed representatives shall be recognized as members of
the National Association.</p>


<h4 class="sc">Officers of the National Woman Suffrage Association, 1886.</h4>

<p><i>President</i>&mdash;Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Tenafly, N. J.</p>

<p><i>Vice-Presidents-at-Large</i>&mdash;Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.;
Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, N. Y.; Rev. Olympia Brown,
Racine, Wis.; Ph&oelig;be W. Couzins, St. Louis, Mo.; Abigail Scott
Duniway, Portland, Ore.</p>

<p><i>Honorary Vice-Presidents</i>&mdash;Ernestine L. Rose, London, England;
Priscilla Holmes Drake, Huntsville, Ala.; Mrs. Perry Spear, Eureka
Springs, Ark.; Sarah. J. Wallis, Mayfield; Sarah Knox Goodrich, San
José, Cal.; Mary F. Shields, Colorado Springs, Col.; Rev. Phebe A.
Hanaford, New Haven, Conn.; Rev. Eliza Tupper Wilkes, Sioux Falls,
Dak. Ter.; Rosina M. Parnell, Susan A. Edson, M. D., Ellen M.
O'Connor, Washington, D. C.; Catherine V. Waite, Myra Bradwell,
Chicago, Ill.; Zerelda G. Wallace, Indianapolis; Eliza Hamilton,
Fort Wayne, Ind.; Amelia Bloomer, Council Bluffs; Mary V. Cowgill,
West Liberty, Ia.; Prudence Crandall Philleo, Elk Falls; Mary T.
Gray, Wyandotte; Mary A. Humphrey, Junction City, Kan.; Elizabeth
H. Duval, Rinaldo, Ky.; Ann T. Greeley, Ellsworth; Lucy A. Snow,
Rockland, Me.; Anna Ella Carroll, Baltimore, Md.; Sarah E. Wall,
Worcester; Paulina Gerry, Stoneham, Mass.; Catherine A. F.
Stebbins, Detroit, Mich.; Charlotte O. Van Cleve, Minneapolis,
Minn.; Caroline Johnson Todd, St. Louis, Mo.; Harriet S. Brooks,
Omaha, Neb.; Eliza E. Morrill, Sarah H. Pillsbury, Concord; Mary
Powers Filley, North Haverhill, N. H.; Sarah G. Hurn, Vineland;
Delia Stewart Parnell, Bordentown, N. J.; Clemence S. Lozier, M.
D., New York; Amy Post, Rochester; Sarah H. Hallock, Milton; Mary
R. Pell, Flushing, N. Y.; Elizabeth Oakes Smith, Hollywood, N. C.;
Sophia O. Allen, South Newbury; Sarah R. L. Williams, Toledo;
Louise Southworth, Cleveland, O.; Harriet W. Williams, Portland,
Ore.; M. Adeline Thomson, Philadelphia, Penn.; Catherine C.
Knowles, East Greenwich; Elizabeth B. Chace, Valley Falls, R. I.;
Elizabeth Van Lew, Richmond, Va.; Mary Olney Brown, Abbie H. H.
Stuart, Olympia, Wash. Ter.; Laura Ross Wolcott, Milwaukee; Emma C.
Bascom, Madison, Wis.</p>

<p><i>Vice-Presidents</i>&mdash;Caroline M. Patterson, Harrison, Ark.; Ellen
Clarke Sargent, San Francisco, Cal.; Mrs. L. J. Terry, Pueblo,
Col.; Isabella Beecher Hooker, Hartford, Conn.; Marietta M. Bones,
Webster City, Dak.; Mary A. Stewart, Greenwood, Del.; Ruth C.
Dennison, Washington, D. C.; Mrs. C. B. S. Wilcox, Interlachen,
Fla.; Althea L. Lord, Savannah, Ga.; Dr. Jennie Bearby, Mountain
Home, Idaho; Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Evanston, Ill.; Helen M.
Gougar, Lafayette, Ind.; Jane Amy McKinney, Decorah, Ia.; Laura M.
Johns, Salina Kan.; Mary B. Clay, Richmond, Ky.; Caroline E.
Merrick, New Orleans, La.; Sophronia C. Snow, Hampden Corners, Me.;
Caroline Hallowell Miller, Sandy Spring, Md.; Harriette R.
Shattuck, Malden, Mass.; Fannie Holden Fowler, Manistee, Mich.;
Sarah Burger Stearns, Duluth, Minn.; Olivia Fitzhugh, Vicksburg,
Miss.; Virginia L. Minor, St. Louis, Mo.; Clara Bewick Colby,
Beatrice, Neb.; Maria H. Boardman, Reno, Nev.; Ada M. Jarrett,
Magdalena, N. Mex.; Marilla M. Ricker, Dover, N. H.; Cornelia<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_957" id="Page_957">[Pg 957]</a></span> C.
Hussey, East Orange, N. J.; Lillie Devereux Blake, New York, N. Y.;
Mary Bayard Clarke, New Berne, N. C.; Frances D. Casement,
Painesville, O.; Harriette A. Loughary, McMinneville, Ore.; Matilda
Hindman, Pittsburgh, Penn.; Anna S. Aldrich, Providence, R. I.;
Elizabeth Lisle Saxon, Memphis, Tenn.; Jennie Bland Beauchamp,
Denton, Tex.; Jennie A. Froiseth, Salt Lake City, Utah; Lydia
Putnam, Brattleboro', Vt.; Mrs. Roger S. Greene, Seättle, Wash.
Ter.: Alura C. Collins, Milwaukee, Wis.; Amalia B. Post, Cheyenne,
Wyoming.</p>

<p><i>Executive Committee</i>&mdash;May Wright Sewall, <i>Chairman</i>, 429 North New
Jersey street, Indianapolis, Ind.; Laura DeForce Gordon, San
Francisco; Mary J. Channing, Pasadena, Cal.; Dr. Alida C. Avery,
Denver, Col.; Frances Ellen Burr, Emily P. Collins, Hartford,
Conn.; Mrs. J. S. Pickler, Falktown; Linda W. Slaughter, Bismark,
Dak. Ter.; Belva A. Lockwood, Dr. Caroline B. Winslow, Washington,
D. C.; Flora M. Wright, Drayton Island, Fla.; Julia Mills Dunn,
Moline; Rev. Florence Kollock, Englewood; Dr. Alice B. Stockham,
Ada C. Sweet, Chicago, Ill.; Mary E. Haggart, Mary E. N. Cary,
Indianapolis, Ind.; Narcisa T. Bemis, Independence; Mary J.
Coggeshall, Des Moines, Ia; Annie C. Wait, Lincoln Center;
Henrietta B. Wall, Mrs. S. A. Hauk, Hutchinson, Kan.; Sally Clay
Bennett, Mary A. Somers, Richmond; Laura White, Manchester, Ky.;
Maria I. Johnson, Mound, La.; Charlotte A. Thomas, Portland, Me.;
Amanda M. Best, Bright Seat, Md.; Harriet H. Robinson, Malden; Sara
A. Underwood, Dorchester Mass.; Julia Upton, Big Rapids; Cordelia
Fitch Briggs, Grand Rapids, Mich.; Julia Bullard Nelson, Red Wing:
Mrs. L. H. Hawkins, Shakopee; Mary P. Wheeler, Kasson, Minn.; Anne
R. Irvine, Oregon; Elizabeth A. Meriwether, St. Louis, Mo.; Jennie
F. Holmes, Tecumseh; Orpha C. Dinsmoore, Omaha, Neb.; Hannah R.
Clapp, Carson City, Nev.; Mrs. A. B. I. Roberts, Candia, N. H.;
Augusta Cooper Bristol, Vineland; Theresa A. Seabrook, Keyport, N.
J.; Mathilde F. Wendt, New York; Caroline G. Rogers, Lansingburgh;
Ellen S. Fray, Lewia C. Smith, Rochester, N. Y.; Sarah M. Perkins,
Elvira J. Bushnell, Cleveland; Sarah S. Bissell, Toledo, O.; Mrs.
J. M. Kelty, Lafayette, Ore.; Deborah L. Pennock, Kennett Square;
Harriet Purvis, Philadelphia, Penn.; Lillie Chace Wyman, Valley
Falls, R. I.; Lide Meriwether, Memphis, Tenn.; Mrs. D. Clinton
Smith, Middleboro', Vt.; Mrs. F. D. Gordon, Richmond, Va.; Eliza T.
Wilson, Menomonie; Laura James, Richland Center, Wis.; Barbara J,
Thompson, Tacoma, Wash. Ter.; Mrs. J. H. Hayford, Laramie City,
Wyoming Ter.</p>

<p><i>Recording Secretaries</i>&mdash;Julia A. Wilbur, Caroline A. Sherman,
Washington, D. C.</p>

<p><i>Corresponding Secretaries</i>&mdash;Rachel G. Foster, Philadelphia, Penn.;
Ellen H. Sheldon, Washington, D. C.</p>

<p><i>Foreign Corresponding Secretaries</i>&mdash;Caroline A. Biggs, London;
Lydia E. Becker, Manchester, England; Marguerite Berry Stanton,
Hubertine Auclert, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Paris, France; Clara
Neymann, Berlin, Germany.</p>

<p><i>Treasurer</i>&mdash;Jane H. Spofford, Riggs House, Washington, D. C.</p>

<p><i>Auditors</i>&mdash;Eliza T. Ward, Ellen M. O'Connor, Washington, D. C.</p>


<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER XXXII.</h3>

<h4>CONNECTICUT.</h4>

<p class="center"><i>Is the Family the Basis of the State?</i></p>

<h5>BY JOHN HOOKER.</h5>

<p>The proposition that the family is the basis of the State has come
down through many generations, so far as I know, unchallenged; but
in the sense in which it is ordinarily understood, and for the
purpose for which it is ordinarily used, it is entirely a fallacy.
The State depends upon the family for the continuance of its
population, just as it depends upon the school for the intelligence
of its people and on religious<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_958" id="Page_958">[Pg 958]</a></span> institutions for their morality.
But the State stands in no political relation to the family any
more than to the school and the church. What is meant by the
proposition as generally used is, that the State is politically an
aggregate of families and not of individuals. This is entirely
untrue, and if true the fact would be calamitous. Civil government
is supposed to have had its origin in family government, the
patriarch becoming chief of a tribe which was substantially the
outgrowth and expansion of a single family; but if a nation was to
be formed of such tribes it would be essential to its peace and
prosperity that they should as soon as possible mingle into one
homogeneous mass, and that no citizen should consider himself of
one tribe rather than another. It is the family idea in a
government like ours that makes the feuds which are handed down
from generation to generation in some parts of the country. It made
the frequent bloody contests of the clans in Scotland, and the
dissensions of the Hebrew tribes. In a republic nothing can be more
disastrous than that great political leaders should have large
family followings. The first duty of the citizen is to forget that
he belongs to any family in particular. He is an individual citizen
of the State, and when he becomes a magistrate he must practically
ignore the fact that he has family relatives who feel entitled to
his special favor. He must, like justice, be blind to every fact
except that the applicant for office or for justice is an
individual citizen and must stand wholly on his personal merits or
the justice of his cause.</p>

<p>The proposition that the family is the basis of the State thus
taken by itself is entirely false; but even if true, the use made
of it as an argument against giving suffrage to women is equally
fallacious. This can be shown by a single illustration. We will
suppose there are two families, in both of which the father dies,
leaving in one case a widow and one son, and in the other a widow
and six daughters. Where is now the family representation? The son
whom we will suppose to be of age, goes to the polls and we will
suppose sufficiently represents the family to which he belongs; but
where is the family representation for the other widow and her six
daughters? She may be the largest tax-payer in the State, and yet
she can have no voice in determining what taxes shall be laid, nor
to what purposes the money shall be appropriated.</p>

<p>The question whether the family is the basis of the State cannot be
made an abstract question of political philosophy. Indeed the
question is unmeaning when put as an abstract one. We might just as
well ask, "Is the climate cold in a State?" or, "Is the English
language spoken in a State?" It is only as we ask these questions
about a <i>particular</i> State that they have any meaning. "Is it cold
in Russia?" "Is English spoken in Connecticut?"</p>

<p>Take the case of a State ruled by a despot. Here the people are not
the political basis of the State, either as families or as
individuals. They have no political power whatever. The political
basis of the State is the will of the despot. He is himself and
alone the State politically. He makes the laws himself, and shoots
and hangs those who disobey them. The people are indispensable to
the State, and so in one sense its basis, just as the square miles
that compose its territory are its physical basis, but the people
stand in no political relation whatever to the State, any more than
the rocks and gravel of its territory. It is only where the people
of the State have the whole or a part of its political power, that
the question can possibly arise as to whether individuals or
families are its political basis. And when it thus arises, it comes
up wholly with reference to a particular State, and not as an
abstract question. And then it is wholly a question of fact, not
one of political philosophy; a matter for simple ascertainment, not
for speculation and reasoning. Thus, suppose the question to be,
"Is the family or the individual the political basis of the State
of Connecticut?" We are to answer the question solely by looking at
the constitution and laws of the State. We look there and find that
it is as clear as language can make it that the political basis of
the State is the individual and not the family. The individual is
made the voter&mdash;not the family&mdash;and that is the whole question. It
was perfectly easy for the people, if they had so desired, when
they were adopting a constitution, to make families and not
individuals the depositaries of political power, but they chose to
give the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_959" id="Page_959">[Pg 959]</a></span> power to individuals, and thus the question is absolutely
settled for the State. It is true, the State does not carry out
completely its own theory, but this was its theory, and what it did
was wholly in this direction and away from the family theory. We go
to the constitution of the State to settle this question, just as
we would to settle the question whether the governor's term is one
year or two, or whether the judges hold office for a term of years
or for life. While considering whether either of these provisions
ought to be adopted, we are dealing with a matter proper for
opinions and argument, but when the provisions have been adopted,
the whole question becomes one of fact, and we look only to the
constitution to determine it, and treat it as a matter not for
discussion but for absolute ascertainment.</p>

<p>When one is advocating the theory that the family should be the
political basis of the State, he is simply saying that the
constitution ought to be amended and the right of voting taken away
from individuals and given to families. But it is idle to urge
this. Such a measure would not get even a respectable minority of
votes. It is decisive on this point that not a single
representative government, so far as the writer knows, has adopted
the theory that the family and not the individual should vote. A
law peculiar to Russia gives its villages, in the management of
their local matters, the right of voting by families&mdash;a perfect
illustration, on a very small scale, of the family as the political
basis of a State. But here woman suffrage is admitted as a
necessary result; and where there is no man to represent the
family, or he is unable to attend, the woman of the house casts the
vote.</p>

<p>The advocates of woman suffrage have no interest whatever in this
question, as it is idle to suppose that it can become a practical
one. The writer has taken what trouble he has in the matter solely
in the interest of correct thinking.</p>

<p><i>Hartford, May, 1879.</i></p>


<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER XXXVII.</h3>

<h4>NEW YORK.</h4>

<p class="hang"><i>Brief on the Legislature's Power to Extend the Suffrage,
Submitted February 19, 1880, to the Judiciary Committee of the
Assembly of the State of New York.</i> </p>

<h5>BY HAMILTON WILCOX.</h5>

<p>I. <span class="smcap">Legislature Omnipotent</span>.&mdash;Unlike the Federal constitution, the
State constitution does not reserve all powers not expressly
delegated. It is held by the authorities that in the absence of
positive restriction the legislature is omnipotent.</p>

<p>"In a judicial sense, their authority is absolute and unlimited,
except by the express restrictions of the fundamental law" (Court
of Appeals, 1863, Bank of Chenango vs. Brown, 26 N. Y., 467; S. P.,
Cathcart vs. Fire Department of New York, Id., 529; Supreme Court,
1864, Clark vs. Miller, 42 Barb., 255; Luke vs. City of Brooklyn,
43 Id., 54).</p>

<p>"Only on the ground of express constitutional provisions limiting
legislative power, can courts declare void any legislative
enactment" (Court of Error. 1838, Cochran vs. Van Surlay, 29 Wend.,
365; Newell vs. People, 7 N. Y. [3 Seld.], 9, 109).</p>

<p>"Before proceeding to amend, by judicial sentence, what has been
enacted by the law-making power, it should clearly appear that the
act cannot be supported by any reasonable intendment or allowable
presumption" (Court of Appeals, 1858, People vs. Supervisors of
Orange, 17 N. Y., 235; affi'g, 27 Barb., 575).</p>

<p>II. <span class="smcap">Powers Undefined</span>.&mdash;The constitution forbids the legislature to
do certain things. Otherwise it does not define or limit the
legislature's powers (Art. 3, §§ 3, 18, 19, 24).</p>

<p>III. <span class="smcap">No Prohibition</span>.&mdash;No constitution of New York has ever
forbidden the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_960" id="Page_960">[Pg 960]</a></span> legislature to extend the suffrage beyond the
classes specified by such constitution; nor has any ever forbidden
unspecified persons to vote. The constitution simply secures the
suffrage to certain classes, and there leaves the matter.</p>

<p>IV. <span class="smcap">Rule of Construction</span>.&mdash;The constitution declares that the
object of its establishment is to secure the blessings of freedom
to the people (Preamble, Revised Statutes, vol. 1., p. 82). Hence
it, and all enactments under it, must be understood and construed,
where a contrary intent is not clearly expressed, to be aimed at
securing freedom to all.</p>

<p>V. <span class="smcap">Disfranchisement</span>.&mdash;The constitution follows this declaration by
laying down at its outset, as its fundamental principle, that "No
member of this State shall be disfranchised or deprived of any of
the rights or privileges secured to any citizens thereof, except by
the law of the land" (Art. 1, § 1, do., do.). Disfranchisement,
then, must be express by the law. It cannot constitutionally be
inflicted through mere implication or silence.</p>

<p>Rules for the securing of freedom have often been found to cover
unforeseen cases. Such was the fact in the famous decision of Lord
Mansfield in 1774, that slavery was against the common law, under
which slavery was afterward abolished throughout the British
empire; and the decision of the highest court of Massachusetts,
that the terms of the constitution of 1780 conferred freedom on the
slaves of that State.</p>

<p>Women, it is now fully recognized, are citizens, and hence "members
of the State," entitled to the security guaranteed. The <i>practice</i>
under the constitution has been to treat as <i>disfranchised</i> all
persons <i>not specified</i> as entitled to vote. Though this practice
is plainly against the declared object and principle of the
constitution, it has been general and mostly continuous, and has
thus acquired the force of law. This, however, does not impair the
legislature's power to correct the practice by express enactment.</p>

<p>VI. <span class="smcap">Precedents</span>.&mdash;The legislature <i>has</i> repeatedly corrected this
practice by express enactments securing freedom to various portions
of the people.</p>

<p>(<i>a</i>). <span class="smcap">Constitutional Convention</span>, 1801.&mdash;The act calling this
convention extended the suffrage for members of that body&mdash;<i>the
highest officers of the State</i>&mdash;to "all free male citizens over
twenty-one years of age," while the constitution secured suffrage
only to male holders of and actual taxpayers on a fixed amount of
real estate (Session Law 1801, ch. 69, p. 151; constitution of
1777, do., 1, 39).</p>

<p>(<i>b</i>). <span class="smcap">Constitutional Convention</span>, 1821.&mdash;The act providing for the
convention that framed the constitution of 1822, while the existing
constitution (as above) only specified as entitled to vote, holders
of and taxpayers on a fixed amount of real estate&mdash;this act allowed
<i>all</i> freeholders, however small the value of their holdings, all
actual taxpayers, all officers and privates, ex-officers and
ex-privates, in militia or in volunteer or uniform corps, all
persons exempt by law from taxation or militia duty, all workers on
public roads and highways, or payers of commutation for such work;
to vote on the question whether the convention should be held, to
vote in the choice of delegates thereto&mdash;<i>again for the highest
officers of the State</i>&mdash;and to vote on the question of adoption of
the new constitution&mdash;<i>to exercise a voice in framing the State's
fundamental law</i>. The council of revision, including the governor,
which opposed and defeated part of this act, made no objection to
this feature (Session Laws 1821, ch. 90, p. 83).</p>

<p>The vote for governor, 1820, was 93,437&mdash;the largest ever cast in
the State. That on the question of calling the convention in 1821
was 144,247. One act of the legislature thus enfranchised <i>fifty
thousand persons</i>. The vote on the new constitution stood: For,
74,732; against, 41,402; majority for, 33,330. Thus the votes of
fifty thousand persons&mdash;enfranchised, not by the constitution but
by the legislature&mdash;carried the adoption of a new constitution,
which further secured to them the freedom which the legislature had
opened to them. The vote for governor in 1824&mdash;the next
hotly-contested election&mdash;was 190,545; so that the immediate effect
of the legislature's act was to add 97,108 persons to the
constituency&mdash;to make a mass of new voters who outnumbered those
specified by the constitution.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_961" id="Page_961">[Pg 961]</a></span></p>

<p>(<i>c</i>). <span class="smcap">Aliens Voting</span>.&mdash;The constitution specifies none but
"citizens" as entitled to vote; yet the legislature, by a school
law of many years' standing, allowed <i>aliens</i> to vote for school
functionaries, on filing with the secretary of state notice of
intention to become naturalized (1 R. S., art. 2, § 1, p. 65; 2 R.
S., 63, § 12; 2 R. S., 1,096, § 31).</p>

<p>(<i>d</i>). <span class="smcap">Northfield</span>.&mdash;The proprietors of swamp-lands in the town of
Northfield, Richmond county, were authorized to elect directors of
drainage, without any restriction or qualification but ownership
(Session Laws 1862, ch. 80, § 2, p. 233).</p>

<p>(<i>e</i>). The taxpayers of Newport, Herkimer county, were authorized
to vote on the question of issuing bonds to raise money for a
town-house. Under this law women who were taxpayers voted (Act
April 9, 1873, Session Laws, ch. 187, § 3, p. 304).</p>

<p>(<i>f</i>). The taxpayers of Dansville, Livingston county, were
authorized to vote on the issue of water-bonds. Under this act
women voted (Act April 24, 1873, Session Laws, ch. 285, § 4, p.
409).</p>

<p>(<i>g</i>). The taxpayers of Saratoga Springs were authorized to vote on
the question of issuing bonds for the construction of an additional
water-main. Under this ninety-nine women voted (Act May 13, 1876,
Session Laws, ch. 254, § 4, p. 250).</p>

<p>VII. <span class="smcap">School Suffrage</span>.&mdash;If the legislature can admit aliens to vote
at school-meetings, it can admit female citizens to do so.</p>

<p>VIII. <span class="smcap">Presidential Suffrage</span>.&mdash;1. The federal constitution provides
that electors of president and vice-president shall be appointed
"in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct" (Art. 2, §
2).</p>

<p>2. It also provides that "this constitution shall be the supreme
law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the
contrary notwithstanding" (Art. 6, § 2).</p>

<p>3. The legislature has the power under the federal constitution to
provide whatever method it may choose for the appointment of the
electors. The courts have no power to interfere, and even an
executive veto would have no force. The legislature has sole and
full power to say who may vote for electors and how the election
shall be held.</p>


<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER XXXVIII.</h3>

<h4>PENNSYLVANIA.</h4>

<h5>BY CARRIE S. BURNHAM.</h5>

<p>The common law of England as modified by English statutes prior to
the Revolution has been formally adopted either by constitutions
and statutes or assumed by courts of justice as the law of the land
in every State save Louisiana, and in the absence of positive
statutes is the common law of the United States. To understand the
legal status of woman in Pennsylvania it is therefore necessary,
<i>First</i>&mdash;To ascertain her condition under the common law;
<i>Second</i>&mdash;How this law has been modified in this State by statutes.</p>


<h4 class="sc">Common Law.</h4>

<p>By the common law, which Lord Coke calls "the perfection of
reason," women arrive at the age of discretion at twelve, men at
fourteen; both sexes are of full age at twenty-one, entitled to
civil rights, and if unmarried and possessed of freehold, they are
equally entitled to the exercise of political rights (Blackstone,
I., 463; IV., 212; Bouvier's Institutes, 156, 157; Decisions of
English courts in 1612, quoted in 7 Mod. Rep., 264).</p>

<p>"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law"; that is,
the legal existence of the woman is "merged in that of her
husband." He is her "baron," or "lord," bound to supply her with
shelter, food, clothing and medicine, and is entitled<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_962" id="Page_962">[Pg 962]</a></span> to her
earnings&mdash;the use and custody of her person, which he may seize
wherever he may find it (Blackstone, I., 442, 443; Coke Litt., 112
a, 187 b; 8 Dowl., P. C., 632.)</p>

<p>The husband being bound to provide for his wife the necessaries of
life, and being responsible for "her morals" and the good order of
the household, may choose and govern the domicil, choose her
associates, separate her from her relatives, restrain her religious
and personal freedom, compel her to cohabit with him, correct her
faults by mild means and, if necessary, chastise her with
moderation, as though she was his apprentice or child. This is in
"respect to the terms of the marriage contract and the infirmity of
the sex" (Bl., I., 444; 1 Bishop on Mar. and Div., 758; 8 Dowl. P.
C., 632; Bouv. Insts., 277, 278, 2,283; 1 Wend. Bl., 442, note; 4
Petersdorf's A. B., 21, note).</p>

<p>Woman's character, exposed to the vilest slanders of "malignity and
falsehood," and her chastity are protected on account of the injury
sustained by the father, husband or master from loss of her
services, or wrongful entry of his house, rather than the injury
done to her as an individual (Bl. I., 445, note; III., 141, 143,
note; 3 Serg. and Rawle, Penn., 36; 3 Penn., 49; 2 Watts' Penn.,
474).</p>

<p>The husband is entitled to recover damages for "criminal
conversation with his wife," or for injury to her person whereby he
is deprived of his "marital rights," or of her "company and
assistance"; also an action of <i>trespass vi et armis</i> against the
individual enticing her away or encouraging her to live separately
from him; the offense implies force and constraint, "the wife
having no power to consent," and is punishable with fine and
imprisonment (Bl., III., 139; 2 Inst., 434; Bouvier's Institutes,
3,495).</p>

<p>The wife has no action for injuries to her husband as she is not
entitled to his services, neither has she any separate interest in
anything during her coverture. The law takes notice only of the
injuries done to the "superior of the parties related"; because
"the inferior has no kind of property in the company, care or
assistance of the superior, as the superior is held to have in
those of the inferior" (Blackstone, III., 143; Bouv. Insts.,
3,495).</p>

<p>The husband, by marriage, becomes entitled absolutely to the
personal property of his wife, which at his death goes to his
representatives; also to the rents and profits of her lands, to the
interest in her chattels real and <i>choses</i> in action, of which he
can dispose at pleasure, except by will. He acquires the same right
in any property whether real or personal of which she may become
possessed after marriage, and is liable during coverture for her
debts contracted before marriage (Bl., II., 434, 435; Bouv. Insts.,
4,005; Coke Litt., 46, 351).</p>

<p>At his death she becomes possessed of her wardrobe and jewels, such
of her chattels as remain undisposed of, and her own real estate;
also quarantine (<i>i. e.</i>, forty days' residence in "his mansion"),
one-third of his personality absolutely and the use of one-third of
any real estate of which he is possessed during coverture for the
term of her natural life. <i>His</i> mansion, realty and personalty
includes what they have jointly earned as well as that of which he
was possessed at marriage. The widow's right to one-third of the
personal estate was abolished by English statutes prior to the
Revolution, but has since been revived by Pennsylvania statutes
(Blackstone, II., 129, 134, 139, 436, 492, 493; Coke Litt., 31, 34;
Bouvier's Institutes, 1,750; Brightley's Purdon, 806, 2 and 3).</p>

<p>At the death of the wife their joint earnings, also her chattels
real, vest absolutely in the husband, and if they have had a living
child the husband, as "tenant by the curtesy," becomes possessed of
her entire real estate for life. The wife loses her dower by
adultery, but the husband does not lose his curtesy on that
account. Her dower is also barred by his treason and by a divorce
grounded on his adultery (Blackstone, II., 127, 434; Roper, Husband
and Wife, 1,210; 2 Kent, 131; 7 Watts, 563; Bouvier's Institutes,
1,732).</p>

<p>A husband cannot convey real estate directly to his wife, but may
through a trustee; neither can he give "anything to her nor
covenant with her, for the grant would be to suppose her separate
existence, and to covenant with her would be to covenant with<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_963" id="Page_963">[Pg 963]</a></span>
himself." Their covenants or indebtedness to each other before
marriage are by the marriage extinguished (Blackstone, I., 442;
Coke Litt., 3, 30; 112 a; 187 b; Connyn. Dig. Baron and Feme, D).</p>

<p>The husband may devise any property to his wife, but the wife
cannot make a will, the law supposing her to be under his coercion;
neither can she bind her person or property, nor make nor enforce a
contract, nor can she be a witness in any matter in which her
husband is interested (Blackstone, II., 293, 498, 444; 2 Kent, 179;
Bouv. Insts., 1,441; Connyn. Dig. Pleader, 2 A, 1; Baron and Feme,
W; 2 Roper, Husband and Wife, 171).</p>

<p>A wife, with the consent of her husband, may act as his or other's
attorney, may be a guardian, trustee, administratrix or executrix,
but cannot sue in <i>auter droit</i> unless her husband join in the
suit. This incapacitates her to act independently in either
capacity (Blackstone, II., 503; 1 Anders., 117; 2 Story, Eq.
Juris., 1,367, note; 57 Penn. St. Rep., 356).</p>

<p>A wife cannot enforce her rights nor defend any action brought
against her, but must plead coverture in person, being incapable of
appointing an attorney (Bouv. Insts., 2,787, 2,907; 41 N. H., 106;
2 Saund., 209; c. n. 1).</p>

<p>When a woman marries after having commenced a suit, the suit
abates; but the husband may <i>in equity</i> sue her for his marital
rights in her property; marriage of a female partner dissolves the
partnership (Bouv. Insts., 4,037, 1,494; 4 Russ. Ch., 247; 3 Atk.
Ch., 478; 2 P. Will Ch., 243).</p>

<p>The father of legitimate children is bound for their maintenance
and education, is entitled to their labor and custody and has power
to dispose of them until twenty-one years of age, by deed or
legacy, even though they are unborn at his death. The testamentary
guardian's right to their custody supersedes that of their mother
(Bl., I., 447, 451, 453; 2 Kent, 191 and 193; Bouv. Insts., 344; 5
Rawle, 323; 2 Watts, 406; 5 East, 221; Purd. Dig., New Ed., 411,
29; 5 Pitts, L. J., 406; 1 Pitts, 412).</p>

<p>"A mother is entitled to no power, but to reverence and respect,
from her children"; she has no legal authority over them nor right
to their services, but her property is liable for their maintenance
if the father has not an estate. The mother's appointment of a
testamentary guardian is absolutely void (Bl., I., 453 and 461,
note by Chitty; Vaughan, 180; 1 Leg. Gaz. R., 56).</p>

<p>The mother of a "natural or illegitimate" child is its natural
guardian, entitled to its control and custody and her settlement is
its domicil (Bl., I., 459; 2 Kent, 216; 5 Term Rep., 278; Newton
vs. Braintree, 14 Mass., 382).</p>

<p>"Intestate personal property is divided equally between males and
females, but a son, though younger than all his sisters, is the
heir to the whole of real property" (Bl., I., 444, note by
Christian).</p>


<h4 class="sc">Pennsylvania Statutes and Court Decisions.</h4>

<p>This "perfection of reason" (the common law) has been changed in
Pennsylvania in the following particulars:</p>

<p>All women, married and single, are deprived of political rights by
the use of the generic word "freeman" in the constitution (29 Legal
Intelligencer, 5).</p>

<p>Heir at common law is abolished by statute; however, the right to
administer vests in the male in preference to the female of the
same degree of consanguinity. Half-brothers are entitled to the
preference over own sisters (Purdon, 410, 27; Single's Appeal, 59
Penn. St. R., 55).</p>

<p>Any property belonging to a woman before marriage, or which accrues
to her during coverture by gift, bequest or purchase, continues, by
the act of April 11, 1848, to be her separate property after
marriage, and is not liable for the debts of her husband nor
subject to his disposal without her written consent, duly
acknowledged before one of the judges of the Court of Common Pleas
as voluntarily given; <i>provided</i>, that he is not liable for the
debts contracted before or after marriage, or for her torts
(Purdon's Dig., 1,005, 13).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_964" id="Page_964">[Pg 964]</a></span></p>

<p>"This act protects the wife's interest in her separate property
both as to title and possession," but "does not empower her to
convey her real estate by a deed in which her husband has not
joined," nor "create a lease without his concurrence," nor "execute
an obligation for the payment of money or the performance of any
other act," nor in any way dispose of her property save by gift or
loan to him; she may bind her separate estate for his debts, and in
security for the loan she may take a judgment or mortgage against
the estate of the husband in the name of a third person, who shall
act as her trustee (18 Penn. St. R., 506, 582; 21, 402; 1 Gr., 402;
6 Phila., 531; Pur. Dig., 1,007, 21).</p>

<p>The husband is the natural guardian or trustee of the property of
the wife; but by application "to the Court of Common Pleas of the
county where she was domiciled at the time of her marriage," the
court will appoint a trustee (not her husband) to take charge of
the property secured to her by the act of 1848. This act, however,
does not authorize the appointment of a trustee, to the exclusion
of her husband, of property owned by her prior to the passage of
the act, nor was it intended to affect vested rights of husbands
and does not protect them for the wife's benefit against the claims
of creditors (10 Penn. St. Rep., 398 and 505; 18, 392 and 509; 21,
260; 1 Jones, 272).</p>

<p>In a clear case the wife's real estate cannot be levied upon and
sold by a creditor of the husband, <i>but the burden of proof</i> is
upon her to show by evidence "which does not admit of a reasonable
doubt," that she owned the property before marriage or acquired it
subsequently by gift, bequest, or paid for it with funds not
furnished by her husband nor the result of their joint earnings.
The wife's possession of money is no evidence of her title to it
(18 Penn. St. Rep., 366; 7 Phila., 118).</p>

<p>If no property, or not sufficient property, of the husband can be
found, the separate property and goods of the wife may be levied
upon and sold for rent or for debts incurred for the support of the
family (Purd. Dig., 1,006, 15; 38 Penn. St. Rep., 344).</p>

<p>A married woman's bond and warrant of attorney are absolutely void,
nor can she make a valid contract except for a sewing-machine or
for the improvement of her separate property, and her bond given or
a judgment confessed by her for such debt is void (24 Penn. St.
Rep., 80; Act of 1872, Pur. Dig., 1,010).</p>

<p>She may sell and transfer shares of the capital stock of any
railroad company, but cannot herself or by attorney transfer
certificates of city loan (28 Leg. Int., 116; Act June 2, 1871).</p>

<p>A married woman cannot enforce her rights against third persons,
either for the performance of a contract or the recovery of her
property, without her husband join in the suit, although the party
contracting with her is liable to an action (1 Gr., 21; Act of 1850
and 1839; 6 Phila., 223).</p>

<p>If divorced or separated from her husband by his neglect or
desertion, she may protect her reputation by an action for slander
and libel; but if her husband is the defendant, this suit, as also
for alimony and divorce, must be in the name of a "next friend."
She is entitled to a writ of <i>habeas corpus</i> if unlawfully
restrained of her liberty (Purd. Dig., 510, 12; 513, 24; 754, 1).</p>

<p>The wife of a drunkard or profligate man by petitioning the Court
of Common Pleas, setting forth these facts and his desertion of her
and neglect to provide for her and their children, may be entitled
to the custody of her children, and, as a "<i>feme sole trader</i>,"
empowered to transact business and acquire a separate property,
which shall be subject to her own disposal during life, and liable
for the maintenance and education of her children. Her testimony
must be sustained "by two respectable witnesses" (Pur. Dig., 692,
5; Act of 1855, 2; 2 Roper, Husband and Wife, 171, 173).</p>

<p>By act of April, 1872, any married woman having first petitioned
the court, stating under oath or affirmation her intention of
claiming her separate earnings, is entitled to acquire by her labor
a separate property which shall not be subject to any legal claim
of her husband or of his creditors, she, however, being compelled
"to show title and ownership in the same." The husband's possession
of property is evidence of his title to it; not so with the wife
(Purd. Dig., 1,010, 38, 39; 4 Lansing, 164; 61 Barb., 145).<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_965" id="Page_965">[Pg 965]</a></span></p>

<p>A married woman may devise her separate property by will, subject,
however, to the husband's curtesy, which in Pennsylvania attaches,
though there be no issue born alive, and which she cannot bar
(Purd. Dig., 806, 804; I Pars., 489; 26 Penn. St. R., 202, 203; 2
Brewster, 302).</p>

<p>The husband may bar the wife's dower by a <i>bona fide</i> mortgage
given by himself alone or by a judicial sale for the payment of his
debts. It is also barred by a divorce obtained by her on the ground
of his adultery, and in case of such divorce she is entitled to the
value of one-half of the money and property which the husband
received through her at marriage (Purd. Dig., 514; 2 Dall. 127; 12
Serg. and R., 21; I Yeates Pa., 300).</p>

<p>A single woman's will is revoked by her subsequent marriage, and is
not again revived by the death of her husband; a single man's will
is revoked by marriage absolutely only when he leaves a widow but
no known heirs or kindred (Purd. Dig., 1,477, 18 and 19; 47 Penn.
S. Rep., 144, 34, 483).</p>

<p>If the husband die intestate leaving a widow and issue, the widow
shall have one-third of his and their joint personalty absolutely,
and one-third of the real estate for life; if there are no
children, but collateral heirs, she is entitled to the use of
one-half the realty, including the mansion-house, for her life, and
one-half the personalty absolutely (Purd. Dig., 806, 2 and 3; Act
of 1833, 1).</p>

<p>If the wife die intestate leaving a husband and no issue, he is
entitled to her entire personalty and realty during his life; if
there are children her personal estate is divided between the
husband and children share and share alike; in either case he is
entitled to their entire joint estate (Purd. Dig., 806, 5; Act of
1848, 9).</p>

<p>Married women may be corporate members of any institution composed
of and managed by women, having as its object the care and
education of children or the support of sick and indigent women
(Purd. Dig., 283; Act of 1859, 1).</p>

<p>It is a crime, punishable by fine and imprisonment, to employ any
woman to attend or wait upon an audience in a theater, opera or
licensed entertainment, to procure or furnish commodities or
refreshments (Purd. Dig., 337, 112).</p>

<p>A man, by marriage, is subjected to no political, civil, legal or
commercial disabilities, but acquires all the rights and powers
previously vested in his wife. He is capable of all the offices of
the government from that of postmaster to the presidency, and of
transacting all kinds of business from the measuring of tape to the
practice of the most learned professions. Woman, deprived of
political power, is limited in opportunities for education, and, if
married, is incapable of making a contract; hence crippled in the
transaction of any kind of business.</p>


<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER XLII.</h3>

<h4>INDIANA.</h4>

<h4><a name="Indiana_A" id="Indiana_A">[A.]</a></h4>

<p>Governor Porter made the following novel appointment: On August 30,
1882, Mrs. Georgia A. Ruggles, from Bartholomew county, presented
to Governor Porter an application for a requisition from the
governor of Indiana upon the governor of Kansas, for William J.
Beck, charged with the crime of bigamy. Beck had been living a few
months in Bartholomew county and had passed as an unmarried man;
had gained the affections of a young lady much younger than himself
and much superior to him by birth and education. After their
marriage the fact that Beck had already one wife became known and
he fled to Kansas. Mrs. Ruggles was a friend to the young lady who
had been thus duped, and upon learning the facts she called the
attention of the proper authorities to the matter, and begged them
to effect Beck's arrest. They were not disposed to do so, and upon
various excuses postponed action.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_966" id="Page_966">[Pg 966]</a></span> She therefore determined to take
the matter into her own hands. Governor Porter granted her the
desired requisition; she went to Kansas, and on September 10, 1882,
she received Beck from Samuel Hamilton, sheriff of Ellsworth
county; she herself brought the prisoner, in cuffs, to Indiana,
and, September 13, she delivered him into the hands of Thomas E.
Burgess, sheriff of Bartholomew county. Beck was tried, convicted
and sent to the penitentiary. This bit of justice was the fruit of
a woman's pluck and a governor's good sense.</p>


<h4 class="sc">Extract from Gen. Coburn's Address.</h4>

<p>The people expect that they will in their own way and time
inaugurate such measures as will bring these questions in their
entire magnitude into the arena. I hope to see 10,000 women in
convention here. They can, if they will, create a public sentiment
in favor of their enfranchisement that will be irresistible. They
have the ears of the voters; they have access to the columns of the
newspapers; they control all the avenues of social life. What can
they not accomplish, if, with their whole hearts they set about it?
The sphere of public life has many vacant places to be filled by
women. Why shall they not serve upon the boards of trustees of our
great reformatory and benevolent institutions, as superintendents
in our hospitals, and as directors and inspectors in our prisons?
The last legislature conferred upon them the right to hold any
office in our great school system except one, that of State
superintendent of public instruction. From them may now be
selected, president of the State university, or of the Normal
School, or of Purdue University, school commissioners and county
superintendents. But the legislature should give them the power to
rescue our prisons, hospitals and asylums from the indescribable
horror of filth, neglect and cruelty which hangs like a murky cloud
over many of them. Men have tried it and failed. Stupidity or
partisanship or brutality or avarice, has transformed many a noble
foundation of benevolence into a hell of abomination. Some one must
step in to inspect; to enforce order, cleanliness and virtue; to
bring comfort and hope to the downcast and to the outcast of
society. This purpose must be backed up by the strong arm of power,
by the sanction of the law, and that law must have upon it the
stamp of woman's intellect. This year the women of Indiana can
place themselves in the van of human progress and dictate the
policy which mankind must recognize as just and true for ages to
come. The public mind is not unprepared for this measure. The
spread and the acceptance of great ideas is almost miraculous in
intelligent communities.</p>


<h4><a name="Indiana_B" id="Indiana_B">[B.]</a></h4>

<h5>LEGAL OPINION BY W. D. WALLACE, ESQ., UPON THE POWER OF THE
LEGISLATURE TO AUTHORIZE WOMEN TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.</h5>

<p><i>Capt. W. DeWitt Wallace, Attorney-at-law, Lafayette, Ind.:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Sir</span>: You will confer a favor upon the friends of woman
suffrage in Indiana, if you will send me, in writing, your opinion,
as a lawyer, in answer to the following question, giving your
reasons therefor: Can the legislature of this State empower women
to vote for presidential electors?</p>

<p class="ltr-from2"><span class="smcap">Mary F. Thomas</span>, <i>President I. W. S. A.</i></p>
<p class="ltr-to"><i>Richmond, Ind.</i>, December 30, 1880.</p>


<p class="ltr-date ltr-break">
<span class="smcap">Lafayette</span>, Ind., January 5, 1881.</p>

<p><i>Dr. Mary F. Thomas, President of Indiana Woman Suffrage
Association, Richmond, Indiana:</i></p>

<p><span class="smcap">Dear Madam</span>: In your favor of the 30th ult., you ask my opinion
upon, to me, a novel and most interesting question, viz.: "Can the
legislature empower women to vote for presidential electors?" After
the most careful consideration which I have been able to give to
the subject, consistent with other duties, and with the aid of such
books as I have at command, I answer your question in the
affirmative. The grounds of my opinion I will proceed to state:
Section 1, article 2, of the Constitution of the United States,
which provides that the president and vice-president shall be
chosen by<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_967" id="Page_967">[Pg 967]</a></span> electors appointed by the several States, declares in
the following words how said electors shall be appointed:</p>

<blockquote><p>Each State shall appoint in such manner as the legislature
thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole
number of senators and representatives to which said State may be
entitled in the congress, etc., etc. </p></blockquote>

<p>Now, in the absence of any provision in the State constitution,
limiting or attempting to limit the discretion of the legislature
as to the manner in which the presidential electors shall be
chosen, there can be no doubt but that the legislature could
empower female, as well as male, citizens to participate in the
choice of presidential electors.</p>

<p>Section 2, article 2 of our State constitution is as follows: In
all elections, not otherwise provided for by this constitution,
every white male citizen of the United States, of the age of
twenty-one years, and upwards, who shall have resided in the State
during the six months immediately preceding such election <span class="spacious">* * * *</span>
shall be entitled to vote in the township or precinct where he may
reside.</p>

<p>Two questions at once suggest themselves upon the reading of this
section: <i>First</i>&mdash;Does the section apply to elections of
presidential electors, and thus become a limitation upon the
discretion of the legislature in case it shall direct the
appointment of the electors by a popular vote? <i>Second</i>&mdash;If so, can
a State constitution thus limit the discretion which the
Constitution of the United States directs shall be exercised by the
legislature? I shall consider the last question first.</p>

<p>While the legislature is created by the State, all its powers are
not derived from, nor are all its duties enjoined by the State. The
moment the State brings the legislature into being, that moment
certain duties enjoined, and certain powers conferred, by the
nation, attach to it. Among the powers and duties of the
legislature, which spring from the national constitution, is the
power and duty of determining how the State shall appoint
presidential electors. The Constitution of the United States
declares in the most explicit terms that the State shall do this
"in such manner as the legislature may direct." In the case of
<i>Ex-Parte</i> Henry E. Hayne, <i>et al.</i>, reported in volume 9, at page
106, of the Chicago Legal News, the Circuit Court of the United
States for the district of South Carolina, in speaking of the
authority upon which a State legislature acts in providing for the
appointment of presidential electors, says:</p>

<p>Section 1, article 2 of the constitution provides that electors
shall be appointed in such manner as the legislature of each State
may direct. When the legislature of a State, in obedience to that
provision, has, by law, directed the manner of appointment of the
electors, that law has its authorities solely from the Constitution
of the United States. It is a law passed in pursuance of the
constitution.</p>

<p>Hon. James A. Garfield, who was a member of the Electoral
Commission, in discussing before that body the source of the power
to appoint electors, said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The constitution prescribes that States only shall choose
electors. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> To speak more accurately, I should say that the
power is placed in the legislatures of the States; for if the
constitution of any State were silent upon the subject, its
legislature is none the less armed with plenary authority
conferred upon it directly by the national
constitution.&mdash;[Electoral Commission, p. 242. </p></blockquote>

<p>That this section of the national constitution has always been
understood to lodge an absolute discretion in the legislature, is
proved by the practice in the different States. Chief Justice
Story, in his "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States," in speaking of this section of the constitution and the
practice under it, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>Under this authority, the appointment of electors has been
variously provided for by the State legislatures. In some States
the legislatures have directly chosen the electors by themselves;
in others they have been chosen by the people by a general ticket
throughout the whole State, and in others by the people in
electoral districts fixed by the legislature, a certain number of
electors being apportioned to each district. No question has ever
arisen as to the constitutionality of either mode, except that of
a direct choice by the legislature. But this, though often
doubted by able and ingenious minds, has been firmly established
in practice ever since the adoption of the constitution, and does
not now seem to admit of controversy, even if a suitable tribunal
existed to adjudicate upon it.&mdash;[2 Story on Constitution, section
1,472. </p></blockquote><p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_968" id="Page_968">[Pg 968]</a></span></p>

<p>Judge Strong, one of the justices of the Supreme Court of the
United States, and a member of the electoral commission, in
discussing the subject of this section, says:</p>

<blockquote><p>I doubt whether they [the framers of the national constitution]
had in mind at all [in adopting this section] the idea of a
popular election as a mode of appointing State electors. They
used the word <i>appoint</i>, doubtless thinking that the legislatures
of the States would themselves select the electors, or empower
the governor or some other State officer to select them. The word
appoint is not the most appropriate word for describing the
result of a popular election. Such a mode of appointment, I
submit is allowable, but there is little reason to think it was
contemplated. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> It was not until years afterward that the
electors were chosen by vote.&mdash;[Electoral Commission, p. 252. </p></blockquote>

<p>Senator Frelinghuysen, also a member of the Electoral Commission,
thus speaks of the practice in the several States:</p>

<blockquote><p>Under this power [the power given by the section of the national
constitution, which we are now considering] the legislature might
direct that the electors should be appointed by the legislature,
by the executive, by the judiciary, or by the people. In the
earliest days of the republic, electors were appointed by the
legislatures. In Pennsylvania they were appointed by the
judiciary. Now, in all the States except Colorado, they are
appointed by the people.&mdash;[Electoral Commission, p. 204. </p></blockquote>

<p>If then it be true that the power to determine how the presidential
electors shall be appointed is derived from the national
constitution, and that power is a discretionary one, to be
exercised in such manner as the legislature may direct, how can it
be said that a State constitution can limit or control the
legislative discretion? If the State can limit that discretion in
one respect it can limit it in another, and in another, and in
another, until it may shut up the legislature to but a single mode
of appointment, which is to take away, and absolutely destroy all
its discretion, and this is nullification, pure and simple. One of
the questions before the electoral commission in the case of South
Carolina, was whether the electoral vote of that State should not
be rejected because the legislature, in providing for the
appointment of the electors, had failed to obey a requirement of
the State constitution in regard to a registry law. This raised, in
principle, the very question we are now considering, and on that
question Senator O. P. Morton, who was a member of the commission,
and who was an able lawyer as well as a great statesman, thus
expressed himself:</p>

<blockquote><p>They [the presidential electors] are to be appointed in the
manner prescribed by the legislature of the State, and not by the
constitution of the State. The manner of the appointment of
electors has been placed by the Constitution of the United States
in the legislature of each State, and cannot be taken from that
body by the provisions of a State constitution. <span class="spacious">* * *</span> The power
to appoint electors by a State, is conferred by the Constitution
of the United States, and does not spring from a State
constitution, and cannot be impaired or controlled by a State
constitution.&mdash;[Electoral Commission, p. 200. </p></blockquote>

<p>The distinguished lawyer and statesman [Hon. William Lawrence] who
made the principle argument before the commission in favor of
admitting the vote of the State, took the same ground (Electoral
Commission, p. 186).</p>

<p>The opinion of Justice Story, expressed in the Massachusetts
constitutional convention of 1820, on a very similar question, and
one involving the same principle, quoted by Mr. Lawrence in his
argument, is very high authority, and I reproduce it here. He
(Justice Story) said:</p>

<blockquote><p>The question then was whether we have a right to insert in our
constitution a provision which controls or destroys a discretion
which may be, nay <i>must</i> be, exercised by the legislature in
<i>virtue</i> of <i>powers confided</i> to it by the Constitution of the
United States. The fourth section of the first article of the
Constitution of the United States declares that the times, places
and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives
shall be prescribed by the legislature thereof. Here an express
provision was made for the manner of choosing representatives by
the State legislatures. They have an <i>unlimited</i> discretion on
the subject. They may provide for an election in districts
sending more than one, or by general ticket for the whole State.
Here is a general discretion, a power of choice. What is the
proposition on the table? It is to limit the discretion, to leave
no choice to the legislature, to compel representatives to<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_969" id="Page_969">[Pg 969]</a></span> be
chosen in districts; in other words to compel them to be chosen
in a specific manner, excluding all others. Were not this plainly
a violation of the constitution? Does it not affect to control
the legislature in the exercise of its powers? <span class="spacious">* * *</span> It assumes a
control over the legislature, which the Constitution of the
United States does not justify. It is bound to exercise its
authority according to its <i>own view</i> of <i>public policy</i> and
<i>principle</i>; and yet this proposition compels it to surrender all
discretion. In my humble judgment <span class="spacious">* * *</span> it is a direct and
palpable infringement of the constitutional provisions to which I
have referred.&mdash;[Electoral Commission, p. 186. </p></blockquote>

<p>The conclusion seems irresistible that a State constitution cannot
determine for the legislature who shall, or shall not, participate
in the choice of presidential electors, and that in so far as our
State constitution may attempt to do so, it is an infringement of
the national constitution. The discretion of the legislature, by
virtue of the supreme law of the land, being (except in so far as
it is controlled by the national constitution itself) thus
absolutely unlimited, it may, without doubt, as I think, authorize
all citizens without regard to sex, to participate in the choice of
presidential electors. But it has been suggested to me that
possibly by the State legislature, as used in the section of the
national constitution which we have been considering, was meant the
whole people of the State in whom the legislative power originally
resides and not the organized legislative body which they may
create. We answer first that the language of the section will not
admit of this construction. It clearly recognizes a distinction
between the State or the people of the State, and its legislature.
The language is not "each State shall appoint in such manner as
<i>it</i> may direct," etc., but it is, "each State shall appoint in
such manner as the <i>legislature</i> thereof may direct," etc.</p>

<p>Again, it is a familiar canon of construction that in determining
the meaning of a statute, recourse may be had to the history of the
times in which it was enacted. When the Constitution of the United
States was framed, all of the States had organized legislatures, or
representative bodies who wielded the legislative power, and
without doing violence to language, we must suppose that it was to
<i>them</i> the constitution referred. Again, the State legislatures are
referred to not less than ten times in the national constitution,
and in each instance the reference is such as to make it clear that
the organized representative bodies are intended, and in article 5
they are, in express terms, distinguished from conventions of the
States. Indeed, the fundamental idea of the American government is
that of a representative republic as opposed to a pure democracy,
and it may well be doubted whether a State government, without a
representative legislative body of some kind, would, in the
American sense, be republican in form.</p>

<p>Finally, it is apparent from the debates in the constitutional
convention which framed the constitution, and from the whole plan
devised for the election of president and vice-president, that it
was not intended by the framers of the constitution to commit
directly to the whole people of a State the authority to determine
how the presidential electors should be chosen. Nothing seems to
have given the convention more trouble than the mode of selecting a
president. Many plans were proposed. Chief among these were:
election by congress; election by the executives of the States;
election by the people; election by the State legislatures; and
election by electors. These were presented in many forms. The
convention decided not less than three times, and once by a
unanimous vote, in favor of election by the national congress, and
as often reconsidered it (2 Madison Papers, pp. 770, 1,124, 1,190).
The proposition that the president should be elected directly by
the people, instead of by the national congress, received but one
vote, while the proposition that he should be appointed by the
State legislatures received two votes (2 Madison Papers, p. 1,124).
The most cursory examination of the debates will, I think, convince
any mind that it was to the <i>organized</i> legislature of the State,
and not to the people of a State, that the framers of the
constitution intended to commit the power of determining how the
presidential electors should be chosen. It seems, both from the
debates and the plan adopted, to have been their studied effort to
prevent the people from acting in the choice of their chief
magistrate otherwise than through their representatives, and in<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_970" id="Page_970">[Pg 970]</a></span> no
single step of the process are the people directly required or
authorized by the national constitution to act, but in every
instance the duty and the authority are devolved upon their
representatives. For these reasons I think it clear that it was
intended to invest the organized State legislatures with the power
of determining how the presidential electors should be chosen, and
that the discretion thus lodged in the legislature cannot be
limited or controlled by a State constitution.</p>

<p class="ltr-from">W. De Witt Wallace.</p>


<h4><a name="Indiana_C" id="Indiana_C">[C.]</a></h4>

<p>In 1868, the Indiana (Friends) Yearly Meeting appointed Mrs. Sarah
J. Smith of Indianapolis, and Mrs. Rhoda M. Coffin of Richmond, to
visit the prisons of the State, with a view to ascertain the spirit
of the management of these institutions, and the moral condition of
their inmates. In obedience to this appointment the two ladies
visited both of the State prisons of Indiana, and made a
particularly thorough examination of the condition of the Southern
prison (at Jeffersonville) where all our women convicts were kept.
Here they found the vilest immoralities being practiced; they
discovered that the rumors which had induced their appointment were
far surpassed by the revolting facts.</p>

<p>They visited Gov. Conrad Baker and urged him to recommend the
General Assembly to make an appropriation for a separate prison for
women. With the full sympathy of Governor Baker, who was not only a
most honorable gentleman, but a sincere believer in the equal
political rights of women, Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Coffin appeared
before the legislature of 1869, and by an unvarnished account of
what they had witnessed and learned in the Southern prison, they
aroused the legislators to immediate action, and an act to
establish a "Reformatory Institution for Women and Girls" was
passed at that session (viz., that of 1869). By statute the new
institution was located at Indianapolis. It was opened in 1873, the
first separate prison for women in this country. Mrs. Sarah J.
Smith was made its first superintendent, and she retained that
office, discharging all its duties with great ability, until 1883,
when upon her resignation she was succeeded by Mrs. Elmina S.
Johnson, who had up to that time been associated with Mrs. Smith as
assistant superintendent.</p>

<p>The first managing board of women consisted of Mrs. Eliza C.
Hendricks (wife of Hon. Thomas A. Hendricks who was governor of
Indiana on the opening of the prison), Mrs. Rhoda M. Coffin and
Mrs. Emily A. Roach. The changes upon the board have been so
infrequent that in addition to those on the first board and to
those on the board at present, only three ladies can be mentioned
in this connection, viz.: Mrs. Eliza S. Dodd of Indianapolis, Mrs.
Mary E. Burson (a banker of Muncie) and Mrs. Sarah J. Smith, who,
after resigning the superintendency, served on the board for a
brief time.</p>

<p>The board at present consists of Mrs. Eliza C. Hendricks,
president, Mrs. Claire A. Walker and Mrs. M. M. James. From the
opening of this institution Mrs. Hendricks has been connected with
it; first as a member of the advisory board, for eight years a
member of the managing board and during a large part of the time
its president, she has served its interest with singular fidelity.
The position is no sinecure. The purchasing of all the supplies is
only a part of the board's work; the business meetings are held
monthly and often occupy half a day, sometimes an entire day. These
Mrs. Hendricks always attends whether she is in Indianapolis or in
Washington; from the latter point she has many times journeyed in
weather most inclement by heat and by cold, simply to look after
the prison and to transact the business for it imposed by her
position on its board. During the last eight years, since women
have had control of its affairs, Miss Anna Dunlop of Indianapolis
has served the institution as its secretary and treasurer. Perhaps
the highest tribute that can be paid to the ability with which Miss
Dunlop has discharged the responsible and complicated duties of her
double office, lies in the fact that with the General Assembly of
the State it has passed into a proverb that "The Woman's
Reformatory is the best and most economically managed of the State
institutions." The committees appointed to visit<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_971" id="Page_971">[Pg 971]</a></span> the penal
institutions always report that "The accounts of the reformatory
are kept so accurately that its financial status can always be
understood at a glance."</p>

<p>This institution has two distinct departments, the penal and the
reformatory, occupying two sides of one main building and joined
under one management. Convicts above sixteen years of age are
ranked as women and confined in the penal department; those under
sixteen years are accounted girls (children) and lodged in the
reformatory department.</p>

<p>The average number of girls in the institution from its opening has
been 150; the number of women 45. There are now (July, 1885,) over
200 inmates.</p>

<p>All of the work of the institution is done by its inmates. A school
is maintained in the building for the children; a few trades are
taught the girls; all are taught housework, laundry work, plain
sewing and mending; the greatest pains is taken to form in the
inmates habits of industry and personal tidiness, and to prepare
them to be good servants; and when their period of incarceration
has expired, the ladies interest themselves in finding homes and
employment for the discharged convicts whom they seek to restore to
normal relations to society. The secretary estimates that of those
who have been discharged from the institution during the last
twelve years, fully seventy-five per cent. have been really
restored and are leading honest and industrious lives.</p>


<h4>[D.]</h4>

<p><span class="smcap">Gov. Porter's Biennial Message</span>, 1883: "I recommend that in the
department for women in this hospital it shall be required by law
that at least one of the physicians shall be a woman. There are now
in this State not a few women who bear diplomas from respectable
medical colleges, and who are qualified by professional attainments
and experience to fill places as physicians in public institutions
with credit and usefulness. It would be peculiarly fit that their
services should be sought in cases of insanity among members of
their own sex."</p>


<h4><a name="Indiana_E" id="Indiana_E">[E.]</a></h4>

<p>About the year 1867, Miss Lucinda B. Jenkins, formerly of Wayne
county, Indiana, left her work among the "Freedmen" in the South,
to accept the position of matron in "The Soldiers' Orphans' Home"
at Knightstown, Indiana. She afterwards became the wife of Dr.
Wishard, the superintendent; and when the office was vacated by his
death, she was authorized to assume his responsibilities, and
perform his duties, with the exception of receipting bills and
drawing appropriations, which latter duties, not being then
considered as within the province of a woman, were delegated to the
steward until the doctor's successor could be legally appointed.</p>

<p>She was a lady of intelligence and true moral worth, possessing a
dignified, pleasing manner, and other good qualities, which, with
her long experience as co-manager of the institution, admirably
fitted her for the position of superintendent; but she was a woman,
without a vote or political influence, and it was necessary that
"party debts" should be paid. She therefore continued her influence
for the good of the institution without public recognition until
1882, when she left to take charge of a private orphan asylum under
the management of ladies of Indianapolis.</p>


<h4><a name="Indiana_F" id="Indiana_F">[F.]</a></h4>

<p>Miss Susan Fussell is the daughter of the late Dr. B. Fussell of
Philadelphia, to whom, with his estimable wife, women are indebted
as the founder of the first medical college for women in the United
States. At that period of our civil war, when women were admitted
to the hospitals as nurses, Miss Fussell was at her brother's home
at Pendleton, Indiana. She immediately volunteered her services,
and was assigned to duty by the Indiana sanitary commission in the
military hospitals in Louisville, Kentucky, where she served
faithfully until the close of the war, giving the bloom of her
youth to her country without hope of reward other than that which
comes to all as the result of self-sacrificing devotion to the
cause of humanity.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_972" id="Page_972">[Pg 972]</a></span></p>

<p>At the close of the war she returned to Philadelphia, but learning
soon that an effort was being made to induce the State of Indiana
to provide a home for the soldiers' orphans, she again offered her
services in any useful capacity in that work. A benevolent
gentleman of Indianapolis who had been most urgent in calling the
attention of the officers of the State to their duty in that
matter, finding that there was no hope, offered to furnish Miss
Fussell with the money necessary to clothe, rear, educate and care
for a family of ten orphans of soldiers, and bring them up to
maturity, if she would furnish the motherly love, the years of hard
labor and self-sacrifice, the sleepless nights and endless patience
needed for the work. After a few days of prayerful consideration
she accepted, and in the fall of 1865 ten orphans were gathered
together in Indianapolis from various parts of the State from among
those who had no friends able or willing to care for them. In the
spring of 1866 they were removed to the Soldiers' Home near
Knightstown, where a small cottage and garden were assigned to
their use. In 1875, she placed the older boys in houses where their
growing strength could be better utilized, and moved with the girls
and younger boys to Spiceland to secure the benefit of better
schools. In 1877, all of the ten but one were self-supporting, and
have since taken useful and respectable positions in society. The
one exception was a little feeble-minded boy, who, with his
brother, had been found in the county poor-house; his condition and
wants very soon impressed her with the necessity for a State home
for feeble-minded children in Indiana, it having been found
necessary to send this boy to another State to be educated. He is
now in a neighboring State institution, and is almost
self-supporting. With her usual energy and directness, she went to
work to gather statistics on the subject of "Feeble-minded
Children" in this and other States, and to interest others in their
welfare. She at last found an active co-worker in Charles Hubbard,
the representative from Henry county in the legislature, and their
united efforts, aided by other friends of the cause, secured in
1876 the enactment of the law establishing the Home for
Feeble-minded Children, now in operation near Knightstown, Indiana.</p>

<p>Having seen all her children well provided for, she began to look
for further work, and soon conceived the idea of taking the
children from the county poor-houses of the State and forming them
into families. She offered to take the children in the Henry county
poor-house and provide for them home, food, clothing and education,
for the small sum of twenty-five cents per day for each child,
which her experience had proven to be the smallest sum that would
accomplish the good she desired; but the county commissioners would
only allow her twenty cents per day. She accepted their terms,
furnishing the deficit from her own means, and so earnest was she
and so completely did she demonstrate the superiority of her plan
for the care of these children, that she interested many others in
the work, and the result was the passage of a law by the
legislature of 1880-1881, giving to county commissioners the right
to place their destitute children under the care of a matron,
giving her sole charge of them and full credit for her work, and
providing for her salary and their support. Under that law Miss
Fussell now has all the destitute children of Henry county under
her care, and has created a model orphans' home. Thus has this one
woman been a power for good, and by following in the direct line of
her duty, has been obliged to "meddle in the affairs of State" and
to influence legislation.</p>

<p>If in giving this sketch we have exceeded the limits allotted us,
let us remember that our subject represents thousands of noble
women who care rather that their light shall carry with it comfort
and warmth, than be noted for its brilliancy, and who, having no
voice in the government, are obliged to work out their beneficent
ideas with much unnecessary labor.</p>


<h4><a name="Indiana_G" id="Indiana_G">[G.]</a></h4>

<p>The friends of woman's equality addressed the following petition to
each member of the State legislature:</p>

<p>Being personally acquainted with Mrs. <span class="smcap">Sarah A. Oren</span>, and knowing
her to be a woman of refinement and culture, we can consistently
urge upon you a favorable consideration<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_973" id="Page_973">[Pg 973]</a></span> of her claims as a
candidate for election to the office of State librarian. She has
had the benefit of a collegiate education, and has been for several
years a successful teacher in Antioch College and in the public
high-school of Indianapolis. She is mainly dependent on her own
labor for the means to support and educate her children, who were
<i>made fatherless by a rebel bullet</i> at the siege of Petersburg. Her
education and experience have admirably fitted her for the
discharge of all the duties of the office of State librarian; and
by electing her to that office, the Republican party will secure a
faithful and efficient officer, and have the pleasure of making
another payment on the debt we owe to the widows and orphans of
those who died that our country might live.<a name="FNanchor_586_586" id="FNanchor_586_586"></a><a href="#Footnote_586_586" class="fnanchor">[586]</a></p>

<p>Mrs. Oren was elected to the office of State librarian and
performed the duties belonging to it with great efficiency and
fidelity. She has been succeeded by Mrs. Margaret Peele, Mrs. Emma
A. Winsor and Miss Lizzie H. Callis.</p>


<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER XLVII.</h3>

<h4>MINNESOTA.</h4>

<h4><a name="XLVII_A" id="XLVII_A">[A.]</a></h4>

<p>In the early days, long before the organization of either State or
local societies, there were, besides those mentioned in the main
chapter, a few earnest women who were ever ready to subscribe for
suffrage papers and circulate tracts and petitions to congress and
the State legislature, whose names should be honored with at least
a mention on the page of history. Among them were: Mrs. Addie
Ballou, Mrs. Ellis White, Mrs. Eliza Dutcher, Mrs. Sarah Clark,
Miss Amelia Heebner, Miss Emily A. Emerson, Mrs. Mary F. Mead, Mrs.
E. M. O'Brien, Miss Ellen C. Thompson, Miss R. J. Haner, Mrs. Mary
Hulett, Mrs. Gorham Powers, Mrs. C. A. Hotchkiss, Mrs. Emma Wilson,
Mrs. Mary Wilkins, Mrs. Anna D. Weeks, Mrs. Mary Leland, Mrs. Susan
C. Burger, Mrs. A. R. Lovejoy, and others.</p>


<h4><a name="XLVII_B" id="XLVII_B">[B.]</a></h4>

<p>Of the seventy-six organized counties in Minnesota we give the
following partial list of those that have elected women to the
office of superintendent of public schools: <i>Mille Lacs County</i>,
Olive R. Barker; <i>Pine</i>, Ella Gorton; <i>Lac Qui Parle</i>, Malena P.
Kirley; <i>Anoka</i>, Mrs. Catharine J. Pierce, Mrs. Ellen Conforth,
Miss Dailey; <i>Benton</i>, Mrs. Belle Graham, Mrs. E. K. Whitney;
<i>Cottonwood</i>, Mrs. E. C. Huntington, Mrs. B. J. Banks, Mrs. L.
Huntington; <i>Dodge</i>, Mrs. Mary Powell Wheeler, Mrs. P. L. Dart,
Mrs. J. W. Willard, Barbara Van Allen; <i>Dakota</i>, Mrs. Martha
Wallace, Harriet E. Jones, Mrs. C. H. Day, Mrs. C. Teachout, Nellie
Duff, Mary Mather, Anna Manners, Jennie Horton; <i>Freeborn</i>, Mrs. J.
B. Foote, Mrs. D. R. Hibbs, Mrs. A.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_974" id="Page_974">[Pg 974]</a></span> W. Johnson, Mrs. J. H.
Pickard; <i>Fillmore</i>, Charlotte Taeor, Margaret Hood, Mrs. M. E.
Molstad, Mrs. A. E. Harsh; <i>Fairbault</i>, Jane Harris, Georgia Adams,
Mrs. A. B. Thorp, Mrs. Levi Crump, Mrs. R. C. Smith, Mary Rumage,
Mrs. L. A. Scott; <i>Goodhue</i>, Mrs. H. A. Hobart; <i>Brown</i>, Mrs. O. B.
Ingraham; <i>Douglass</i>, Mrs. M. C. Lewis, Mrs. J. B. Van Hoesen, Mrs.
Trask; <i>Houston</i>, Mrs. Annie M. Carpenter; <i>Hennepin</i>, Angelina
Dupont, Mrs. M. F. Taylor; <i>Lyon</i>, Louise M. Ferro, M. D., Mrs. W.
C. Robinson, Mertie Caley; <i>Mower</i>, Mrs. W. H. Parker, Mrs. V. J.
Duffy, Mrs. J. F. Rockwell, Mrs. E. Hoppin, Sarah M. Dean;
<i>Marshall</i>, Mrs. L. H. Stone; <i>Meeker</i>, Mrs. A. R. Jackman, Mrs.
Orin Whitney, Mary E. Ferguson; <i>Martin</i>, Mrs. J. W. Fuller, Mrs.
M. E. St. John, Mary E. Harvey, Mary A. McLean; <i>Olmstead</i>, Adelle
Moore, Jane Haggerty, Mrs. R. S. Carver; <i>Polk</i>, Mrs. M. C. Perrin,
Mrs. J. A. Barnum; <i>Ramsey</i>, Mrs. B. McGuire, Annie E. Dunn; <i>St.
Louis</i>, Sarah Burger Stearns; <i>Winona</i>, Dr. Adaline Williams;
<i>Stevens</i> county reports one lady serving as school-district
treasurer; <i>Otter Tail</i> county reports six ladies serving in
different places; <i>Wright</i> county, four serving as clerks of
school-districts; and in <i>Beeker</i> county it is said ladies
sometimes serve as deputies during their husbands' absence.</p>


<h4><a name="XLVII_C" id="XLVII_C">[C.]</a></h4>

<p>In a volume edited by Harriet N. R. Arnold, entitled, "The Poets
and Poetry of Minnesota," published in 1864, are the following
names: Mrs. Laura E. Bacon Hunt, Mrs. Emily F. Bugbee Moore, Miss
Eleanor C. Donnelly, Miss Jane Gray Fuller, Mrs. E. M. Harris, Miss
Ninetta Maine, Mrs. J. R. McMasters, Harriet E. Bishop, Irene
Galloway, Mary R. Lyon, Miss M. E. Pierson Smith, Mrs. Helen L.
Pandergast, Julia A. A. Wood. Among the later writers possessing
true poetic genius are Mrs. Julia Cooley Carruth, Miss Eva J.
Stickney, Miss Jennie E. M. Caine, Mrs. Emily Huntington Miller.</p>

<p>Among the authors who sent their books to the New Orleans
Exposition in 1885, are Frances A. Shaw, Marion Shaw, Minnie May
Lee, Eleanor G. Donnelly, Mrs. M. M. Sanford, Mrs. Julia Wood, Edna
A. Barnard, Mrs. Arnold, Miss Franc E. Babbett, Mrs. Henderson,
Miss Campbell, Mrs. C. H. Plummer, Mrs. Will E. Haskell, Mrs. Delia
Whitney Norton, Maria A. Drew, Mrs. Jennie Lynch, Miss Mary A.
Cruikshank.</p>


<h4><a name="XLVII_D" id="XLVII_D">[D.]</a></h4>

<p>Mrs. Winchell, wife of the president of the Minnesota State
University, kindly sent us the names of the fifty-six young women
who were graduated from that institution between 1875 and 1885:
Class of '75, Helen Mar Ely; '76, Martha Butler; '77, Matilda J.
Campbell, Viola Fuller, Charlotte A. Rollet, Mary A. Maes; '78,
Mary Robinson, Nettie Getchel; '79, Marian H. Roe, Caroline Rollet,
Martha J. West, Evelyn May Champlin, Etta Medora Eliot; '80, Lizzie
A. House, Bessie S. Lawrence, Minnie Reynolds, Lillian Todd, Cora
Inez Brown; '81, Emily Hough, Diana Burns, Sarah E. Palmer, Lilla
Ruth Williams; '82, Carrie Holt, Lydia Holt, Mary Eliza Holt, Alice
E. Demmon, Louise Lillian Hilbourn, Emily D. McMillan, Ada Eva
Pillsbury, Agnes V. Bonniwell, Grace W. Curtis, Marie Louise Henry,
Mary Nancy Hughes, Carrie D. Fletcher; '83, Annie Harriet
Jefferson, Kate Louise Kennedy, Sarah Pierrepont McNair, Anna
Calista Marston, Janet Nunn, Emma Frances Trussell, Helen Louise
Pierce, Martha Sheldon, Louise E. Hollister, Emma J. Ware; '84,
Hannah Sewall, Susie Sewall, Anna Bonfoy, Bessie Latho, Addie
Kingsbury, Belle Bradford, Emma Twinggi; '85, Mary Benton, Bertha
Brown, Ida Mann, Mary Irving, Mabel Smith.</p>

<p>Among the women who have been successful as preceptresses in the
State University are: Helen Sutherland, M. A., Mrs. Augusta Norwood
Smith, Matilda J. Campbell, B. L., Maria L. Sanford.</p>

<p>Among the teachers in the normal schools of the State are the
following:</p>

<p><i>Winona</i>&mdash;Martha Brechbill, Sophia L. Haight, Jennie Ellis, Sarah
E. Whittaker,<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_975" id="Page_975">[Pg 975]</a></span> Kate L. Sprague, Vienna Dodge, Ada L. Mitchell, Anna
C. Foekens, Rena M. Mead, Mary E. Couse, B. S.</p>

<p><i>Mankato Normal School</i>&mdash;Helen M. Philips, Defransa A. Swan, Anna
McCutcheon, Genevieve S. Hawley, Mary E. Hutcheson, Eliza A.
Cheney, Charity A. Green, M. Adda Holton.</p>

<p><i>St. Cloud Normal School</i>&mdash;Isabel Lawrence, Ada A. Warner, Minnie
F. Wheelock, Rose A. Joclin, Mary L. Wright, Kittie W. Allen.
Nearly all of the above-named teachers were graduated from Eastern
colleges and universities.</p>

<p>Women occupy the same positions as men and receive corresponding
salaries. A recent report of Minneapolis schools names fifteen
women in the High School receiving from $650 to $900 per year;
twelve principals of ward schools, receiving from $750 to $1,000;
and eleven primary principals receiving from $650 to $800. At St.
Paul there were reported two principals getting $1,200 each, two
getting $900, and twelve others getting $600 each; of the five lady
assistants in the High School, one received $900, one $800, and
three received $700 each. The principal of the High School at
Duluth receives $750 per annum, and some of the assistants and
principals of ward schools, $600.</p>

<p>Miss Sarah E. Sprague, a graduate of St. Lawrence University, and
of the Normal and Training School at Oswego, N. Y., has been
employed since August, 1884, by the State Department of Public
Instruction, for institute work, at a salary of $1,260 per year and
expenses. Miss Sprague is a lady of rare ability and an honor to
her profession.</p>

<p>Prominent among private schools for young ladies is the Bennett
Seminary at Minneapolis, Mrs. B. B. Bennett, principal; also the
Wasioja Seminary, Mrs. C. B. P. Lang, preceptress, and Miss M. V.
Paine, instructor in music. The services of Miss Mary E. Hutcheson
have been highly valued as instructor in vocal music and elocution
in the Mankato Normal School. Miss Florence Barton at Minneapolis,
Mrs. Emily Moore of Duluth, are excellent teachers of music, and
Miss Zella D'Unger, of elocution.</p>

<p>Prominent among the kindergarten schools is that of Mrs. D. V. S.
Brown at St. Paul; Mrs. Mary Dowse, Duluth; Miss Endora Hailman,
Winona. The latter is director of the kindergarten connected with
the Winona State Normal School. Miss Fannie Wood, Miss Kate E.
Barry, Miss Ella P. McWhorter and Miss Abby E. Axtell, are reported
as having rendered very efficient service as teachers in the State
Deaf and Dumb Asylum; Miss Mary Kirk, Miss Alice Mott and Miss Emma
L. Rohow are spoken of as having been earnest and devoted teachers
in the State Institution for the Blind.</p>

<p>Mrs. Viola Fuller Miner of Minneapolis, graduated from the State
University, has long been known as a teacher and writer of much
ability. Her pen never touches the suffrage question except to its
advantage. Miss Eloise Butler, teaching in the High School of the
same city, would gladly have lent her personal aid to suffrage work
had time and strength permitted. We have at least the blessing of
her membership and influence. Mrs. Sadie Martin, likewise a teacher
of advanced classes and an easy writer, will be remembered as the
first president of the local suffrage society of Minneapolis, and
one much devoted to its interests. Mrs. Maggie McDonald, formerly a
teacher at Rochester and long a resident of St. Paul, has ever been
a devoted friend of the suffrage cause&mdash;commenced work as long ago
as '69, and is to-day unflagging in hope and zeal. Mrs. Caroline
Nolte of the same city, though much occupied as a teacher in the
High School, still found time to aid in forming the St. Paul
Suffrage Society. Miss Helen M. McGowan, a teacher at Owatonna, is
spoken of as "a grand woman who believes in the ballot as a means
to higher ends." Miss S. A. Mayo, a lady of fine culture and a
successful teacher of elocution, was also an active member of this
society while in the city. Miss Clara M. Coleman, a classical
scholar from Michigan University, for one year principal of the
Duluth High School, was a believer in equal rights for all and did
not hesitate to say so. Miss Louise Hollister, a graduate of the
Minnesota University, is Miss Coleman's successor and a friend of<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_976" id="Page_976">[Pg 976]</a></span>
suffrage for women, with an educational qualification; she is
vice-president of the Equal Rights League of Duluth. Miss Jenny
Lind Gowdy, graduated from the Winona Normal School, is an
excellent primary principal who teaches her pupils that girls
should have the same rights and privileges as boys&mdash;no more, no
less.</p>


<h4><a name="XLVII_E" id="XLVII_E">[E.]</a></h4>

<p>The names of the women who have been admitted to the Minnesota
State Medical Society are: Clara E. Atkinson, Ida Clark, Mary G.
Hood, A. M. Hunt, Harriet E. Preston, Belle M. Walrath, Annes F.
Wass, Lizzie R. Wass, Mary Twoddy Whetsone.</p>

<p>Among the women who have practiced medicine in Minnesota are:
Catharine Underwood Jewell, Lake City; E. M. Roys, Rochester;
Harriet E. Preston, M. Mason, Mary E. Emery, Jennie Fuller, Clara
E. Atkinson, St. Paul; Mary G. Hood, Mary J. Twoddy Whetsone, R. C.
Henderson, A. M. Hunt, Adele S. Hutchinson, Mary L. Swain, D. A.
Coombe, Minneapolis; E. M. Roys, Mary Whitney, Ida S. Clark,
Rochester; Augusta L. Rosenthal, Winona; Fannie E. Holden, Anna
Brockway Gray, Duluth.</p>

<p>The board of officers of the Sisters of Bethany has for many years
consisted of: <i>President</i>, Mrs. Charlotte O. Van Cleve;
<i>Vice-President</i>, Mrs. Euphemia N. Overlock; <i>Secretary</i>, Mrs.
Harriet G. Walker; <i>Treasurer</i>, Mrs. Abbie G. Mendenhall.</p>

<p>The city of Minneapolis takes the lead of all others in the State
in the number of its benevolent institutions. It has its Woman's
Industrial Exchange, as an aid to business women; its Woman's Home,
or pleasant boarding-house; for the care of sick women, its
Northwestern Woman's Hospital and training-school for nurses; also
a homeopathic hospital for women; for the care of homeless infants,
its Foundlings' Home; for unfortunate girls, its Bethany Home. All
of these institutions are in the hands of the best of women. Among
the most active are: Mrs. M. B. Lewis, Miss Abby Adair, Mrs. O. A.
Pray, Mrs. J. M. Robinson, Mrs. John Edwards, Mrs. L. Christian,
Mrs. S. W. Farnham, Mrs. Wm. Harrison, Mrs. H. M. Carpenter, Mrs.
D. Morrison, Mrs. John Crosby, Mrs. George B. Wright, Mrs. Moses
Marston, Mrs. Charlotte O. Van Cleve, Mrs. T. B. Walker, Dr. Mary
S. Whetsone, Mrs. C. S. Winchell, Dr. Mary G. Hood, Mrs. R. W.
Jordan, Miss A. M. Henderson.</p>

<p>In the city of Duluth there is a woman's home unlike any other in
the State. It is managed by a corporate body of ladies known as
home missionaries. The charter members are: Sarah B. Stearns, Laura
Coppernell, Jennie C. Swanstrom, Fanny H. Anthony, Olive Murphy,
Flora Davey, Jennie S. Lloyd, Fannie E. Holden, M. D. The work of
this corporation is to seek out all poor women needing temporary
shelter and employment. The classes chiefly cared for are poor
widows and deserted wives, and such small children as may belong to
them; also over-worked young women who may need a temporary
resting-place; also young girls thrown suddenly upon their own
resources without knowledge of how to care for themselves. These
ladies care also for the unfortunate of another class, but in a
retired place, unmarked by any sign. They prefer that to the usual
plan of caring for the victims of men.</p>


<h4><a name="XLVII_F" id="XLVII_F">[F.]</a></h4>

<p>Portrait and landscape-painters in oil and water-colors, who give
promise of success: <i>Minneapolis</i>, Miss Clara V. Shaw, Miss Mary E.
Neagle, Mrs. Frank Painter, Miss Mary Dunn, Mrs. Irene W. Clark,
Miss C. M. Lenora, Mrs. Arthur Clark, Mrs. A. M. West, Miss Myra H.
Twitchell, Mrs. A. L. Loring, Miss Luella Gurney, Mrs. Charles
Fairfield, Mrs. A. T. Rand, Miss E. Robeson, Miss Helen Goodwin,
Mrs. Sarah E. Corbett, Mrs. Lucille Hunkle, Miss Mary Kennedy, Mrs.
Frances A. Pray. Mrs. W. B. Mead, Miss Flora Edwards, Mrs. Knight,
Mrs. I. W. Mauley, Mrs. M. P. Hawkins; <i>St. Paul</i>, Miss Florence M.
Cole, Miss Mary Hollingshead, Miss A. M. Shavre, Miss Alice
Chandler, Mrs. Martha Griggs, Miss L. B. West, Mrs. Knox, Mrs.
Theodosia Rose Cleveland, Mrs. Genevieve Jefferson, Mrs.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_977" id="Page_977">[Pg 977]</a></span> C. B.
Grant, Jennie Lynch, Miss Wilson, Miss Lilla Inness, Mrs. George
Eastman, Mrs. Paine, Mrs. Fannie Smith, Miss Alice Page, Mrs.
Hunter; <i>Winona</i>, Mrs. W. Ely, Mrs. Ella Newell, Miss D. E. Barr;
<i>Lake City</i>, Mrs. H. B. Sargent, Mrs. J. G. Richardson, Bessie
Milliken; <i>Stillwater</i>, Sadie S. Clark, Miss Field, Sarah Murdock;
<i>Albert Lea</i>, Birdie Slocum; <i>Fairbault</i>, Grace McKinster, Miss S.
E. Cook; <i>Litchfield</i>, Mrs. Carter; <i>Alexandria</i>, Mamie Lewis; <i>St.
Cloud</i>, Mary Clarke; <i>Fergus Falls</i>, Mrs. Wurtle; <i>Owatonna</i>, Mrs.
D. O. Searles; <i>Duluth</i>, Emma F. Shaw Newcome, Anna E. Gilbert,
Mrs. A. D. Frost, De Etta Evans, Mrs. Persis Norton, Addie W. L.
Barrow, Gertrude Olmstead, Addie Hunter, Fanny Woodbridge.
Doubtless there are many others of worth in other localities
improving their talents and finding real enjoyment and pecuniary
recompense in the pursuit of their loved art.</p>

<p>It is one of the imperfections of this chapter that the names
cannot be given of the many gifted young ladies who have gone from
Minnesota for a musical education to the New York and Boston
Conservatories of Music. Of those who have gone from Duluth, and
returned as proficients, may be named Mary Willis, Mary Ensign
Hunter, Mary Munger, Florence Moore and Jessie Hopkins. With this
beautiful thought in mind, "<i>noblesse oblige</i>," the christian
workers of Duluth call upon these talented young ladies for aid in
furnishing many entertainments for charity's sake, and are seldom
disappointed.</p>


<h4><a name="XLVII_G" id="XLVII_G">[G.]</a></h4>

<p>Among the occasional speakers and writers not mentioned in the main
chapter are: Abbie J. Spaulding, Mrs. M. M. Elliot, Miss A. M.
Henderson, Mrs. M. J. Warner, Lizzie Manson, Rebecca S. Smith,
Viola Fuller Miner, Harriet G. Walker, Eliza Burt Gamble, Emma
Harriman, Eva McIntyre, Mary Hall Dubois, Minnie Reed, Mrs. G. H.
Miller, Dr. Mary Whetsone, Mrs. M. C. Ladd, Mrs. M. A. Seely, Mrs.
E. S. Wright, Mrs. M. H. Drew, Mrs. E. J. Holly, Mrs. David
Sanford, Mrs. F. E. Russell, Lily Long. Zoe McClary, daughter of
Rev. and Mrs. Thomas McClary, gives promise of distinction.</p>

<p>Since the formation of the State and local societies there are many
women in their quiet homes who are ever ready to encourage any
effort toward making all women more free, helpful and happy. Let
this paragraph record the names of a few of these: Mary E. Chute,
Isabelle L. Blaisdell, Mary Partridge, Mrs. C. C. Curtis, Frances
A. Shaw, Lucy E. Prescott, Mrs. S. J. Squires, Minnie Reed, Mrs. E.
S. Wright, Nellie H. Hazeltine, Adelle J. Grow, Mrs. A. B. Cole,
Mrs. A. F. Bliss, Mrs. E. J. Holley, Frances P. Sawyer, Frances L.
James, Mrs. M. C. Clark, Lucy Gibbs, Prudence Lusk, Lizzie P.
Hawkins, M. Hammond, Mrs. E. Southworth, Josephine Strait, Kittie
Manson, Mrs. R. C. Watson, Alice B. Cash, Emma Drew, Helen M. Olds,
Mrs. W. W. Bilson, Adaline Smith, Mrs. L. A. Watts, Emily Moore,
Olive Murphy, Mrs. L. A. Wentworth, Gertrude L. Gow, Della W.
Norton, Mrs. V. A. Wright, Mrs. M. H. Wells, Aurelia Bassett, Kate
C. Stevens, Mary Vrouman, Belle Hazen, Mrs. D. C. Hunt, Mrs. L. H.
Young, Louisa Stevens, Esther Hayes, Sarah J. Crawford, Lucinda
Roberts, Carrie Rawson, Sarah Herrick, Kate Tabor, Charlotte
Herbert, Belle McClelland, Jane E. Knott, Margaret Bryson, Mary
McKnight, Emma Coleman, Sarah Ricker, Mary M. Pomeroy, Sarah
Pribble, Mary A. Grinnell, Eliza Van Ambden.</p>


<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER LIII.</h3>

<h4>CALIFORNIA.</h4>

<p>We give not only the names of the delegates present at the
convention of 1870, but also of a few of the most earnest friends
of the cause in the several counties of the State, not heretofore
mentioned in connection with the early conventions.</p>

<p>In San Francisco we must not omit the venerable Eliza Taylor, a
sweet-faced Quaker, eighty years of age, nor Fanny Green
McDougall&mdash;"Aunt" Fanny, as<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_978" id="Page_978">[Pg 978]</a></span> we loved to call her&mdash;nor Mrs. C. C.
Calhoun, Mary F. Snow, Minnie Edwards, Mrs. O. Fuller, Mrs. C. M.
Parker, Wm. R. Ryder, Mrs. M. J. Hendee, Kate Collins, Mary
Kellogg, Louise Fowler, M. J. Hemsley and Mrs. H. T. Perry. In
October, 1883, Elizabeth McComb, Mary Coggins, Mrs. J. V.
Drinkhouse, Dr. and Mrs. E. D. Smith, Mrs. E. Sloan, Mrs. C. J.
Furman, Elizabeth D. Layres, Miss Prince, Kate Kennedy, Carrie
Parker, Marion Hill,<a name="FNanchor_587_587" id="FNanchor_587_587"></a><a href="#Footnote_587_587" class="fnanchor">[587]</a> Mrs. Olmstead, Mrs. Dr. White, Dr. Laura
P. Williams and Mrs. Olive Washburn were all members of the city
and State associations. There was the brilliant Sallie Hart, who
took such an active part in the "local option" contest in 1871, and
who as a newspaper reporter and correspondent in the State
legislature for two or three sessions was very active in urging the
claims of woman upon the consideration of our law-makers.</p>

<p>Hon. Philip A. Roach, often a prominent official of the State, and
for many years editor of the <i>Daily Examiner</i>, is an advocate of
woman's rights and was instrumental in getting an act, known as
"Senator Roach's bill to Punish Wife-whippers," passed. It provided
that such offenders should be punished by flogging upon the bare
back at the whipping-post. A wise and just law, but it was
afterward declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. Hon.
James G. Maguire, a brilliant and rising young lawyer, a member of
the legislature in 1875, now a judge of the Superior Court of San
Francisco, is a most reliable and talented advocate of equality for
women. Among the members of the bar and other prominent men of the
State are to be found a number who are either pronounced in their
views of woman's right to vote, or are inclined to favor all
measures tending to ameliorate woman's condition in life; of whom
are Judge G. M. Clough, Judge Darwin, D. J. Murphy, Judge L. Quint,
Col. J. P. Jackson of the <i>Daily Post</i>, Hon. Charles Gildea of the
Board of Equalization, Judge Toohey, the late Judge Charles Wolff,
Rev. Dr. F. F. Jewell, Dr. R. H. McDonald, the prominent temperance
advocate; Hon. J. T. Wharton, P. S. Dorney, esq., Judge J. B.
Lamar, Rev. Dr. Robert McKenzie, Capt. Walker of the <i>City Argus</i>,
Hon. Frank Pixley of the <i>Argonaut</i>, ex-Gov. James A. Johnson of
the <i>Daily Alta</i>, Alfred Cridge, esq., Dr. R. B. Murphy, N. Hawks,
W. H. Barnes of <i>The Call</i>, O. Dearing, Hon. W. W. Marrow, Hon.
Charles A. Sumner, representative in congress; Hon. J. B. Webster
of the <i>California Patron</i>, in San Francisco. In other parts of the
State are; Senator Cross of Nevada county, Assemblyman Cominette of
Amador, Judge G. G. Clough, and Senator Kellogg of Plumas county,
Hon. H. M. Larue, Speaker of the House, and Assemblyman Doty of
Sacramento county, Senator Del Valle of Los Angeles, Hon. O. B.
Hitchcock of Tulare county, Judge McCannaughy and Judge E. Steele
of Siskyon county, Hon. T. B. Wigginton, Judge Charles Marks, R. J.
Steele, esq., of Merced county; John Mitchell, John T. Davis and
Capt. Gray of Stanislaus; Hon. J. McM. Shafter of Marin county;
Senator Brooks and Judge J. D. Hinds of Ventura county.</p>

<p>Sacramento county contains a large number of progressive men and
women, though the good work has consisted mainly in the efforts
made by committees appointed by the State society to attend the
biënnial sessions of the legislature, most of whom were not
residents of the county. But among those who have done good service
in Sacramento, the first and most active for many years has been
Mrs. L. G. Waterhouse, now of Monterey. She espoused the cause in
early life, and when many added years compelled her to retire from
active service, her efforts in behalf of women were still
continued. Miss Dr. Kellogg is not only a successful practitioner
of medicine, but is gifted with eloquent speech, and has on several
occasions addressed the legislature of the State; Dr. Jennie
Bearby, for some years a resident of Sacramento, now of Idaho, is
worthy of mention; Mrs. M. J. Young, attorney-at-law since June,
1879; Annie G. Cummings and daughter, have been among the earliest
and most faithful adherents to our cause. Mrs. E. B. Crocker has,
through her social position, exerted great influence in a quiet
way, and has contributed liberally from her vast wealth to aid the<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_979" id="Page_979">[Pg 979]</a></span>
cause; she founded the Marguerite Home for aged women. Dr. and Mrs.
Bowman, now of Oakland, were pioneers in this work; while Mesdames
Jackson, Hontoon, Perley Watson, and Miss Hattie Moore are among
the recent converts. Hon. Grove L. Johnson has been one of the most
eloquent of all the fearless champions of women who have occupied a
seat in the legislature; Hon. Creed Haymond deserves to rank with
the foremost, as an able advocate of woman's political rights; Hon.
S. J. Finney of Santa Cruz, Talbot Wallis, State Librarian, Judge
Taylor, a prominent lawyer, and his brilliant wife, are also among
our friends. Sarah A. Montgomery, Mattie A. Shaw, Mrs. A. Wilcox,
Mary B. Lewis, Judge and Mrs. McFarland, Judge J. W. Armstrong,
encouraged by his devoted and talented wife, and a large number of
others, favor in a quiet way the ballot for women.</p>

<p>San Joaquin county has been the home of Laura De Force Gordon since
1870, and much of her practice as a lawyer has been in the courts
at Stockton. Among the earliest advocates of suffrage were Mr. and
Mrs. William Condy, Mr. and Mrs. Harry, Judge Brush, Hattie Brush,
Judge Roysdon, William Hickman and wife, Mrs. E. Emery, William
Israel, Hannah Israel, Miss E. Clifford, Dr. Holden, Richard Condy
and his noble wife Elizabeth, who was the first president of the
San Joaquin county society. Among a host of others are Mr. and Mrs.
W. F. Freeman and their bright young daughter Sophronia, who gives
promise of future usefulness in the lecture-field; Mr. and Mrs. J.
C. Gage, whose daughter Hattie possesses marked artistic ability,
and though still in her teens has produced oil paintings of rare
beauty; Dr. Brown, physician in charge of the State Insane Asylum;
Dr. Ph&oelig;be Tabor, for many years a successful medical
practitioner; Mrs. N. G. Cary, Mrs. M. S. Webb, Mrs. Zignago, a
successful business woman; Mr. and Mrs. H. B. Loomis, R. B. Lane,
Mr. and Mrs. H. M. Bond, and Mr. and Mrs. W. L. Overhiser, both of
whom are active members of that liberal woman's rights order, the
Patrons of Husbandry. Hon. R. C. Sargent, a member of the
legislature for several terms, has always aided the woman's cause
by his vote and influence. Dr. J. L. Sargent and his intelligent
wife are also friends to every measure tending to benefit woman.
Hon. S. L. Terry, Senator F. T. Baldwin, James A. Lontitt, esq.,
Judge J. H. Budd, Judge A. Van R. Patterson, George B. McStay,
Judge Buckley and a number of other prominent officials and members
of the legal profession, are all in favor of equal rights.</p>

<p>Sonoma county has a few fearless friends of woman suffrage. Mary
Jewett, Mrs. Prince, Fannie M. Wertz and Miss E. Merrill were
officers in the first organization formed at Healdsburg in that
county in 1870, and together with J. G. Howell and wife, who were
proprietors of the <i>Russian River Flag</i>, kept up the society for
years. At Petaluma, Mrs. A. A. Haskell, Mr. and Mrs. A. L. Hatch,
Kate Lovejoy and Mrs. Judge Latimer organized a society in 1869. In
Solano county are Mr. and Mrs. Denio and Mrs. E. L. Hale of
Vallejo; Mrs. Elizabeth Ober and Mrs. Celia Geddes of Fairfield.
Napa county soon became an objective point for lecturers; a society
was organized at St. Helena in 1871, with Mr. and Mrs. John
Lewellyn, Charles King, Mrs. Potter and Dr. and Mrs. Allyn as
officers; at Napa were Joseph Eggleton and wife and Mrs. Ellis. In
San Mateo county was Mrs. Dr. Kilpatrick. Contra Costa county was
organized in 1870, and Mrs. Phebe Benedict, Mrs. Abbott, Mary
O'Brien, Sarah Sellers, Dr. and Mrs. Howard, Hannah Israel, an able
writer and lecturer, and Capt. Kimball of Antioch, took an active
part therein. Mrs. J. H. Chase of Martinez, E. H. Cox and wife of
Danville, were pioneers in the cause, and Henry and Abigail Bush of
Martinez, were most prominent in the first meetings held there.
Mrs. Bush had the honor to preside over the second woman suffrage
convention ever held in the United States, that at Rochester, N.
Y., in 1848. O. Alley and wife, also of Martinez, extended their
hospitality to lecturers who visited that place, and fully
sympathized in the cause.</p>

<p>In Marin county a society was formed in 1870, with Isabella Irwin,
Mrs. Barney, Flora Whitney, Mrs. M. Dubois and Mary Battey Smith,
as officers; Mrs. McM. Shafter, a gifted and influential lady, was
also an active worker in the good cause. Alameda county&mdash;Rev. John
Benton and wife, Professor E. Carr and wife, Mrs. C. C.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_980" id="Page_980">[Pg 980]</a></span> Calhoun,
Mrs. M. L. S. Duncan, Mrs. S. S. Allen, Dr. and Mrs. Powers, Mr.
and Mrs. Ingersoll, Angie Eager, Mary Kenny, George and Martha
Parry and Mr. and Mrs. William Stevens, were interested in the
earlier agitation of the question; Mrs. Sanford, Mrs. A. M.
Stoddard and Mrs. M. Johnson are among the later converts. Merced
county the home of Rowena Granice Steele, the author, and publisher
of the <i>San Joaquin Valley Argus</i>, has furnished the State with a
worthy and capable advocate of woman suffrage, both as a speaker
and writer. In her cozy, rose-embowered cottage at Merced, she
generously entertains her numerous guests, who always seek out this
distinguished and warm-hearted friend of woman. Stanislaus county
is the present home of Jennie Phelps Purvis, a talented and
brilliant woman, well known in literary circles in an early day and
for some years a prominent officer and member of the State society.
At Modesto are Mrs. Lapham and daughter Amel, and Mr. and Mrs.
Brown, good friends to suffrage. In San Diego are Mrs. F. P.
Kingsbury, Mrs. Tallant. In Santa Cruz county, Georgiana Bruce
Kirby, Mrs. H. M. Blackburn, Mrs. M. E. Heacock, Rev. D. G.
Ingraham, Ellen Van Valkenburg. In Los Angeles county, Mrs. Eliza
J. Hall, M. D. Ingo county, J. A. Jennings. Santa Clara county, J.
J. Owen, the able editor of the <i>San José Mercury</i>; Laura J.
Watkins, Hon. O. H. Smith and wife, Mrs. G. B. McKee, Mrs.
McFarland, Mrs. Herman, Mrs. Montgomery, Mrs. Miller, Mrs. J. J.
Crawford, Mrs. R. B. Hall, Mrs. Knox, Mrs. Wallis, Mrs. C. M.
Putney, Mrs. Damon, Miss Walsh, and many others, have all helped
the good cause in San José; while Louisa Smith of Santa Clara, a
lady of advancing years, was ever a faithful friend of the cause,
as was also Miss Emma S. Sleeper of Mountain View, formerly of Mt.
Morris, N. Y. In Nevada county, originally the home of Senator A.
A. Sargent, the question of woman suffrage was agitated at an early
day. The most active friends were: Ellen Clark Sargent, Emily
Rolfe, Mrs. Leavett, Mrs. E. P. Keeney, Mrs. E. Loyed, Elmira Eddy,
Mr. and Mrs. William Stevens, Mrs. Hanson, Judge Palmer and Mrs.
Cynthia Palmer.</p>


<hr class="tiny" />

<h3>CHAPTER LVI.</h3>

<h4>GREAT BRITAIN.</h4>

<h5>A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE SUCCESSIVE STEPS OF PROGRESS TOWARDS
FREEDOM FOR WOMEN.</h5>

<blockquote><p>1848. Queen's College, Harley street, London, founded for girls.</p>

<p>1849. Bedford College, London, founded; incorporated, 1869.</p>

<p>1850. North London Collegiate School for girls opened by Miss
Buss, April 4.</p>

<p>1854. Cheltenham Ladies' College commenced.... Miss Nightingale
goes to Sentari; from hence may be dated the beginning of
training schools for nurses, metropolitan associations for
nursing the poor, etc., etc.</p>

<p>1856. Female Artists' Society founded.</p>

<p>1857. Divorce and Matrimonial Causes act passed, by which divorce
and judicial separation became attainable in course of law....
Ladies' Sanitary Association, founded October 1.</p>

<p>1858. <i>Englishwoman's Journal</i> started (now <i>Englishwoman's
Review</i>) by Bessie R. Parkes and Mdme. Bodichon, March 2....
First swimming bath for ladies, opened in Marylebone, July 14.</p>

<p>1859. Society for the Employment of Women established in London,
June 22.</p>

<p>1860. Law-copying Office for women opened February 15....
Victoria Printing Press, established March 26.... Institution for
the Employment of Needle-women commenced.... First admission of
women students to the Royal Academy (Miss Herford).</p>

<p>1861. Lectures on Physiology to ladies at University College,
April.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_981" id="Page_981">[Pg 981]</a></span></p>

<p>1862. Social Science Congress in London; though not the first
time ladies had read papers at the congress&mdash;this was remarkable
for the increased share they took in its proceedings.... Ladies'
Negro Emancipation Society commenced.... New church order of
deaconesses founded on the model of Kaiserwerth.... First voyage
of Miss Rye to Australia, and commencement of her system of
emigration.</p>

<p>1863. Establishment of Queen's Institute, Dublin, for industrial
training of women.</p>

<p>1864. Female Medical and Obstetrical Society begun.... Working
Women's College, Queen's Square, opened October 26.</p>

<p>1865. Miss Garrett receives her medical diploma from
Apothecaries' Hall.</p>

<p>1866. A petition of 1,500 women for the franchise presented, and
the first women's suffrage society formed.</p>

<p>1867. Mr. Mill's motion in the House of Commons to give the
suffrage to women.... Lily Maxwell voted in Manchester for Mr.
Jacob Bright.</p>

<p>1868. In the general election many women who were left on the
register voted. Women's suffrage was declared illegal by the
Court of Common Pleas, November 9.... London University
establishes a women's examination.</p>

<p>1869. Ladies' Educational Association begun in London, which was
dissolved July 18, 1878, upon London University College admitting
women as regular students.... Women's College established at
Hitchin, October ... The telegraph service was transferred to
government, and women clerks were retained, thus entering the
civil service.... Municipal Franchise act passed; women first
voted under it November 1.</p>

<p>1870. Publication of <i>Women's Suffrage Journal</i> commenced March
1.... Women's Disabilities Removal bill introduced by Mr. Jacob
Bright, M.P., read a second time, but rejected in committee,
May.... Lectures for women begun in Cambridge.... First
examinations of women in Queen's University, Ireland.... Married
Women's Property act (England) passed, August 9.... National
Indian Association established by Mary Carpenter (principal
object: the improvement of women's education in India),
September.... Vigilance Association established, October; mainly
occupied in women's questions.... Elementary Education act
passed.... First school-board election in London, November 25
(Miss Garrett and Miss Emily Davies elected in London; Miss
Becker, Manchester, etc.).</p>

<p>1871. Ladies' National Health Association commenced by Dr.
Elizabeth Blackwell.... Law of Ireland amended slightly with
regard to married women's property.... National Union for
improving the education of women established by Mrs. Grey,
November.</p>

<p>1872. New Hospital for Women, opened February, in Marylebone
(women doctors).... Girls' Public Day School Company formed.
First school opened January 1, at Chelsea; there are now
fifteen.... Girton College, Cambridge, incorporated. Hitchin
College subsequently removed to it.... New Bastardy act, passed
August 10, affording a greater measure of relief to unmarried
mothers.</p>

<p>1873. Mrs. Nassau Senior, appointed assistant inspector of
workhouses, January; the first government appointment of a lady;
made permanent, February, 1874.... First school-board election in
Scotland, February (twenty ladies elected).... Second English
school-board.... Custody of Infants act passed, which enables a
man, having a deed of separation from his wife, to give up the
custody of the children to her if he chooses.</p>

<p>1874. Women's Peace and Arbitration Auxiliary of the London Peace
Society formed, April.... Women's Protection and Provident League
formed, July 8 (benefit societies and trades unions for working
women).... Protection Orders given to wives in Scotland, July
19.... College for Working Women, Fitzroy street, London, opened
October.... London School of Medicine for Women, opened October
12.<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_982" id="Page_982">[Pg 982]</a></span></p>

<p>1875. A lady first elected as poor-law guardian (Miss Merington,
in Kensington), April.... Albemarle Club opened for ladies and
gentlemen, May 29.... Newnham College, Cambridge, opened....
Employment of Women Office, opened in Brighton.... Female
clerkships in Post-Office Savings Bank.... Pharmaceutical Society
of Ireland admitted women to examinations.... Madras Medical
School opened to women.... First woman lawyer's office opened in
London (Miss Orme).... Metropolitan and National Nursing
Association formed.... Women delegates from women's unions first
admitted to Trades' Congress in Glasgow, October.</p>

<p>1876. Admission of women to Manchester New College, February
9.... First qualified woman pharmacist established in London
(Miss Isabella Clarke).... Plan-tracing office for women opened
(Miss Crosbie).... Employment of Women Office, opened in
Glasgow.... Scholarship for women established in Bristol
University College.... British Women's Temperance Association
commenced.... Passing of the act, known as Russell-Gurney's act,
enabling universities to admit women to degrees, August....
Resolutions of King and Queen's College of Physicians in Ireland
to confer medical degrees on women; five ladies passed their
examinations and received degrees in the following spring.... A
memorial, signed by 45,000 women, presented to the queen on
behalf of the Bulgarians.</p>

<p>1877. Teachers, Training and Registration Society inaugurated,
February 2.... Trinity College, London, decided to throw open its
musical examinations to women.... St. Andrew's University offered
"Literate in Arts" degrees to women.... A bill to amend the
Married Women's Property Law (Scotland) passed; came into force
January 1, 1878.... International Congress on Public Morality met
at Geneva, September.... Admission of women medical students to
the Royal Free Hospital, October 1.... Manchester and Salford
College for women (now affiliated to the Victoria University)
opened, October.</p>

<p>1878. Society to extend the knowledge of law among women
started.... Matrimonial Causes Amendment act passed; a clause
being inserted by Lord Penzance enabling magistrates to grant a
judicial separation to women if brutally treated by their
husbands, a maintenance to be given them, and the children to
remain under their mother's care.... Admission of women to London
University degrees and examinations, July 1.... Intermediate
Education act, Ireland; participation of girls in its benefits.</p>

<p>1879. Victoria University charter grants degrees to women....
Oxford, Somerville and Lady Margaret Halls opened, October....
Nine ladies elected on London school-board, November....
Pharmaceutical Society admits women as members, October.... Order
of St. Katherine for nurses established.... School for
wood-engraving and one for wood-carving established.</p>

<p>1880. Charter of Irish University gives degrees to women....
Demonstration of women in Manchester in favor of the suffrage,
February 3; followed by London, Bristol and Nottingham in the
same year.... Bill to give further protection to little girls
under 13 passed.... Mason College in Birmingham founded; equal
facilities to girls and boys.... First lady B. A. in London
University, October.... Melbourne University matriculates women,
March 22.... The Burial bill gives women the right to conduct
funeral services.... The House of Keys in the Isle of Man passed
women's suffrage for women who are owners of property, November
5.</p>

<p>1881. Suffrage bill in the Isle of Man received royal assent
January 5; seven hundred women are electors; general election
began March 21.... Cambridge University admits women students to
formal examinations by a vote of 398 against 32, February 24....
Durham University votes that women may become members.</p>

<p>1881. Sydney University (New South Wales) admits women to
matriculation and degrees.... New Zealand University confers
title of M. A. on a woman, August....<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_983" id="Page_983">[Pg 983]</a></span> Poor-law Guardian
Association for promoting the election of ladies established,
March; seven ladies elected in London.... Somerville Club for
women opened.... Women clerks admitted to the civil service by
open competition.... Municipal Franchise act for Scotland, passed
June 3; came into operation January 1, 1882.... Married Women's
Property act for Scotland, passed July 18.</p>

<p>1882. London University Convocation resolves to admit women as
graduates, January 17.... Twelve women elected in London as
poor-law guardians, April; fifteen in the country.... Married
Women's Property act passed by the Lords and brought down to the
Commons May 22; passed and returned to the Lords August 16;
received royal assent August 18.... Addition to Municipal
Franchise act (Scotland) by inclusion of police burghs.... Women
first voted in Scotland under the new act, November 8....
Appointment of women as registrars of births and deaths in four
parishes.</p>

<p>1883. Married Women's Property act comes into operation January
1.... Appointment of Miss E. Shove as physician to female staff
in post-office; first appointment by government of a woman....
Poor-law guardian elections, April; thirteen ladies in London,
two in Scotland for the first time; thirteen in other towns in
England.... Mr. Stansfeld's resolution against the Contagious
Diseases acts carried in the House of Commons by a majority of
72, April 26; the acts consequently are suspended....
May.&mdash;Memorial to the Prime Minister signed by 110 independent
Liberal members, asking that women's suffrage shall be included
in the coming Reform bill.... Mr. Mason's resolution for women's
suffrage thrown out by a majority of only 16.... Great conference
of Liberal associations at Leeds on parliamentary reform votes
for woman suffrage, October 17, followed by similar votes at
Edinburgh, November 16; Manchester, November 21; Bristol,
November 26, and in many smaller places.... Guarantee-fund raised
in Bombay for lady physicians and hospitals for women commenced;
Calcutta University opened to women.</p>

<p>1884. Second reading of the bill for the Custody and Guardianship
of children carried, March 26, by a majority of 134.... First
lady, Mrs. Bryant, obtained degree of Doctor of Science in London
University.... Nine ladies obtain B. A. degree in Royal Irish
University.</p>

<p>1885. College of Surgeons, Ireland, opens its degrees to
women.... Criminal-law Amendment Bill passed in August, raising
the age of protection for girls, and giving increased facilities
for rescuing them from ruin.... Municipal suffrage granted to
women in Madras.... Miss Mason appointed inspector of workhouses
by local government board, November. </p></blockquote>


<div class="footnotes"><h3>FOOTNOTES:</h3>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_586_586" id="Footnote_586_586"></a><a href="#FNanchor_586_586"><span class="label">[586]</span></a> Signed by Superintendents Public Schools, A. C.
Shortridge, Indianapolis, Alexander M. Gow, Evansville, Wm. H.
Wiley, Terre Haute, Jas. McNeil, Richmond, J. H. Smart, Fort Wayne,
Wm. Phelan, Laporte, Barnabas C. Hobbs, Bloomingdale; Thomas
Holmes, president Union Christian College, Mrs. Thos. Holmes,
Merom; Geo. P. Brown, principal high-school, Mrs. Geo. P. Brown,
Jessie H. Brown, assistant-superintendent public schools, Prof. W.
A. Bell, Prof. T. Charles, Hon. Byron K. Elliott, Geo. Merritt,
Mrs. George Merritt, Wm. Coughlen, Jno. S. Newman, president
Merchants National Bank, Col. James B. Black, Jos. E. Perry, Dr. E.
S. Newcomer, Mrs. S. E. Newcomer, Col. Samuel Merrill, Franklin
Taylor, Phebe M. Taylor, H. H. Lee, Mrs. Elizabeth Lee, Dr. O. S.
Runnels, Mrs. Dora C. Runnels, Horace McKay, Thomas E. Chandler,
David Gibson, Miss Mary Bradshaw, Dr. J. C. Walker, Indianapolis;
Elias Hicks Swayne, Mahala M. Swayne, Richmond; Dr. Geo. M. Dakin,
Mrs. Geo. M. Dakin, Laporte.</p></div>

<div class="footnote"><p><a name="Footnote_587_587" id="Footnote_587_587"></a><a href="#FNanchor_587_587"><span class="label">[587]</span></a> Mrs. Hill was President of the San Francisco Woman
Suffrage Society for three years prior to her death in 1884.</p></div>
</div>

</div>

<hr />
<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_985" id="Page_985">[Pg 985]</a></span></p>
<h2><a name="INDEX" id="INDEX"></a>INDEX<br />
<small><span class="smcap">to</span></small><br />
<span class="smcap">The History of Woman Suffrage</span>.</h2>

<hr class="tiny" />

<p class="center">Compiled by <span class="smcap">John Weinheimer</span> of <i>The New York Tribune</i>.</p>

<hr class="tiny" />

<div class="center">
<table width="75%" border="1" summary="Index">
	<tr>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_A">A</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_B">B</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_C">C</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_D">D</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_E">E</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_F">F</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_G">G</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_H">H</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_I">I</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_J">J</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_K">K</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_L">L</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_M">M</a></td>
	</tr>
	<tr>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_N">N</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_O">O</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_P">P</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_Q">Q</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_R">R</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_S">S</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_T">T</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_U">U</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_V">V</a></td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_W">W</a></td>
		<td>  X</td>
		<td>  <a href="#IX_Y">Y</a></td>
		<td>  Z</td>
	</tr>
</table>
</div>

<h3><a id="IX_A" name="IX_A">A.</a></h3>

<div class="index">
<ul class="IX">
<li>Abelard, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_759">759</a>.</li>
<li>Abbott, Francis, iii, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.</li>
<li>Adam and Eve, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_561">561</a>.</li>
<li>Adams, Abigail Smith, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>.</li>
<li>Adams, Hannah, author, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_205">205</a>.</li>
<li>Adams, John, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_31">31</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_79">79</a>.</li>
<li>Adams, John Q., iii, <a href="#Page_479">479</a>.</li>
<li>Adams, Mary N., lecturer, iii, <a href="#Page_614">614</a>.</li>
<li>Addresses and appeals, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_595">595</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_676">676</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_742">742</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_856">856</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_364">364</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_485">485</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_517">517</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, <a href="#Page_580">580</a>.</li>
<li>Adelbert College, iii, <a href="#Page_498">498</a>.</li>
<li><i>Agitator</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_373">373</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>.</li>
<li>Agrippa, Cornelius, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>.</li>
<li>Alabama, iii, <a href="#Page_830">830</a>.</li>
<li><i>Albany Evening Journal</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_282">282</a>.</li>
<li><i>Albany Knickerbocker</i> on woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_611">611</a>.</li>
<li><i>Albany Register</i> on woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_608">608</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_609">609</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_610">610</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_611">611</a>.</li>
<li><i>Albany Law Journal</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_691">691</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_947">947</a>.
  <ul><li>&mdash;on "our laws," iii, <a href="#Page_94">94</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Alcibiades and the dog, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>.</li>
<li>Alcott, A. Bronson, iii, <a href="#Page_193">193</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_519">519</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Alcott, Abby May, appeal, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_247">247</a>.</li>
<li>Alcott, Louisa May, letter to Mrs. Stone, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_831">831</a>.</li>
<li>Alexander, Janet, iii, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li>
<li>Allen, Jane, case of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_592">592</a>.</li>
<li>Allen, Nancy R., argument before Senate Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;legacy, iii, <a href="#Page_624">624</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Notary Public, made, iii, <a href="#Page_626">626</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Allen, Sophia Ober, iii, <a href="#Page_502">502</a>.</li>
<li>Almanac, Woman's Rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_863">863</a>.</li>
<li>Amberly, Lady, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_439">439</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">American Equal Rights Association</span>:
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;"colored," the word, discussion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_214">214</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitution, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_173">173</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Meetings:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Academy of Music (Brooklyn), ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_398">398</a>,</li>
    <li>Church of the Puritans, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_182">182</a>,</li>
    <li>Cooper Institute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_309">309</a>,</li>
    <li>Steinway Hall, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_378">378</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Memorial to Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_226">226</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;name changed to "Nat. Woman Suffrage Association," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_400">400</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;officers, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_174">174</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;organized, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_173">173</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter of B. F. Wade, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_117">117</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report, Susan B. Anthony's, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>American flag, design, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_323">323</a>.</li>
<li><a name="AWSA" id="AWSA"><span class="sc">American Woman Suffrage Association</span></a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_756">756</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Celebration of Woman Suffrage in New Jersey, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_846">846</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;constitution of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_763">763</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;conventions:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>call for first, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_757">757</a>,</li>
    <li>Baltimore, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_820">820</a>,</li>
    <li>Brooklyn in Plymouth Church, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_831">831</a>,</li>
    <li>Cincinnati, O., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_854">854</a>,</li>
    <li>Cleveland, O., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_802">802</a>,</li>
    <li>Detroit, Mich., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_834">834</a>,</li>
    <li>Indianapolis, Ind., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_851">851</a>,</li>
    <li>Louisville, Ky., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_861">861</a>,</li>
    <li>New York City in Apollo Hall, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_821">821</a>,</li>
    <li>in Cooper Institute, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_825">825</a>,</li>
    <li>in Steinway Hall, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_809">809</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_840">840</a>,</li>
    <li>Philadelphia, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_815">815</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_849">849</a>,</li>
    <li>St. Louis, Mo., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_821">821</a>,</li>
    <li>Washington, D. C., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_819">819</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_858">858</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter, circular, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_757">757</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;members received at the White House by Mrs. Hayes, ii., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_860">860</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorial to Congress, ii., <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_859">859</a>,
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>referred to Committee on Territories, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_860">860</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;report of chairman of Executive Committee, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_803">803</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolutions, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_805">805</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_809">809</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_810">810</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_818">818</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_826">826</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_837">837</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_843">843</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_849">849</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_851">851</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_859">859</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Ames, Chas. G., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_271">271</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_844">844</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_754">754</a>.</li>
<li>Amnesty, universal, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_315">315</a>.</li>
<li>Amos, Sheldon, on vice, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_796">796</a>.</li>
<li>Anderson, Geo. W., iii, <a href="#Page_699">699</a>.</li>
<li>Andrews, Margaret H., letter to S. J. May, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_531">531</a>.</li>
<li>Angell, John W., iii, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>.</li>
<li>Ann Arbor University, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_541">541</a>.</li>
<li>Annekè, Franceska, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_571">571</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_374">374</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_393">393</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_646">646</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Anniversaries, <i>See <a href="#Conventions">Conventions</a></i>.</li>
<li>Anthony, Daniel, Lucy and Mary, i. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_461">461</a>.</li>
<li>Anthony, Hon, Henry B., on woman suffrage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_867">867</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_106">106</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_273">273</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Pembina Territory bill, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_568">568</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sargent's amendment to the Pembina Territory bill, on, <i>ib.</i></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage on, iii, <a href="#Page_339">339</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, his last utterance on, iii, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Anthony</span>, Susan B., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_465">465</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_467">467</a>,
<span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_986" id="Page_986">[Pg 986]</a></span>
<a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_468">468</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_476">476</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_485">485</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_487">487</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_489">489</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_490">490</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_500">500</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_501">501</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_515">515</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_517">517</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_526">526</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_570">570</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_589">589</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_591">591</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_607">607</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_624">624</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_653">653</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_673">673</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_679">679</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_716">716</a>;<br />
ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_66">66</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_116">116</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_220">220</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_286">286</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_287">287</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_360">360</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_361">361</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_363">363</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_375">375</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_382">382</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_389">389</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_391">391</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_427">427</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_431">431</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_437">437</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_442">442</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_456">456</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_582">582</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_584">584</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_760">760</a>;<br />
iii, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>,
 <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_178">178</a>,
 <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>,
 <a href="#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="#Page_502">502</a>, <a href="#Page_560">560</a>,
 <a href="#Page_580">580</a>, <a href="#Page_630">630</a>, <a href="#Page_641">641</a>,
 <a href="#Page_697">697</a>, <a href="#Page_773">773</a>, <a href="#Page_811">811</a>,
 <a href="#Page_819">819</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Abolitionists, and the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_264">264</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;American Equal Rights Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_171">171</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;appeal for woman rights, 1854, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_856">856</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;appeal to Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_167">167</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;argument before Illinois Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_572">572</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;argument before Senate Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;arrest of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_628">628</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;arrest, incidents of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_539">539</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;arrest, resolution concerning, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_537">537</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;birthday celebrated in Indianapolis, iii, <a href="#Page_538">538</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Bloomer," in a, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_128">128</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;bonnet and Noah's ark, iii, <a href="#Page_522">522</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Bread and Ballot," iii, <a href="#Page_536">536</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;California visit, iii, <a href="#Page_756">756</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;call, loyal women, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_53">53</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Centennial Exhibition, at the, iii, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;complimented by Judge Edmunds, iii, <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention at Albany, before, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_284">284</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;corruptionist, as a, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_936">936</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Declaration of Rights, reads, at Centennial, iii, <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;delegate to Democratic National Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_340">340</a>,</li>
  <li>&mdash;comments of the press, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_342">342</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Democratic National Convention, at the, iii, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>feme sole</i> capable of making a contract, iii, <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_340">340</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;financial report, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_175">175</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;fugitive wife's escape from an insane asylum, aids, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_469">469</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;general agent, appointed, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_619">619</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grant and Wilson  campaign, appeal, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_517">517</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grant, U. S., conversation with, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_544">544</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Iowa, in, iii, <a href="#Page_622">622</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_263">263</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;lecture, "False Theory," iii, <a href="#Page_675">675</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;lecturing tour, Ohio, iii, <a href="#Page_491">491</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Letters: Boston Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_256">256</a>
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>&mdash;Brooks, James, to, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_97">97</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Carson League, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_488">488</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Democratic National Convention, to, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_340">340</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Foote, E. B., to, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_941">941</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Garfield. Jas. A., to, iii, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;loyal women, from, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_875">875</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Mott, Lydia, to, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_748">748</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Stanton, Mrs., to, announcing her having voted, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_934">934</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Wright, Martha C, to, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_678">678</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Logan, Olive, and, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_385">385</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Male" in the Constitution, on the  word, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_91">91</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;manhood suffrage, on, iii, <a href="#Page_566">566</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage and divorce, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_735">735</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;meeting in Rahway, N. J., iii, <a href="#Page_479">479</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;meetings in Virginia, iii, <a href="#Page_824">824</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Michigan campaign, iii, <a href="#Page_522">522</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Napoleon of Woman Suffrage, the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_456">456</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Newport Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_403">403</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;on Mrs. Robert Dale Owen, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_303">303</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Oregon visit, iii,  <a href="#Page_769">769</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;police officer, and the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_540">540</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_577">577</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President Mozart Hall Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_668">668</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President National Woman Suffrage Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_516">516</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;presentations, iii, <a href="#Page_193">193</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reception, Sorosis,  iii, <a href="#Page_571">571</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;registered, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_627">627</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reminiscences, Mrs. E. C. Stanton's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_456">456</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report, National Convention, at Cooper Institute, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_689">689</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report as secretary of American Equal Rights Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_183">183</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Revolution</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_46">46</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Secretary Loyal League, made, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_66">66</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sex, and her, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_112">112</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Speeches: Anti-Slavery question, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_898">898</a>
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>&mdash;Congressional Committee, before, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_414">414</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_513">513</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;first public speech, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_41">41</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Furness' Church, in, iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Is It a Crime for a United States' Citizen to Vote? ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_630">630</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Philadelphia Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_385">385</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Saratoga Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_621">621</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Teachers' Convention, N. Y. State, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_513">513</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Temperance Convention, Rochester, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_483">483</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_423">423</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_521">521</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Washington Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_57">57</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_61">61</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Suffrage, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_383">383</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tableau "Mother and Susan," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_461">461</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Taxation without Representation, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_539">539</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Temperance Convention at Rochester, read call, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_481">481</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;testimonial, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_534">534</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tour, western, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_367">367</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tour with Ernestine L. Rose, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_97">97</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tracts, Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_239">239</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tracts and petitions, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_383">383</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Train, G. F., and <i>The Revolution</i>, criticism, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_264">264</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Trial:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>&mdash;Arrest, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_628">628</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;argument, Crowley's, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_648">648</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_675">675</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;argument, Judge Selden's, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_654">654</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;bail, refused to give, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_629">629</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;case opened by Judge Selden, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_652">652</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Gage, Matilda J., Letter to <i>Albany Law Journal</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_947">947</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;guilty, Court directs a verdict of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_679">679</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Hunt's, Judge, decision, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_677">677</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Hunt's decision criticised, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_689">689</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Hunt's decision reviewed, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_946">946</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;incidents, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_537">537</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;indictment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_647">647</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;inspectors of elections, <i>See <a href="#trials_decisions">trials and decisions</a></i></li>
    <li>&mdash;Jones, B. W., testimony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_650">650</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;letter from Gerrit Smith, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_941">941</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;trial, new, denied, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_687">687</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;trial, new, motion for, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_680">680</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;opening of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_647">647</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;petition to Congress praying for remission of fine, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_698">698</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;reports, majority and minority, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_701">701</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_711">711</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Pound, J. E., testimony ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_653">653</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;press comments, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_935">935</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;resolutions concerning, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_537">537</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Selden's letter, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_935">935</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;sentenced to pay a fine of $100, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_687">687</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;testimony in trial of election inspectors, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_692">692</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Washington gossip, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_943">943</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Tribute, "Aunt Lottie's," iii, <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, to Laura C. Haviland, iii, <a href="#Page_532">532</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, from <i>The Leavenworth Commercial</i> (Kansas), ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_263">263</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute to Lucretia Mott, iii, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, St. Louis Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, Scovill's, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_420">420</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;visit to Lucretia Mott, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_414">414</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;voted for <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_987" id="Page_987">[Pg 987]</a></span> Grant for President, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_628">628</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter announcing her having voted, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_934">934</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Washington Territory Legislature, hearing before, iii, <a href="#Page_786">786</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wyoming visit, iii, <a href="#Page_734">734</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Anti-Slavery struggle, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_54">54</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_323">323</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_325">325</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_339">339</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_417">417</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Josephine Griffing and Freedman's Bureau, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_29">29</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Society reorganized, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_153">153</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Anti-Woman Suffrage Society, iii, <a href="#Page_99">99</a>.</li>
<li>Antonelli's, Cardinal, sacrilegious child, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_788">788</a>.</li>
<li>Appendix, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_801">801</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_863">863</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_955">955</a>.</li>
<li>Archer, Stevenson, iii, <a href="#Page_816">816</a>.</li>
<li>Arkansas, iii, <a href="#Page_805">805</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_806">806</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Arnell's services in Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_489">489</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_491">491</a>.</li>
<li>Arnett, Hannah, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_442">442</a>.</li>
<li>Art and artists, iii, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>.</li>
<li>Ashley, Henry, iii, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>.</li>
<li>Ashley, J. M., speech in Congress, iii, <a href="#Page_495">495</a>.</li>
<li>Astell, Mary, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>.</li>
<li>Attorneys, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_604">604</a>.</li>
<li>Augustine, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_756">756</a>.</li>
<li>Austin, Helen V., sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_312">312</a>.</li>
<li>Austria, iii, <a href="#Page_904">904</a>.</li>
<li>Autograph book, Centennial, iii, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li>
<li>Avery, Alida C., iii, <a href="#Page_719">719</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_B" name="IX_B">B.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Ballard, Anna, iii, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>.</li>
<li>Ballot, the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_168">168</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Sumner on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_95">95</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;what is the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_155">155</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><i>Ballot-Box</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, <a href="#Page_504">504</a>.</li>
<li>Banks, N. P., speech, iii, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>.</li>
<li>Banquet, St. James Hotel, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_441">441</a>.</li>
<li>Bar, admission to the, iii, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>.</li>
<li>Barber, Miss, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_807">807</a>.</li>
<li>Barkaloo, Helena, lawyer, iii, <a href="#Page_404">404</a>.</li>
<li>Barker, Jos., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Pulpit, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_140">140</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Barnum, P. T., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_503">503</a>.</li>
<li>Barstow, Hon. A. C., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_499">499</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;battle-field, services on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_23">23</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letters to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_916">916</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Barton, Clara, appeal to soldier friends, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_418">418</a>.</li>
<li>Bascom, Emma C, letter to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_647">647</a>.</li>
<li>Batchelder, Mrs. Dr. L. S., on working women, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_389">389</a>.</li>
<li>"Battle Hymn of the Republic," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_18">18</a>.</li>
<li>Battle of Lexington, commemoration of, iii, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>.</li>
<li>Baxter, Richard, on witchcraft, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_765">765</a>.</li>
<li>Bayard, Thos. F., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_567">567</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_576">576</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_205">205</a>-6.</li>
<li>Beck, Senator, on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_209">209</a>.</li>
<li>Becker, Lydia E., letters, iii, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="#Page_249">249</a>.</li>
<li>Beecher, Catharine E., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_787">787</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>.</li>
<li>Beecher, Edward, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_368">368</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_566">566</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Beecher</span>, Henry Ward, Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_265">265</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in St. Louis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_825">825</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Lucy Stone, Presidency American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_808">808</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_496">496</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President of American Woman Suffrage Association, made, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_764">764</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speeches, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_156">156</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_399">399</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_766">766</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_774">774</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage, universal, and, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_315">315</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Tilton colloquy, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_167">167</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Tilton trial, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_789">789</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman's right to vote, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_620">620</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Beecher, Lyman, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_393">393</a>.</li>
<li>Belgium, iii, <a href="#Page_909">909</a>.</li>
<li>Bell, Lydia, iii, <a href="#Page_693">693</a>.</li>
<li>Bell, Dr. T. S., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_862">862</a>.</li>
<li>Bellows, Dr., on woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_245">245</a>.</li>
<li>Bennett, Dr. Alice, iii, <a href="#Page_472">472</a>.</li>
<li>Bennett, James Gordon, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_546">546</a>.</li>
<li>Bentham, Jeremy, iii, <a href="#Page_836">836</a>.</li>
<li>Bequests, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_667">667</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_742">742</a>.</li>
<li>Berlin, iii, <a href="#Page_903">903</a>.</li>
<li>Berlin Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_404">404</a>.</li>
<li>Bible, Antoinette L. Brown's points, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_535">535</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;divorce, and, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_213">213</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;interpolations, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_797">797</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;revision, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_798">798</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman and the, discussion, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_380">380</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Biggs, Caroline A., letter to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_250">250</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Rochester Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Washington Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_261">261</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Biggs, Emily J., iii, <a href="#Page_702">702</a>.</li>
<li>Bingham, Anson, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_687">687</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_461">461</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Biography</span>: Austin, Helen V., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_312">312</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Blake, Lillie D., iii, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Barton, Clara, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_23">23</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Boyd, Louise V., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_312">312</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Brown, Olympia, iii, <a href="#Page_646">646</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Clark, Mary T., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_312">312</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Colby, Clara B., iii, <a href="#Page_670">670</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Collins, Emily, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_88">88</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Davis, Paulina Wright, by "E. C. S.", i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_283">283</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Duniway, Abigail S., iii, <a href="#Page_768">768</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Griffing, Josephine Sophie, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_26">26</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Lozier, Clemence, iii, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Morrow, Jane, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Owen, Mary Robinson, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Owen, Robert Dale, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_293">293</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Rose, Ernestine, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_95">95</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Swank, Emma B., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Thomas, Mary F., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_314">314</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Underhill, Sarah E., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Warren, Mercy Otis, in the Revolution, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_201">201</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Way, Amanda M., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_311">311</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wright, Frances, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Bird, Frank W., iii, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</li>
<li>Birdsall, Mary B., sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a>.</li>
<li>Bittenbender, Ada M., sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>.</li>
<li>Blackstone on the canon law, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_771">771</a>.</li>
<li><a name="Blackwell" id="Blackwell"><span class="sc">Blackwell</span>, Antoinette L. B.</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_760">760</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_862">862</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage and divorce, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_723">723</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in New York, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_841">841</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>.</li>
  <li>(See <a href="#Brown">Brown, A. L.</a>)</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Blackwell</span>, Elizabeth, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_78">78</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Emily Collins, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_90">90</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_831">831</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;physician, as a, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_94">94</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sanitary commission, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_988" id="Page_988">[Pg 988]</a></span><span class="sc">Blackwell</span>, Henry B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_382">382</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Kansas Campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_235">235</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;South, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_929">929</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Steinway Hall, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_811">811</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;at American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Cooper Institute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_830">830</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Cleveland Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_126">126</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_780">780</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President of Am. Woman Suffrage Association, made, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_856">856</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Vermont Watchman</i>, on, iii, <a href="#Page_386">386</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman Suffrage in New Jersey, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_846">846</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Blake</span>, Lillie Devereux, iii, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_483">483</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Argument before House Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Dix's Lenten lectures, her reply to, iii, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;lectures "Woman's Place to-day," iii, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Washington Convention '76, iii, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Washington Convention, at, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_541">541</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fable, "The Selfish Rats," iii, <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Battle of Lexington Commemoration, iii, <a href="#Page_414">414</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Blake, S. L., against woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>.</li>
<li>Blaine, Jas. G., iii, <a href="#Page_164">164</a>, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>.</li>
<li>Blair, Henry W., letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_380">380</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Bloomer</span>, Amelia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;address before Nebraska Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_672">672</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Cleveland National Convention, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_128">128</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;comments on Jane G. Swisshelm, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_844">844</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_496">496</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;replies to Senator Gaylord's speech against woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_623">623</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Rochester Temperance Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_483">483</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;work done, iii, <a href="#Page_613">613</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Bloomer costume, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_469">469</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_844">844</a>.</li>
<li>Blunt, Gen., Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>.</li>
<li>Boarding House Law, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_688">688</a>.</li>
<li>Bodeker, Anna W., iii, <a href="#Page_823">823</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;vote, attempted to, iii, <a href="#Page_824">824</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Bohemia, iii, <a href="#Page_907">907</a>.</li>
<li>Bolton, Sarah Knowles, iii, <a href="#Page_494">494</a>.</li>
<li>Bolton, Sarah T., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_300">300</a>.</li>
<li>Bones, Marietta, address to Dakota Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_665">665</a>.</li>
<li>Booth, Mary L., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_624">624</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_433">433</a>.</li>
<li><i>Boston Commonwealth</i>, report of fifth Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_543">543</a>.</li>
<li>Boston Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_255">255</a>.</li>
<li><i>Boston Transcript</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>.</li>
<li>Bottsford, Harriette, iii, <a href="#Page_623">623</a>.</li>
<li>Bower, E. S., iii, <a href="#Page_700">700</a>.</li>
<li>Bowles, Ada C., iii, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>.</li>
<li>Bowles, Samuel, letter to Mrs. Hooker, iii, <a href="#Page_325">325</a>.</li>
<li>Boyd, Louise V., sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_312">312</a>.</li>
<li>Bradburn, Geo., address, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_56">56</a>.</li>
<li>Bradlaugh, Charles, speaks in New York for woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_842">842</a>.</li>
<li>Bradley, Judge, on the XIV. Amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_457">457</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;opinion, Bradwell case, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_624">624</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Bradstreet, Anne, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_204">204</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li>
<li>Bradwell, Myra, application to Illinois Bar, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_601">601</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;opinion denying, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_609">609</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Carpenter's, Matt. H., argument, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_615">615</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;opinion of Justice Bradley, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_624">624</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report of proceedings in Illinois and U. S. Supreme Courts, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_614">614</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;U. S. Supreme Court decision, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_622">622</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;writ of error, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_614">614</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Brent, Margaret, first woman in America to claim the right to vote, iii, <a href="#Page_815">815</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Bright</span>, Jacob, iii, <a href="#Page_727">727</a>, <a href="#Page_841">841</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_438">438</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;municipal franchise bill, secures, iii, <a href="#Page_845">845</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;became law, iii, <a href="#Page_847">847</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Parliament, fails of reelection, iii, <a href="#Page_853">853</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_849">849</a>, <a href="#Page_873">873</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;votes for woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_842">842</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Bright, John, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_349">349</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_366">366</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_420">420</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech against woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_861">861</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Bright, Wm. H., career of, iii, <a href="#Page_729">729</a>.</li>
<li>Brinkerhoff, Martha H., iii, <a href="#Page_614">614</a>.</li>
<li>British taxation, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_202">202</a>.</li>
<li>Bromwell, H. P. H., iii, <a href="#Page_720">720</a>.</li>
<li>Brooklyn Bridge, iii, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>.</li>
<li>Brooks, James, on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>.</li>
<li>Brooks, Harriet S., sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>.</li>
<li>Broomall, John H., iii, <a href="#Page_464">464</a>.</li>
<li>Brougham, Lord, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_633">633</a>.</li>
<li><a name="Brown" id="Brown"><span class="sc">Brown</span>, Antoinette L.</a>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_119">119</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_624">624</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Bible argument, points on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_535">535</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;colleges, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_144">144</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;on the Half-world's Temperance Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_507">507</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;pastor, ordained as, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_473">473</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_449">449</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolutions, Albany Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_593">593</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_553">553</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Syracuse National Convention, argument, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_524">524</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;World's Temperance Convention, at the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_152">152</a>.</li>
  <li>(See <a href="#Blackwell">Blackwell, A. L. B.</a>)</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Brown, B. Gratz, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_136">136</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;universal suffrage, on, iii, <a href="#Page_598">598</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Brown, David Paul, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_333">333</a>.</li>
<li>Brown, Martha McClellan, iii, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>.</li>
<li>Brown, Mary Olney, iii, <a href="#Page_767">767</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;argument, her right to vote, iii, <a href="#Page_783">783</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;vote, attempts to, iii, <a href="#Page_780">780</a>, <a href="#Page_785">785</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Brown</span>, Olympia, iii, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;discussion with Fred. Douglass, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_311">311</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas, in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_241">241</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_259">259</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_646">646</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Equal Rights Association anniversary, Cooper Institute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_309">309</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech before Congressional Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_95">95</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Washington Convention, '76, iii, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_422">422</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Brown, R. T., speech on suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_853">853</a>.</li>
<li>Brown, Sarah A., nominated for office, iii, <a href="#Page_705">705</a>.</li>
<li>Brown, Wm. Wells, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_368">368</a>.</li>
<li>Bruhn, Rosa, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_439">439</a>.</li>
<li>Buchanan, James, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_204">204</a>.</li>
<li>Buck, J. D., iii, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_989" id="Page_989">[Pg 989]</a></span>Buckalew, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>.</li>
<li>Buckingham, Mrs., iii, <a href="#Page_337">337</a>.</li>
<li>Buckley, Brother, on women as preachers, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_784">784</a>.</li>
<li>Burger, Sarah, iii, <a href="#Page_526">526</a> (see Stearns, S. B.).</li>
<li>Burleigh, Celia, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_790">790</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_801">801</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_817">817</a>.</li>
<li>Burleigh, Charles C., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_549">549</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_558">558</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_392">392</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_818">818</a>.</li>
<li>Burnet, Rev. J., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_55">55</a>.</li>
<li>Burnham, Carrie S., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_600">600</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_444">444</a>.</li>
<li>Burns, Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>.</li>
<li>Burns, Robert, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_266">266</a>.</li>
<li>Burr, Frances Ellen, iii, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letters to S. B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_912">912</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_334">334</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Senate Judiciary Committee, argument before, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_543">543</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Burtis, Sarah Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_76">76</a>.</li>
<li>Burton, Mary, iii, <a href="#Page_852">852</a>.</li>
<li>Bush, Abigail, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Butler</span>, Benj. F., letters to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_539">539</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;report on Victoria C. Woodhull's memorial to Congress, ii, <a href="#Page_464">464</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_514">514</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Butler, David, iii, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>.</li>
<li>Butler, Deborah, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_348">348</a>.</li>
<li>Butler, Josephine E., on prostitution, iii, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;vice, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_795">795</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_C" name="IX_C">C.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Cadwallader, John, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_330">330</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">California</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_749">749</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Appendix, iii, <a href="#Page_977">977</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;constitution, liberal provisions, <a href="#Page_750">750</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;constitution and statute-laws, <a href="#Page_760">760</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (<i>see Conventions</i>)</li>
  <li>&mdash;journalism, <a href="#Page_761">761</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mill's Seminary, <a href="#Page_751">751</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition to Legislature, <a href="#Page_755">755</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;press, <i>ib.</i></li>
  <li>&mdash;senator, Mrs. Gordon nominated for, <a href="#Page_756">756</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;silk culture, <a href="#Page_762">762</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State Society organized, <a href="#Page_754">754</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman's lawyer bill, <a href="#Page_757">757</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage society, first, <a href="#Page_752">752</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women made eligible to school offices, <a href="#Page_757">757</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in the industries, <a href="#Page_763">763</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in the State University, contest, <a href="#Page_758">758</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Cameron, Don, iii, <a href="#Page_176">176</a>.</li>
<li>Campbell, Margaret W., iii, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="#Page_716">716</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech in Detroit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_839">839</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Campbell, Mary G., iii, <a href="#Page_712">712</a>.</li>
<li>Canada, women's position in, iii, <a href="#Page_831">831</a>.</li>
<li>Canon law, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_755">755</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_769">769</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_770">770</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_771">771</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_774">774</a>.</li>
<li>Carey, Mary A. S., iii, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</li>
<li>Carey, Samuel F., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>.</li>
<li>Carpenter Hall, application for, iii, <a href="#Page_16">16</a>.</li>
<li>Carpenter, C. C., letter to Iowa Woman Suffrage Association, iii, <a href="#Page_621">621</a>.</li>
<li>Carpenter, Matt. H., on Sargent's amendment to Pembina Territory bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_562">562</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Anthony, Susan B., trial, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_701">701</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;argument in Myra Bradwell's application to Illinois Bar, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_615">615</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Elizabeth C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_423">423</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Carr, Jeanne, iii, <a href="#Page_751">751</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Carroll</span>, Anna Ella, iii, <a href="#Page_153">153</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;claim before Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_863">863</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;statement of Benj. F. Wade, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_865">865</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letters, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_865">865</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_866">866</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_867">867</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_868">868</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Tennessee campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_3">3</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Vicksburg, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Cartter, Mrs. M. M., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_442">442</a>.</li>
<li>Cartter, Chief-Justice, opinion, Spencer-Webster suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_597">597</a>.</li>
<li>Cary, Alice and Ph&oelig;be, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_433">433</a>.</li>
<li>Catherine II., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>.</li>
<li>Catholic Church, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_207">207</a>.</li>
<li>Cattle expert, Middie Morgan, iii, <a href="#Page_404">404</a>.</li>
<li>Cavender, John H., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_328">328</a>.</li>
<li>Centennial celebration, iii, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>.</li>
<li>Centennial headquarters, iii, <a href="#Page_21">21</a>.</li>
<li>Centennial Tea-Party, iii, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>.</li>
<li>Centennial year, iii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_1">1</a>.</li>
<li>Centralization, iii, <a href="#Page_89">89</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Matilda J. Gage, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_523">523</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Century Club, Philadelphia, iii, <a href="#Page_469">469</a>.</li>
<li>Chace, Elizabeth B., iii, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="#Page_348">348</a>.</li>
<li>Chalkstone, Mrs., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>.</li>
<li>Chamberlain, D. H., favors woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_829">829</a>.</li>
<li>Chambers, Rev. John, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_159">159</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_167">167</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_500">500</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_508">508</a>.</li>
<li>Chandler, Dolly, iii, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>.</li>
<li>Chandler, Z., on Mrs. J. S. Griffing and the freedmen, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Channing</span>, William Henry, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_476">476</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_583">583</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_584">584</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_587">587</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_591">591</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;appeal, woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_588">588</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolutions, Rochester Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_580">580</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;social relations, report on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_233">233</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_550">550</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman's Rights, Declaration, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_129">129</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;World's Temperance Convention and John Chambers, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_508">508</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_922">922</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Chapin, Augusta, iii, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>.</li>
<li>Chapin, Clara C., iii, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>, <a href="#Page_693">693</a>.</li>
<li>Chapin, E. H., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_476">476</a>.</li>
<li>Chaplain, Mrs. E. F. Hobart, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_18">18</a>.</li>
<li>Chapman, Maria Weston, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_53">53</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;poem, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_82">82</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Chase, Salmon P., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_167">167</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_808">808</a>.</li>
<li>Cheever, George B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_226">226</a>.</li>
<li>Chicago Historical Society, iii, <a href="#Page_179">179</a>.</li>
<li><i>Chicago Inter-Ocean</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_682">682</a>.</li>
<li><i>Chicago Legal News</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_562">562</a>.</li>
<li>Chicago Legal News Company, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_607">607</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Child</span>, Lydia Maria, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_775">775</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_910">910</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to St. Louis Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_825">825</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions Congress, iii, <a href="#Page_266">266</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;universal suffrage, on, iii, <a href="#Page_519">519</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Children, guardianship of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_747">747</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;illegitimate, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_760">760</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;rearing of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_304">304</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Christine of Pisa, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>.</li>
<li>Christlieb, Prof., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_787">787</a>.</li>
<li>Church and State, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_753">753</a>.</li>
<li>Church, Elmwood, Illinois, iii, <a href="#Page_563">563</a>.</li>
<li>Churchill, Elizabeth K., iii, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_812">812</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Citizenship</span>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_462">462</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_468">468</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_469">469</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_470">470</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_473">473</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_532">532</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_555">555</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_556">556</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_665">665</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Bates, Attorney-General, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_461">461</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Blake, Devereux, on, iii, <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Curtis, Justice, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_472">472</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Daniel, Justice, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_471">471</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stanton, <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_990" id="Page_990">[Pg 990]</a></span>Elizabeth C., speech on, iii, <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Taney, Justice, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_472">472</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;term defined, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_451">451</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Thorbeck, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_473">473</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;White, Richard Grant, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_567">567</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Citizenship, women crowned with rights of, in Wyoming, iii, <a href="#Page_726">726</a>.</li>
<li>Claiborne, F. L., iii, <a href="#Page_795">795</a>.</li>
<li>Clark, Emily, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_489">489</a>.</li>
<li>Clark, Helen Bright, iii, <a href="#Page_874">874</a>.</li>
<li>Clark, Mary T., sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_312">312</a>.</li>
<li>Clark, Sidney, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_363">363</a>.</li>
<li>Clarke, Hannah B., on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_807">807</a>.</li>
<li>Clarke, Jas. Freeman, on suffrage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_768">768</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_266">266</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech, New England, Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Clarke, Mary Bayard, iii, <a href="#Page_825">825</a>.</li>
<li>Clarkson, Thomas, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_54">54</a>.</li>
<li>Clay, Mary B., iii, <a href="#Page_818">818</a>.</li>
<li>Clemmer, Mary, letter to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Senator Wadleigh, iii, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Clergy, charges against, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;celibacy of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_757">757</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Clergymen and corkscrews, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_167">167</a>.</li>
<li>Cleveland, Grover, iii, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>.</li>
<li>Clute, Oscar, on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_770">770</a>.</li>
<li>Cobbe, Francis Power, iii, <a href="#Page_865">865</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_438">438</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Cobden, Jane, iii, <a href="#Page_875">875</a>.</li>
<li>Cobden, Richard, favors woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_835">835</a>.</li>
<li>Coe, Emma R., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>.</li>
<li>Cogswell, Brainard, iii, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>.</li>
<li>Colburn, Catharine A., iii, <a href="#Page_774">774</a>.</li>
<li>Colburn, Mary J., iii, <a href="#Page_650">650</a>.</li>
<li>Colby, Clara Bewick, iii, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_670">670</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Colby University opened to girls, iii, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>.</li>
<li>Cole, Mrs. Miriam M., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_790">790</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_806">806</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_832">832</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_501">501</a>.</li>
<li>Coleman, Lucy N., speech at Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_62">62</a>.</li>
<li>Coleridge, Lord, iii, <a href="#Page_844">844</a>.</li>
<li>Colfax, Schuyler, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_181">181</a>.</li>
<li>Colleges, iii, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;women in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_144">144</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Colleges for women, iii, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</li>
<li>College, Woman's, Evanston, Ill., iii, <a href="#Page_578">578</a>.</li>
<li>Collier, Robert Laird, iii, <a href="#Page_567">567</a>.</li>
<li>Collins, Emily, reminiscences of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_88">88</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Miss Sarah Owen's correspondence, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Collins, Jennie, speech at Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_423">423</a>.</li>
<li>Collins, Stacy B., iii, <a href="#Page_482">482</a>.</li>
<li>Collyer, Robert, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_368">368</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_371">371</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_372">372</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;recollections of Lucretia Mott, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_414">414</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Chicago, iii, <a href="#Page_565">565</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Colorado</span>: clergy, iii, <a href="#Page_720">720</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Conventions, <i>See <a href="#Conventions">Conventions</a></i></li>
  <li>&mdash;Desert, great American, iii, <a href="#Page_712">712</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;equal-rights mass-meeting in Denver, <a href="#Page_722">722</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;leaders in the cause, <a href="#Page_719">719</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislation, <a href="#Page_714">714</a>, <a href="#Page_715">715</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;press, <a href="#Page_715">715</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage amendment, defeat of, <a href="#Page_723">723</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage first effort for, <a href="#Page_712">712</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage, Gov. McCook's message, <a href="#Page_713">713</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, Gov. Evan's on, <a href="#Page_722">722</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><i>Colorado Tribune</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_715">715</a>.</li>
<li>Columbia College, effort to open to women, iii, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>.</li>
<li>Colvin, N. J., letters to S. B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_691">691</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_750">750</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_914">914</a>.</li>
<li>Conciliatory amendments, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_527">527</a>.</li>
<li><i>Concord Monitor</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>.</li>
<li>Congress, first Continental, iii, <a href="#Page_17">17</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Elizabeth C. Stanton runs for, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_180">180</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Victoria C. Woodhull's memorial, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_443">443</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Riddle's speech in support of, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_448">448</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;House majority report, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_461">461</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Minority report, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_464">464</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Congressional Action</span>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_90">90</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Anthony, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_106">106</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;arguments before House Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_161">161</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;arguments before Senate Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Banks' N. P., speech, iii, <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Brooks' James, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_96">96</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Brown's, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_136">136</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Buckalew's, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_146">146</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Butler's, Benj., speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_514">514</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Committee, special, House appoints, iii, <a href="#Page_221">221</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Committee, special, on woman suffrage, Senate discussion, iii, <a href="#Page_198">198</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Committee, special, on woman suffrage, House discussion, iii, <a href="#Page_219">219</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Committee, standing, Senate discussion, iii, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Cowan, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_110">110</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Cowan repels the charge of insincerity, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_121">121</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Davis's Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_144">144</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Debate, Senate and House, iii, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Democrats and the petitions, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_95">95</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;District of Columbia suffrage bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_103">103</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;vote, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_151">151</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;District of Columbia bill, Julian's amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_482">482</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Doolittle, Senator, speech against, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_150">150</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;electors, who constitute, House debates, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_326">326</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;female employées, iii, <a href="#Page_811">811</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Frelinghuysen's, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_135">135</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;hearing before Senate Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_227">227</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Henderson, Senator, presents Mrs. Gerrit Smith's petition with a speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_98">98</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;House discussion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_514">514</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Johnson's, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_130">130</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;joint resolutions before House affecting women, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_72">72</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Julian's bills, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_325">325</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Morrill's, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_118">118</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;National Association granted hearing, iii, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Negro's hour, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_94">94</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Parker's bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_516">516</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pembina Territory bill, debate on, Sargent's amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_545">545</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>am't rejected, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_582">582</a>;</li>
    <li>Anthony's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_568">568</a>;</li>
    <li>Bayard's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_567">567</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_575">575</a>;</li>
    <li>Boreman's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_549">549</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_580">580</a>;</li>
    <li>Carpenter's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_562">562</a>;</li>
    <li>Conkling's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_558">558</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_559">559</a>;</li>
    <li>Edmund's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_562">562</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_569">569</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_571">571</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_572">572</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_573">573</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_580">580</a>;</li>
    <li>Ferry's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_568">568</a>;</li>
    <li>Flanagan's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_552">552</a>;</li>
    <li>Merrimon's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_552">552</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_553">553</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_554">554</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_555">555</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_556">556</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_557">557</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_560">560</a>;</li>
    <li>Morrill's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_562">562</a>;</li>
    <li>Morton's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_549">549</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_569">569</a>;</li>
    <li>Sargent's remarks, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_546">546</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_555">555</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_564">564</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_567">567</a>;</li>
    <li>Stewart's remarks, <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_991" id="Page_991">[Pg 991]</a></span><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_548">548</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_558">558</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_559">559</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_564">564</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_573">573</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_579">579</a>.</li>
    <li>Petition, iii, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition read and referred, iii, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition, Rhode Island, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_560">560</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition for universal suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_97">97</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions against the word "male" in Constitution, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_91">91</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pomeroy's, Senator, resolution, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_324">324</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pomeroy's, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_151">151</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Report, first favorable majority, iii, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report, first favorable, Senate, iii, <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report, minority, iii, <a href="#Page_237">237</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reports on Victoria C. Woodhull's memorial, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_461">461</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_464">464</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reports, iii, <a href="#Page_150">150</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Republicans' protest in presenting petitions, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_94">94</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_96">96</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Republicans, squirming of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_101">101</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolution to appoint special committee, iii, <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sargent, Senator, speech, iii, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sixteenth Amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_333">333</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sixteenth Amendment, resolutions, iii, <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stevens', Thaddeus, resolution, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_95">95</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sumner, Charles, presents a petition under protest, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_96">96</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>why he protested, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_100">100</a>.</li>
    <li>Wade, Benj. F., speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_123">123</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Williams, Senator, speech against, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_108">108</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wilson's, Senator, bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_324">324</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wilson's, Senator, speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Conkling, Roscoe, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_363">363</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;on Senator McDonald's Woman Suffrage resolution, iii, <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;talk with, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_347">347</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Senator Stewart and woman suffrage, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_558">558</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Connecticut, iii, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Appendix, iii, <a href="#Page_957">957</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bar, admission to the, iii, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislature, minority report, iii, <a href="#Page_317">317</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Constitution, Story on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_477">477</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_588">588</a>.</li>
<li>Constitution and suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_741">741</a>.</li>
<li>Continental Europe, iii, <a href="#Page_895">895</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc"><a id="Conventions" name="Conventions">Conventions</a></span>: American Woman Suffrage Association (<i>See <a href="#AWSA">Am. Woman Suffrage Association</a></i>)
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;barn, in a, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_123">123</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>California</i>, San Francisco, iii, <a href="#Page_753">753</a>, <a href="#Page_760">760</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Connecticut</i>, Hartford, iii, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Colorado</i>, Denver, iii, <a href="#Page_716">716</a>, <a href="#Page_720">720</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Illinois</i>, Bloomington, iii, <a href="#Page_572">572</a>,
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Chicago, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_368">368</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_565">565</a>, <a href="#Page_570">570</a>;</li>
    <li>Galena, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_375">375</a>;</li>
    <li>Springfield, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_371">371</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_570">570</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Indiana</i>, Dublin, Wayne Co., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_306">306</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Indianapolis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_307">307</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_534">534</a>, <a href="#Page_537">537</a>;</li>
    <li>Richmond, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_307">307</a>;</li>
    <li>Winchester, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>;</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Iowa</i>, Des Moines, iii, <a href="#Page_618">618</a>, <a href="#Page_623">623</a>, <a href="#Page_624">624</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Mount Pleasant, iii, <a href="#Page_617">617</a>;</li>
    <li>Ottumwa, iii, <a href="#Page_624">624</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Kansas</i>, Topeka, iii, <a href="#Page_702">702</a>, <a href="#Page_709">709</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Salina, iii, <a href="#Page_709">709</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;London, first ever held, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_406">406</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Loyalists' ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_329">329</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Maine</i>, Augusta, iii, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="#Page_363">363</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Portland, iii, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Massachusetts</i>, Boston, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_178">178</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Worcester (Nat.), i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_266">266</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Michigan</i>, Detroit, iii, <a href="#Page_516">516</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Grand Rapids, iii, <a href="#Page_530">530</a>;</li>
    <li>Lansing, iii, <a href="#Page_519">519</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Minnesota</i>, Minneapolis, iii, <a href="#Page_659">659</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Missouri</i>, St. Louis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_369">369</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_407">407</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>, <a href="#Page_601">601</a>, <a href="#Page_606">606</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;National, in 1866-67,
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>report by Caroline H. Dall, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_899">899</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Nebraska</i>, Kearney, iii, <a href="#Page_688">688</a> <a href="#Page_694">694</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Norfolk, iii, <a href="#Page_689">689</a>;</li>
    <li>Omaha, iii, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_687">687</a>, <a href="#Page_690">690</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;New England, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_262">262</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_267">267</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>New Hampshire</i>, Concord, iii, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_368">368</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Dover, iii, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>;</li>
    <li>Keene, <i>ib.</i>;</li>
    <li>New Haven, <i>ib.</i></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>New Jersey</i>, Vineland, iii, <a href="#Page_479">479</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>New York</i>, Albany, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_591">591</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_628">628</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_678">678</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_745">745</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Rochester, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_577">577</a>,
      <ul class="IX">
      <li>press comments, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_802">802</a>;</li>
      </ul></li>
    <li>Rochester, iii, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</li>
    <li>Saratoga, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_402">402</a>;</li>
    <li>Burleigh's, Celia, description, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_402">402</a>;</li>
    <li>Saratoga, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_620">620</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_623">623</a>;</li>
    <li>Saratoga, iii, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>;</li>
    <li>Seneca Falls, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>,
      <ul class="IX">
      <li>press comments, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_802">802</a>;</li>
      </ul></li>
    <li>Syracuse (Nat.), i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_517">517</a>,
      <ul class="IX">
      <li>press comments i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_852">852</a></li>
      </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York Constitutional, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_282">282</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York City, Apollo Hall, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_427">427</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_484">484</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_533">533</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Broadway Tabernacle i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_631">631</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_546">546</a>;</li>
    <li>Church of the Puritans (Nat.), <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_152">152</a>;</li>
    <li>Cooper Institute (Nat.), i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_688">688</a>;</li>
    <li>Irving Hall, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_426">426</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_545">545</a>;</li>
    <li>Masonic Temple, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_584">584</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>;</li>
    <li>Mozart Hall (Nat.), i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_668">668</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_672">672</a>;</li>
    <li>Steinway Hall, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_809">809</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Ohio</i>, Akron, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Cincinnati (Nat.), i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>;</li>
    <li>Cincinnati, iii, <a href="#Page_492">492</a>;</li>
    <li>Cleveland (Nat.), i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_124">124</a>;</li>
    <li>Cleveland, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_757">757</a>;</li>
    <li>Dayton, iii, <a href="#Page_493">493</a>;</li>
    <li>Massilon, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>;</li>
    <li>Salem, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>;</li>
    <li>Toledo, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_377">377</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_506">506</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Oregon</i>, Portland, iii, <a href="#Page_773">773</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Paris, International, iii, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, <a href="#Page_585">585</a>, <a href="#Page_896">896</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Pennsylvania</i>, Philadelphia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_375">375</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Westchester, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_350">350</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Rhode Island</i>, Newport, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_403">403</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Providence, iii, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_340">340</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>South Carolina</i>, Columbia, iii, <a href="#Page_828">828</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Vermont</i>, Montpelier, iii, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Washington Ter.</i>,  Walla Walla, iii, <a href="#Page_775">775</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Washington, D. C., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_359">359</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_418">418</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_425">425</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_442">442</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_493">493</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_521">521</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_537">537</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_538">538</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_543">543</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_582">582</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_221">221</a>, <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Wisconsin</i>, Janesville, iii, <a href="#Page_642">642</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Madison, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_374">374</a>;</li>
    <li>Milwaukee, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_374">374</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_640">640</a>;</li>
    <li>Racine, iii, <a href="#Page_645">645</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Conventions, Constitutional, Kansas, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Massachusetts, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_253">253</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_267">267</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Ohio, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_105">105</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pennsylvania, iii, <a href="#Page_465">465</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Conventions held in Washington, why, iii, <a href="#Page_150">150</a>.</li>
<li>Cooper, Edward, against woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_422">422</a>.</li>
<li>Cooper, Joseph, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_447">447</a>.</li>
<li>Cooper, Peter, iii, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>.</li>
<li>"Copperheads," going over to the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_320">320</a>.</li>
<li>Corbin, Hannah Lee, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>.</li>
<li>Cornell, A. B., iii, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>.</li>
<li>Cornell, University, iii, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>.</li>
<li>Corner, Mary T., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_122">122</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_810">810</a>.</li>
<li>Correll, E. M., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_862">862</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>.</li>
<li>Correspondence, <i>See <a href="#Letters">Letters</a></i>.</li>
<li>Corson, Hiram, letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_472">472</a>.</li>
<li>Courtney, Leonard, iii, <a href="#Page_862">862</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Couzins</span>, Ph&oelig;be W., iii, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="#Page_370">370</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;address, "Woman as a Lawyer," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_542">542</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;argument before House Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;delegate to National Democratic <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_992" id="Page_992">[Pg 992]</a></span>Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Labors of, iii, <a href="#Page_596">596</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reception, iii, <a href="#Page_610">610</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Senate Judiciary Committee, argument before, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_543">543</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Speeches:
      <ul class="IX">
      <li>Centennial, iii, <a href="#Page_36">36</a>,</li>
      <li>St. Louis Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_142">142</a>;</li>
      <li>Washington Convention, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>;</li>
      <li>Woman Suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_387">387</a>.</li>
      </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Couzins, Mrs. J. E. D., as a nurse, iii, <a href="#Page_596">596</a>.</li>
<li>Covenant, Ladies' National, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_39">39</a>.</li>
<li>Cowan, Senator, speech on District of Columbia suffrage bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_110">110</a>.</li>
<li>Cowles, Betsey M., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_104">104</a>.</li>
<li>Cox, Rt. Rev. Dr., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_782">782</a>.</li>
<li>Crandall, Prudence, iii, <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, <a href="#Page_560">560</a>, <a href="#Page_703">703</a>.</li>
<li>Craven, Rev. E. A., on Woman in the Pulpit, iii, <a href="#Page_485">485</a>.</li>
<li>Crawford, S. J., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_251">251</a>.</li>
<li>Cromwellian era, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_775">775</a>.</li>
<li>Crosby, Howard, letter to Mrs. M. J. Gage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_798">798</a>.</li>
<li>Crow, Wayman, iii, <a href="#Page_595">595</a>.</li>
<li>Crowley, Richard, argument Miss Anthony's trial, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_648">648</a>.</li>
<li>"Crown and Anchor," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_438">438</a>.</li>
<li>Culver, Hon. Erastus D., speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_709">709</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Curtis</span>, Geo. Wm., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_668">668</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_378">378</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_795">795</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Constitutional Convention at Albany, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_288">288</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage for women, favors, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_672">672</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Cushman, Major Pauline, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_20">20</a>.</li>
<li>Cutler, Hannah M. T., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_123">123</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_384">384</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_773">773</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_788">788</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_809">809</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_818">818</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_823">823</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_853">853</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_561">561</a>, <a href="#Page_614">614</a>, <a href="#Page_675">675</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_D" name="IX_D">D.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Dahlgren, Madeleine, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_494">494</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_495">495</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Dakota</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_662">662</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;address to women of, M. J. Gage's, iii, <a href="#Page_663">663</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_664">664</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislative action, iii, <a href="#Page_662">662</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_663">663</a>, <a href="#Page_666">666</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage bill passed Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_667">667</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;vetoed, iii, <a href="#Page_667">667</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Dall</span>, Caroline H., "Drawing-room Convention," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_276">276</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;lectures, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_262">262</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to <i>The Nation</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_101">101</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_262">262</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reports National Conventions held in '66 and '67, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_899">899</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, New England Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_265">265</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Dana, Richard H., on womanhood, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_367">367</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Darlington, Hannah M., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_349">349</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_344">344</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Darrah, Lydia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>.</li>
<li>Dartmouth College case, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_725">725</a>.</li>
<li>Daughters of Liberty, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_203">203</a>.</li>
<li>Davis, Senator, speech against woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_144">144</a>.</li>
<li>Davis, Edward M., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_358">358</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="#Page_462">462</a>.</li>
<li>Davis, Jefferson, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_542">542</a>.</li>
<li>Davis, J. J., iii, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>.</li>
<li><a name="Davis" id="Davis">Davis, Mary F.</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_390">390</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_791">791</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_480">480</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Davis</span>, Paulina Wright, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_823">823</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;colored women on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_391">391</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;death of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_827">827</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_336">336</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_273">273</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President, made, Boston Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_255">255</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President, made, Worcester convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_221">221</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President, made, Worcester National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_227">227</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reminiscences of, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_283">283</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Boston Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_256">256</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Syracuse National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_533">533</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>The Una</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_246">246</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman's rights movement, review of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_428">428</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Deaths, Mrs. Dall's report, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_905">905</a>.</li>
<li>Decisions and Trials, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_586">586</a>.</li>
<li>Declaration, Channing's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_129">129</a>.</li>
<li>Declaration of sentiments, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_70">70</a>.</li>
<li>Declaration and pledge, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_486">486</a>.</li>
<li>DeFoe, Daniel, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>.</li>
<li>Delaware, iii, <a href="#Page_817">817</a>.</li>
<li>Democrats advocated woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_320">320</a>.</li>
<li>Denmark, iii, <a href="#Page_914">914</a>.</li>
<li>Dentistry, Lucy B. Hobbs, iii, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_455">455</a>.</li>
<li>Dentistry, women in, iii, <a href="#Page_452">452</a>.</li>
<li>Deroine, Jeanne, address to women of America, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Dickinson</span>, Anna E., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_375">375</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_320">320</a>, <a href="#Page_811">811</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;California, in, iii, <a href="#Page_752">752</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Chicago Convention, at, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_368">368</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth Amendment, her suggestion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_227">227</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_916">916</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Chicago, iii, <a href="#Page_567">567</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speeches, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_40">40</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_433">433</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Young Elephant," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_42">42</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Dilke, Sir Charles, iii, <a href="#Page_847">847</a>.</li>
<li>Dimock, Susan, tribute, iii, <a href="#Page_827">827</a>.</li>
<li>Dinsmoor, Orpha C., sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_693">693</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">District of Columbia</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_808">808</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions);</li>
  <li>&mdash;Miner Normal School, iii, <a href="#Page_809">809</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Organic Act, iii, <a href="#Page_812">812</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage bill, iii, <a href="#Page_809">809</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_482">482</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Universal Franchise Association, iii, <a href="#Page_809">809</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women admitted to District bar, iii, <a href="#Page_812">812</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in government departments, iii, <a href="#Page_808">808</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in the profession of medicine, iii, <a href="#Page_812">812</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women writers and teachers, iii, <a href="#Page_813">813</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Disraeli on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_839">839</a>.</li>
<li>Dix, Dorothea, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_479">479</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_12">12</a>.</li>
<li>Dix, John A., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_530">530</a>.</li>
<li>Dix, Morgan, Lenten lectures, iii, <a href="#Page_436">436</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Mrs. Blake's reply, iii, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;coëducation, on, iii, <a href="#Page_410">410</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Divorce (see Marriage and Divorce).</li>
<li>Dodge, Mary Mapes, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_49">49</a>.</li>
<li>Dolph, J. N., iii, <a href="#Page_778">778</a>.</li>
<li>Doolittle's, Senator, speech against woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_150">150</a>.</li>
<li>Dorsett, Martha Angle, lawyer, iii, <a href="#Page_660">660</a>.</li>
<li>Dorsey, Sarah A., iii, <a href="#Page_794">794</a>, <a href="#Page_807">807</a>.</li>
<li>Doud, Katharine R., iii, <a href="#Page_645">645</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Douglas, Frederick</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_584">584</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_585">585</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_587">587</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_391">391</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;discussion with Olympia Brown, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_311">311</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_993" id="Page_993">[Pg 993]</a></span>Amendment, on the origin of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_326">326</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_265">265</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_328">328</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Loyalists' Convention, delegate, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_329">329</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;refuge in Mrs. E. C. Stanton's house, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_382">382</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Revolution</i>, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_382">382</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;wolf-skins, in, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_377">377</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Washington Convention '76, iii, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Douglass, Sarah M., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_332">332</a>.</li>
<li>Douglass, Stephen A., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_263">263</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_301">301</a>.</li>
<li>Dow, Neal, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_121">121</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>.</li>
<li>Downing, Geo. T., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_215">215</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_377">377</a>.</li>
<li>Downing, Lucy, iii, <a href="#Page_296">296</a>.</li>
<li>Downs, Cora M., made a Regent, iii, <a href="#Page_706">706</a>.</li>
<li>Doyle, Sarah E. H., iii, <a href="#Page_344">344</a>.</li>
<li>Draper, E. D., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_242">242</a>.</li>
<li>Dresser, Horace, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_952">952</a>.</li>
<li>Duchess of Sutherland, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_421">421</a>.</li>
<li>Dugdale, Jos. A., on wills, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_357">357</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Duniway</span>, Abigail Scott, arrest of, ordered, iii, <a href="#Page_774">774</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;career, iii, <a href="#Page_768">768</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;egged at Jacksonville, Oregon, iii, <a href="#Page_775">775</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional liberty, on, <i>ib.</i></li>
  <li>&mdash;lecturing tour, iii, <a href="#Page_769">769</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;temperance meeting, at a, iii, <a href="#Page_772">772</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_E" name="IX_E">E.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Eaglesfield, Elizabeth, iii, <a href="#Page_549">549</a>.</li>
<li>Earl, Sarah H., tribute, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_217">217</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;President New England Convention, made, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Eastman, Mary F., speeches, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_829">829</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_840">840</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_845">845</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_854">854</a>.</li>
<li>Ecclesine, Thos. C, iii, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>.</li>
<li>Eddy, Eliza F., will case, iii, <a href="#Page_312">312</a>.</li>
<li>Edgerton, A. J., on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_666">666</a>.</li>
<li>Editor, first colored, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>.</li>
<li>Editors, opinions of three liberal, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_227">227</a>.</li>
<li>Editors interviewed, iii, <a href="#Page_623">623</a>.</li>
<li>Edmunds, Senator, on State rights and suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_561">561</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_569">569</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_570">570</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_571">571</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_572">572</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_573">573</a>. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_580">580</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, on, iii <a href="#Page_70">70</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Education, Mrs. Dall's report, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_900">900</a>.</li>
<li>Education, compulsory, iii, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>.</li>
<li>Education, equal, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_909">909</a>.</li>
<li>Educational movement, iii, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>.</li>
<li>Eggleston, Edward, on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_810">810</a>.</li>
<li>Eldridge, Edward, iii, <a href="#Page_781">781</a>.</li>
<li>Electors, qualification of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_463">463</a>-4.</li>
<li>Eliot, Rev. Wm. G., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>.</li>
<li>Elizabeth, Queen, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>.</li>
<li>Ellsworth, Bertha H., iii, <a href="#Page_700">700</a>.</li>
<li>Elstob, Elizabeth, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>.</li>
<li>Emancipation Petition, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_78">78</a>.</li>
<li>Emerson, on Power of Human Mind, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_427">427</a>.</li>
<li>Episcopal restrictions, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_785">785</a>.</li>
<li>Essex County Society, iii, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li>
<li>Estabrook, Prof., speech for woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_839">839</a>.</li>
<li>"Eumenes", i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_451">451</a>.</li>
<li>Evans, L. D., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_801">801</a>.</li>
<li>Evarts, Wm. M., upon woman's subordination, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_789">789</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_53">53</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_F" name="IX_F">F.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Fable, "The Selfish Rats," iii, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>.</li>
<li>Fales, Mrs. I. C, speech on suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_851">851</a>.</li>
<li>Fairchild, Governor, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_375">375</a>.</li>
<li>Faithful, Emily, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_440">440</a>.</li>
<li>Farnham, Eliza W., iii, <a href="#Page_750">750</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech at Mozart Hall, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_669">669</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_750">750</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Ferrin, Mary Upton, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_209">209</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech before Judiciary Committee, Massachusetts Legislature, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_212">212</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Ferry, Thos. W., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_568">568</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>,
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>on the Pembrina Territory bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_568">568</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Feudalism, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_761">761</a>-3.</li>
<li>Flanagan, Senator, on Sargent's amendment to Pembrina Territory bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_552">552</a>.</li>
<li>Florida, iii, <a href="#Page_829">829</a>.</li>
<li>Field, Anna C, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_398">398</a>.</li>
<li>Field, David Dudley, iii, <a href="#Page_647">647</a>.</li>
<li>Field, Kate, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_620">620</a>.</li>
<li>Fields, Jas. T., letter to H. B. Blackwell, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_838">838</a>.</li>
<li>Fifteenth Amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_314">314</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_327">327</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_333">333</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_334">334</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_335">335</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_336">336</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_337">337</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_387">387</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_455">455</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_463">463</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_478">478</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_479">479</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_502">502</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_503">503</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_556">556</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_557">557</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_569">569</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_616">616</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_618">618</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_619">619</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_641">641</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_642">642</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_663">663</a>.</li>
<li>Filley, Mary Powers, iii, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_380">380</a>.</li>
<li>Foeking, Emilie, iii, <a href="#Page_816">816</a>.</li>
<li>Foley, Margaret, iii, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>.</li>
<li>Folger, Chas. J., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_750">750</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_271">271</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_801">801</a>.</li>
<li>Folsom, Marianna, iii, <a href="#Page_703">703</a>.</li>
<li>Foltz, Clara S., iii, <a href="#Page_757">757</a>.</li>
<li>Foote, Samuel A., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_629">629</a>.</li>
<li>Forbes, Arathusa L., iii, <a href="#Page_596">596</a>.</li>
<li>Ford, Jennie G., iii, <a href="#Page_693">693</a>.</li>
<li>Forney, John W., on women and hospital clinics, iii, <a href="#Page_450">450</a>.</li>
<li>Foster, Abby Kelly, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_134">134</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_216">216</a>.</li>
<li>Foster, J. Ellen, iii, <a href="#Page_536">536</a>.</li>
<li>Foster, Julia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_301">301</a>.</li>
<li>Foster, Rachel, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_391">391</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_474">474</a>.</li>
<li>Foster, Stephen S., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_381">381</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_372">372</a>.</li>
<li>Fourteenth Amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_313">313</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_315">315</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_323">323</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_324">324</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_327">327</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_407">407</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_411">411</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_412">412</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_422">422</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_455">455</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_457">457</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_461">461</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_463">463</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_468">468</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_478">478</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_479">479</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_499">499</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_500">500</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_501">501</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_502">502</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_503">503</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_556">556</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_586">586</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_590">590</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_593">593</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_595">595</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_596">596</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_619">619</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_617">617</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_618">618</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_619">619</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_621">621</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_622">622</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_624">624</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_625">625</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_626">626</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_641">641</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_642">642</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_663">663</a>.</li>
<li>Fox, Charles James, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_453">453</a>.</li>
<li>Fox, W. J., on women in politics, iii, <a href="#Page_836">836</a>.</li>
<li>Fowler, Lydia F., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_491">491</a>.</li>
<li>France, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_202">202</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;agitation in, address of Pauline Roland and Jeanne Deroine, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_234">234</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;international woman's rights congress, iii, <a href="#Page_896">896</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>"Frank Miller," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_19">19</a>.</li>
<li>Franklin, Benjamin, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_324">324</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_244">244</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_475">475</a>.</li>
<li>Franklin, William, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_441">441</a>.</li>
<li>Freedmen's Relief Association, Mrs. J. <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_994" id="Page_994">[Pg 994]</a></span>S. Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_26">26</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Josephine Griffing's letter to Lucretia Mott, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_869">869</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letters on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_45">45</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;originator of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Freeland, Margaret, arrest of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_475">475</a>.</li>
<li>Frelinghuysen, F. G., speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>.</li>
<li>Fremont, Jessie B., letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_911">911</a>.</li>
<li>Fremont, Jno. C., Presidential campaign, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_651">651</a>.</li>
<li>French, Charlotte Olney, iii, <a href="#Page_784">784</a>.</li>
<li>Frothingham, O. B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_186">186</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_248">248</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_545">545</a>.</li>
<li>Fry, Elizabeth, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_479">479</a>.</li>
<li>Fry, Elizabeth, and Lucretia Mott, i. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_423">423</a>.</li>
<li>Frye, Wm. P., iii, <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>.</li>
<li>Fuller, Margaret, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_49">49</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_801">801</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.</li>
<li>Fulton, W. C., iii, <a href="#Page_776">776</a>.</li>
<li>Furness' church, iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_G" name="IX_G">G.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li><span class="sc">Gage</span>, Frances Dana, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_112">112</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_116">116</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_561">561</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Cleveland Convention, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_124">124</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;lectures in Iowa, iii, <a href="#Page_613">613</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_769">769</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;at Cincinnati, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_857">857</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Matilda Joslyn Gage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_117">117</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to <i>National Anti-Slavery Standard</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_176">176</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Lucy Stone, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_656">656</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Rochester Temperance Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_845">845</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_424">424</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;mothers and their children, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_360">360</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;National Convention, Philadelphia, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_325">325</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;negro testimony quoted by Senator Cowan in U. S. Senate, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_115">115</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Nichols, Mrs., and, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_198">198</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;orator, as an, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_168">168</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_128">128</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reminiscences of Sojourner Truth, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_115">115</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reply to Gerrit Smith's letter to Mrs. Stanton, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_842">842</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Akron Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_111">111</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_563">563</a>;</li>
    <li>Winchester, Ind., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>;</li>
    <li>Equal Rights Association Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_200">200</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;her last speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_223">223</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>temperance and the ballot, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_211">211</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Gage</span>, Matilda Joslyn, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_589">589</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_591">591</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;address to women of Dakota, iii, <a href="#Page_663">663</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Anthony case, her letter to <i>Albany Law Journal</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_947">947</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;appeal, iii, <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;argument before House Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Carpenter Hall, application for, iii, <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;church influence on woman's liberties, iii, <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;divorce on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_566">566</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grant and Wilson campaign, appeal, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_517">517</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to wife of Admiral Dahlgren, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_494">494</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Dakota Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_664">664</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Omaha convention, iii, <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Minor suit, her review of Judge Waite's opinion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_742">742</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>National Citizen</i> prospectus, iii, <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>National Citizen and Ballot-Box</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_47">47</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition, political disabilities, iii, <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_753">753</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report, iii, <a href="#Page_522">522</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_466">466</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speeches:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Centralization, at Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_523">523</a>;</li>
    <li>Congressional Committees, before, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_415">415</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, <a href="#Page_93">93</a>;</li>
    <li>Furness' church, in, iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>;</li>
    <li>Rochester Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_579">579</a>;</li>
    <li>Saratoga Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_622">622</a>;</li>
    <li>Syracuse National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_528">528</a>;</li>
    <li>United States on trial, not Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_630">630</a>;</li>
    <li>Washington National Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sunderland controversy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_543">543</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Van Schaick, and Mr., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_406">406</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman, Church and State, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_753">753</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>"Gail Hamilton," iii, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>.</li>
<li>Gaines, Myra Clark, iii, <a href="#Page_801">801</a>.</li>
<li>Gale's, Senator, insulting epithets, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_483">483</a>.</li>
<li>Gallup, J. D., iii, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>.</li>
<li>Galusha, Eben, address, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_55">55</a>.</li>
<li>Gardner, Nannette B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_587">587</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;votes in Michigan, iii, <a href="#Page_523">523</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Garfield, James A., letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>.</li>
<li>Garret, Eliza, iii, <a href="#Page_582">582</a>.</li>
<li>Garrett, Thomas, iii, <a href="#Page_818">818</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Garrison</span>, Wm. Lloyd, argument at Cleveland National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_136">136</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;attacked by Dr. Nevin, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_144">144</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;on Gen. Carey, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_162">162</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Philadelphia, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_816">816</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Concord Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Rochester Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Worcester National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_216">216</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;London Anti-slavery Convention, and the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_61">61</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage and divorce, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_733">733</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;National Convention, Philadelphia, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_378">378</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_548">548</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_570">570</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tracts and petitions, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_383">383</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute to Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_38">38</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, apathy, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_322">322</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in national councils, on the right of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_672">672</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;World's Temperance Convention, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_160">160</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Gay, Sidney Howard, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_369">369</a>.</li>
<li>Gaylord, Senator, iii, <a href="#Page_623">623</a>.</li>
<li>Geddes, Geo., on the Property bill, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_64">64</a>.</li>
<li>Generals, why kept in the army, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>.</li>
<li>Geneva, iii, <a href="#Page_909">909</a>.</li>
<li>George Eliot, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_302">302</a>.</li>
<li>Georgia, iii, <a href="#Page_830">830</a>.</li>
<li>Germans against woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>.</li>
<li>Germany, iii, <a href="#Page_902">902</a>.</li>
<li>Gibbons, Abby Hopper, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_40">40</a>.</li>
<li>Gibbs, Sarah A., dissection of a sermonizer, iii, <a href="#Page_391">391</a>.</li>
<li>Gibson, Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>.</li>
<li>Giddings, Joshua R., on woman suffrage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;World's Temperance Convention, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_162">162</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Giddings, Maria L., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>.</li>
<li>Gillette, Rev. Mrs., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_837">837</a>.</li>
<li>Gillingham, Lydia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_324">324</a>.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_995" id="Page_995">[Pg 995]</a></span>Girls and boys, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_541">541</a>.</li>
<li>Gladden, Washington, on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_815">815</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Gladstone</span>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_293">293</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_366">366</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Catholicism, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_27">27</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_850">850</a>, <a href="#Page_854">854</a>, <a href="#Page_877">877</a>, <a href="#Page_883">883</a>, <a href="#Page_888">888</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Goddard, Sarah, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_44">44</a>.</li>
<li>Godwin, Parke, on the higher education of women, iii, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>.</li>
<li>Goodell, Lavinia, iii, <a href="#Page_648">648</a>.</li>
<li>Goodrich, Sarah Knox, iii, <a href="#Page_765">765</a>.</li>
<li>Gordon, J. W., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_307">307</a>.</li>
<li>Gordon, Laura DeForce, iii, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, <a href="#Page_751">751</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Lectures, iii, <a href="#Page_755">755</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Letter to Washington Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Senator, nominated for, iii, <a href="#Page_756">756</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Gougar, Helen M., iii, <a href="#Page_540">540</a>, <a href="#Page_552">552</a>, <a href="#Page_697">697</a>, <a href="#Page_702">702</a>, <a href="#Page_708">708</a>, <a href="#Page_857">857</a>.</li>
<li>Government, Hooker on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_475">475</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Paine on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_474">474</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pillsbury on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_201">201</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Priestly on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_476">476</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Radical basis of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_290">290</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sharpe, Granville, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_475">475</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Summers, Lord, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_475">475</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;theory, true, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_474">474</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>"Grace Greenwood" (<i>see</i> Mrs. Sara J. Lippincott).</li>
<li><span class="sc">Grant</span>, U. S., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_88">88</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;campaign (1872), Tremont Temple meeting, iii, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;XV. Amendment, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_646">646</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;talk with Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_544">544</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Grant and Wilson campaign, National Woman's Rights Association's appeal, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_517">517</a>.</li>
<li>Graves, Ezra, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_282">282</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_307">307</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Great Britain</span>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_202">202</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_833">833</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;associations formed, iii, <a href="#Page_841">841</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;circular to Members of Parliament, iii, <a href="#Page_881">881</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conference, Edinburgh, iii, <a href="#Page_878">878</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conference, Leeds, iii, <a href="#Page_874">874</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conference, St. James' Hall, iii, <a href="#Page_888">888</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;demonstration, Birmingham, iii, <a href="#Page_868">868</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;demonstration, Manchester, iii, <a href="#Page_867">867</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;demonstrations, iii, <a href="#Page_869">869</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;education act, iii, <a href="#Page_850">850</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;education bill, Scotch, iii, <a href="#Page_851">851</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;household suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_886">886</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Isle of Man, iii, <a href="#Page_870">870</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letters, woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_865">865</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Manchester Liberal Association, iii, <a href="#Page_876">876</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married women's property act, iii, <a href="#Page_872">872</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;medical relief bill, iii, <a href="#Page_890">890</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;meetings during 1870, iii, <a href="#Page_852">852</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorial of the Birmingham conference, iii, <a href="#Page_855">855</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorial to Gladstone, iii, <a href="#Page_883">883</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorials, iii, <a href="#Page_853">853</a>, <a href="#Page_854">854</a>, <a href="#Page_873">873</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;municipal franchise bill, iii, <a href="#Page_845">845</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;municipal franchise bill for Scotland, iii, <a href="#Page_871">871</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Northern Reform Society, iii, <a href="#Page_838">838</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Parliament debates woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_850">850</a>, <a href="#Page_861">861</a>, <a href="#Page_862">862</a>, <a href="#Page_863">863</a>, <a href="#Page_873">873</a>, <a href="#Page_884">884</a>, <a href="#Page_889">889</a>, <a href="#Page_890">890</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions, iii, <a href="#Page_866">866</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions and pamphlets, iii, <a href="#Page_840">840</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition to Parliament, Mary Smith's, iii, <a href="#Page_835">835</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reform act, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_590">590</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sheffield Association, iii, <a href="#Page_837">837</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage bill before Parliament, iii, <a href="#Page_842">842</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;chronological table of successive steps towards freedom, iii, <a href="#Page_980">980</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women householders, iii, <a href="#Page_881">881</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in politics, iii, <a href="#Page_835">835</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, able advocates of, iii, <a href="#Page_836">836</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women suffrage meeting, first ever held in London, iii, <a href="#Page_848">848</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Woman Suffrage Journal</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_850">850</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women vote, iii, <a href="#Page_843">843</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women vote in Scotland, iii, <a href="#Page_871">871</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Greece, iii, <a href="#Page_919">919</a>.</li>
<li>Greeley, Ann F., iii, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Greeley</span>, Horace, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_227">227</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>, <a href="#Page_773">773</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;abolitionists, denounced, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_287">287</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;bullet and ballot, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_284">284</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;defranchisement, panacea for, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_101">101</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;enfranchisement of women, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_103">103</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_230">230</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_628">628</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Cleveland National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_125">125</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Paulina W. Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_520">520</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_36">36</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Sam'l J. May on woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_653">653</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_730">730</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage and divorce, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_740">740</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Owen, R. D., discussion, divorce, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_746">746</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, and, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_287">287</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;support of, lost, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_269">269</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;temperance speech, Metropolitan Hall, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_491">491</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;universal suffrage and universal amnesty, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_315">315</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman and work, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_589">589</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, opposed to, iii, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, report against, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_285">285</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;criticism, <i>New York Independent</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_305">305</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Greeley's, Mrs., petition, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_287">287</a>.</li>
<li>Green, Anna R., Md., iii, <a href="#Page_815">815</a>.</li>
<li>Green, Beriah, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_417">417</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_699">699</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_450">450</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_487">487</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Gregory, Samuel, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>.</li>
<li>Grew, Rev. Henry, on woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_379">379</a>.</li>
<li>Grew, Mary, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_325">325</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_735">735</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_814">814</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President, iii, <a href="#Page_457">457</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Griffing</span>, Josephine S., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_110">110</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_345">345</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_422">422</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_810">810</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Freedman's Aid Association, letter to Lucretia Mott, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_869">869</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Freedman's Bureau, originator of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_38">38</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Freedman's Relief Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_26">26</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Horace Greeley, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_36">36</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Lucretia Mott, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_33">33</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Catharine F. Stebbins, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_874">874</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report 1871, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_484">484</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Shirley Dare," on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_30">30</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Equal Rights Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_221">221</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;testimonials of Congressmen, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_33">33</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute from Wm. Lloyd Garrison, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Grimké</span>, Angelina, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_52">52</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;anecdotes, by her husband, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_402">402</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Wm. Lloyd Garrison, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_397">397</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of "E. C. S.," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_392">392</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech against slavery, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_334">334</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Grimké</span>, Sarah Moore, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_39">39</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_53">53</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_406">406</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter, West Chester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_353">353</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Grover, A. J., iii, <a href="#Page_560">560</a>, <a href="#Page_591">591</a>.</li>
<li>Guardianship law, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_749">749</a>.</li>
<li>Gurney, Samuel, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_421">421</a>.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_996" id="Page_996">[Pg 996]</a></span>Guthrie, Clara Merrick, iii, <a href="#Page_790">790</a>.</li>
<li>Guthrie, Mrs., daughter of Frances Wright, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_543">543</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_H" name="IX_H">H.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Haggerty, James, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_210">210</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>.</li>
<li>Hale, Sarah Josepha, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_45">45</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_388">388</a>.</li>
<li>Hall, Israel, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_377">377</a>.</li>
<li>Hall, Mary, admission to the Bar, iii, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>.</li>
<li>Halleck, Sarah H., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>.</li>
<li>Hallock, Frances V., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_435">435</a>.</li>
<li>Halstead, Murat, iii, <a href="#Page_593">593</a>.</li>
<li>Hamilton, Alexander, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_413">413</a>.</li>
<li>Hamlin, Senator, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_411">411</a>.</li>
<li>Hampden Society, iii, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li>
<li>Hanaford, Phebe, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_791">791</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_479">479</a>, <a href="#Page_481">481</a>.</li>
<li>Hancock, Gen. W. S., iii, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>.</li>
<li>Hanna, Laura, iii, <a href="#Page_720">720</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Harbert</span>, Elizabeth Boynton, iii, <a href="#Page_560">560</a>, <a href="#Page_592">592</a>, <a href="#Page_621">621</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;delegate to Republican National Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;oration, iii, <a href="#Page_581">581</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech before Congressional committee, iii, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Harberton, Lady, speech at Edinburgh, iii, <a href="#Page_879">879</a>.</li>
<li>Hare, Thomas, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_292">292</a>.</li>
<li>Harper, Frances E. W., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_838">838</a>.</li>
<li>Harrington, Mary L., iii, <a href="#Page_374">374</a>.</li>
<li>Harris, Sarah, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_376">376</a>.</li>
<li><i>Hartford Courant</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_322">322</a>.</li>
<li><i>Hartford Times</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_538">538</a>.</li>
<li>Harvard Annex, iii, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>.</li>
<li>Haskell, Mehitable, Worcester Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_286">286</a>.</li>
<li>Hatch, Junius, "pin-cushion ministry," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_539">539</a>.</li>
<li>Hatton, Frank, iii, <a href="#Page_617">617</a>.</li>
<li>Haven, Gilbert, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_388">388</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_528">528</a>, <a href="#Page_620">620</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_839">839</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_840">840</a>.</li>
<li>Havens, E. O., iii, <a href="#Page_526">526</a> <a href="#Page_428">428</a>.</li>
<li>Haviland, Laura C, iii, <a href="#Page_532">532</a>.</li>
<li>Hawley, Jos. R., letter to Mrs. Stanton, iii, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, <a href="#Page_90">90</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Hay</span>, William, letter to Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_655">655</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_631">631</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to <i>The North Star</i>, on the Saratoga Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_621">621</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>paper, property rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_607">607</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Hayes, R. B., iii, <a href="#Page_165">165</a>.</li>
<li>Hayhurst, Martha, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_348">348</a>.</li>
<li>Hazard, Rebecca N., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_855">855</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_604">604</a>.</li>
<li>Hazlett, Adelle, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_787">787</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_522">522</a>.</li>
<li>Heath, Jeannette Brown, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_642">642</a>.</li>
<li>Heloise, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_759">759</a>.</li>
<li>Henderson, Miss A. M., iii, <a href="#Page_654">654</a>.</li>
<li>Henderson, Senator, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_98">98</a>.</li>
<li>Heroism, Kate Shelly, iii, <a href="#Page_633">633</a>.</li>
<li>Herricourt, Madame, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_569">569</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_395">395</a>.</li>
<li>Hertell's, Barbara, will, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_63">63</a>.</li>
<li>Hewitt, Rev. Dr., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_502">502</a>.</li>
<li>Heyrick, Elizabeth, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>.</li>
<li>Heywood, E. H., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_222">222</a>.</li>
<li>Hiatt, Hannah, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_306">306</a>.</li>
<li>Hiatt, Sarah W., iii, <a href="#Page_803">803</a>.</li>
<li>Hicks, Elias, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_415">415</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Higginson</span>, Thos. Wentworth, iii, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_305">305</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Brick Church meeting, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_500">500</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;coëducation, on, iii, <a href="#Page_496">496</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_265">265</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_237">237</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_917">917</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Cleveland National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_131">131</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Lucy Stone, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_566">566</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage ceremony, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_260">260</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_253">253</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>New York Times</i>, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_648">648</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, in Cleveland, O., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_802">802</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, in Cooper Institute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_828">828</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Broadway Tabernacle Convention, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_656">656</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Cleveland Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_760">760</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_771">771</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, National Convention, New York, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_642">642</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;voters, qualification of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_249">249</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;temperance and woman suffrage, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_819">819</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;theological discussion, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_647">647</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman's rights almanac, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_863">863</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in Christian civilization, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_791">791</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Hilda, Abbess, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_30">30</a>.</li>
<li>Hill, Benj. H., speech, iii, <a href="#Page_217">217</a>.</li>
<li>Hill, Charlotte, iii, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>.</li>
<li>Hill, Peter, iii, <a href="#Page_524">524</a>.</li>
<li>Hillier, C. J., iii, <a href="#Page_756">756</a>.</li>
<li>Hinckley, Frederick A., on woman suffrage in Rhode Island, iii, <a href="#Page_349">349</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech at Washington Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Hindman, Matilda, iii, <a href="#Page_459">459</a>, <a href="#Page_522">522</a>, <a href="#Page_621">621</a>, <a href="#Page_719">719</a>, <a href="#Page_723">723</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Hoar</span>, Geo. F., minority report, iii, <a href="#Page_131">131</a>,
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;presents petitions, iii, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_858">858</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, women in the Supreme Court, iii, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;select committee, U. S. Senate, iii, <a href="#Page_198">198</a>-216</li>
  <li>&mdash;speech in 1871, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_820">820</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Hobart's, Ella F., services as chaplain in Union army, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_18">18</a>.</li>
<li>Hobbs, Lucy B., dentist, iii, <a href="#Page_401">401</a>, <a href="#Page_455">455</a>.</li>
<li>Holland, J. G., iii, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.</li>
<li>Holloway, Wm. R., iii, <a href="#Page_534">534</a>.</li>
<li>Homeopathic College, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_765">765</a>.</li>
<li>Holland, iii, <a href="#Page_907">907</a>.</li>
<li>Holmes, Jennie F., iii, <a href="#Page_683">683</a>.</li>
<li>Holmes, Rev., iii, <a href="#Page_390">390</a>.</li>
<li>Hook, Frances, as a soldier, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_19">19</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Hooker</span>, Isabella B. iii, <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;argument before House Judiciary committee, iii, <a href="#Page_103">103</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;before Senate committee, iii, <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;declaration and pledge, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_486">486</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to New York Convention, twenty-fifth anniversary, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_534">534</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;police, how she would rule,, iii, <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;receptions in Washington; iii, <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reminiscences of, iii, <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report, National Association, 1872, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_496">496</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech before House Judiciary committee, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_458">458</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech before Senate Judiciary committee, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_499">499</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;thanks the champions of woman's rights in Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_489">489</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Washington Convention, notes ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_425">425</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_997" id="Page_997">[Pg 997]</a></span>Hooker, John, iii, <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="#Page_957">957</a>.</li>
<li>Hopkins, E. A., on legal grievance of women, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_584">584</a>.</li>
<li>Hosmer, Harriet, iii, <a href="#Page_143">143</a>, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>, <a href="#Page_595">595</a>, <a href="#Page_951">951</a>.</li>
<li>Hospital clinics, iii, <a href="#Page_448">448</a>.</li>
<li>Houghton, Agnes A., iii, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>.</li>
<li>Hovey, Charles F., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_625">625</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Bequests, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_667">667</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Howe, Frederick B., iii, <a href="#Page_438">438</a>.</li>
<li>Howe, J. H., on women as jurors, iii, <a href="#Page_736">736</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Howe</span>, Julia Ward, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_757">757</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_770">770</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_792">792</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_873">873</a>, portrait, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_783">783</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_335">335</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President of Am. Woman Suffrage Association, made, ii <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_834">834</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Speech in Philadelphia, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_817">817</a>; in Detroit, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_834">834</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman Suffrage in New Jersey, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_847">847</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Hoyt, John W., Gov. of Wyoming, iii, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_474">474</a>, <a href="#Page_730">730</a>.</li>
<li>Hoyt, Mrs., on anti-slavery and woman's rights, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_63">63</a>.</li>
<li>Howitt, Wm., letter to Lucretia Mott, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_434">434</a>.</li>
<li>Howland, Emily, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_688">688</a>.</li>
<li>Howland, Fannie, description of Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_416">416</a>.</li>
<li>Howland, William, iii, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>.</li>
<li>Hubbard, R. D., iii, <a href="#Page_326">326</a>.</li>
<li>Hugo, Victor, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_369">369</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, <a href="#Page_127">127</a>.</li>
<li>Hulett, Alta C., iii, <a href="#Page_572">572</a>.</li>
<li>"Human Rights," Hurlbut's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Hunt</span>, Harriot K., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_255">255</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_356">356</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_531">531</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_535">535</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_583">583</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;medical education, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_356">356</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;physician, as a, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_260">260</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_564">564</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;taxation, protest against, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_259">259</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Hunt's, Ward, Judge, decision Anthony trial, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_689">689</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;resolution against, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_537">537</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Hunt's, Richard, tea table, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_68">68</a>.</li>
<li>Hunt, Seth, iii, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li>
<li>Hurlbut's "Human Rights," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>.</li>
<li>Husband and wife, act concerning rights and liabilities of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_686">686</a>.</li>
<li>Hussey, Cornelia Collins, iii, <a href="#Page_482">482</a>.</li>
<li>Husted, James W., favors suffrage for women, iii, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_424">424</a>, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>.</li>
<li>Hutchinson family, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_239">239</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_309">309</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_542">542</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_934">934</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Letter, John W., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_627">627</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Hutchinson, Anne, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_206">206</a>.</li>
<li>Hutchinson, Nellie, iii, <a href="#Page_752">752</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_I" name="IX_I">I.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li><span class="sc">Illinois</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_559">559</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Art Union, iii, <a href="#Page_587">587</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bar, Myra Bradwell's application, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_601">601</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;opinion denying, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_609">609</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Carpenter's, Matt. H., argument, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_615">615</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;opinion of Justice Bradley, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_624">624</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report of proceedings in Illinois and U. S. Supreme Courts, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_614">614</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;U. S. Supreme Court decision, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_622">622</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;writ of error, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_614">614</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;centennial celebration at Evanston, iii, <a href="#Page_581">581</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Elmwood church trouble, iii, <a href="#Page_563">563</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Garrett Biblical Institute, iii, <a href="#Page_582">582</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;houses of ill-fame, licensing Chicago, iii, <a href="#Page_572">572</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married women's earnings act, iii, <a href="#Page_570">570</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Master in Chancery, Mrs. Schuchardt, iii, <a href="#Page_588">588</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Moline Association, iii, <a href="#Page_589">589</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Monticello Ladies Seminary, iii, <a href="#Page_579">579</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions, toils of circulating, iii, <a href="#Page_590">590</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;pulpit utterances, iii, <a href="#Page_564">564</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Social Science Association, iii, <a href="#Page_584">584</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Suffrage Association formed, iii, <a href="#Page_569">569</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage society, first, iii, <a href="#Page_560">560</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;temperance petition, iii, <a href="#Page_587">587</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman's College at Evanston, iii, <a href="#Page_578">578</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman, as preacher, first in, iii, <a href="#Page_579">579</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women elected as school officers, iii, <a href="#Page_575">575</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women eligible as school officers, bill making, iii, <a href="#Page_575">575</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women, trials and triumphs of, iii, <a href="#Page_560">560</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Impeachment, articles of, iii, <a href="#Page_31">31</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Indiana</span>, i. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_290">290</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_533">533</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;appendix, iii, <a href="#Page_965">965</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;campaign of 1882, iii, <a href="#Page_543">543</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;colleges open to women, iii, <a href="#Page_548">548</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;constitutional debates, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_296">296</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;electoral bill, iii, <a href="#Page_541">541</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Equal Suffrage Society Indianapolis, iii, <a href="#Page_536">536</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;laws for women, changes in, iii, <a href="#Page_544">544</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislative enactments, iii, <a href="#Page_544">544</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislative hearings, iii, <a href="#Page_538">538</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;liquor law, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_307">307</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;mass meeting in Indianapolis, iii, <a href="#Page_541">541</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;newspapers, iii, <a href="#Page_555">555</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Republican State Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_542">542</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;secret conclave, iii, <a href="#Page_535">535</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;temperance petition, Mrs. Wallace, iii, <a href="#Page_539">539</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in schools, iii, <a href="#Page_547">547</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Infidelity, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_143">143</a>.</li>
<li>International Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>, <a href="#Page_585">585</a>, <a href="#Page_896">896</a>, <a href="#Page_952">952</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Iowa</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_612">612</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;churches indorse woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_620">620</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Clergymen's tract, iii, <a href="#Page_624">624</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Fort Dodge, iii, <a href="#Page_617">617</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;friendly associations, iii, <a href="#Page_635">635</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Governor Kirkwood appoints women to office, iii, <a href="#Page_626">626</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Governor, first, to recognize woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_622">622</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Governor Sherman interviewed, iii, <a href="#Page_624">624</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Inventions by women, iii, <a href="#Page_632">632</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Journalism, iii, <a href="#Page_629">629</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;laws, improvement in, iii, <a href="#Page_636">636</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;lectures, iii, <a href="#Page_630">630</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislative action, iii, <a href="#Page_619">619</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislative action, summary, iii, <a href="#Page_625">625</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;mass meeting at the capitol, iii, <a href="#Page_619">619</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;medical profession, iii, <a href="#Page_631">631</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Polk County Society, iii, <a href="#Page_614">614</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Republican Convention, women's plank, iii, <a href="#Page_620">620</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;County School Superintendents, Attorney General's opinion, iii, <a href="#Page_627">627</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school offices, eligibility of women to hold, iii, <a href="#Page_628">628</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;societies organized, iii, <a href="#Page_615">615</a>, <a href="#Page_617">617</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>State Register</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_620">620</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in office, iii, <a href="#Page_626">626</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women employed as teachers, iii, <a href="#Page_627">627</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, first agitation of, iii, <a href="#Page_613">613</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage society, <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_998" id="Page_998">[Pg 998]</a></span>first, iii, <a href="#Page_614">614</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in positions of trust, iii, <a href="#Page_616">616</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Island No. 10, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_10">10</a>.</li>
<li>Italy, iii, <a href="#Page_899">899</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_J" name="IX_J">J.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Janney's, Mrs. R. A. S., recollections, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_122">122</a>.</li>
<li>Jay, John, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_413">413</a>.</li>
<li>Jackson, Rev. E. M., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_502">502</a>.</li>
<li>Jackson, Francis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_634">634</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_667">667</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_743">743</a>,
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>will case, iii, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Jackson, James C., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_582">582</a>.</li>
<li>Jackson, Mercy B., letter, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_920">920</a>.</li>
<li>Jenkins, Lydia Ann, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_145">145</a>.</li>
<li>Jerry, rescue trials, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_474">474</a>.</li>
<li>Johnson, Andrew, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_205">205</a>.</li>
<li>Johnson, Mariana, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_351">351</a>.</li>
<li>Johnson, Oliver, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_671">671</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_786">786</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_813">813</a>.</li>
<li>Johnson, Rev. Samuel, letter to National Convention in New York, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_635">635</a>.</li>
<li>Johnson, Wm. H. and Mary, letter to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_832">832</a>.</li>
<li>Jones, Mrs. E. C., Jailoress, iii, <a href="#Page_488">488</a>.</li>
<li>Jones, Jane Graham, delegate to National Convention at Washington, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_522">522</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_442">442</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_580">580</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;address International Congress at Paris, iii, <a href="#Page_585">585</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Genevieve Graham, daughter, iii, <a href="#Page_586">586</a>, <a href="#Page_897">897</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Jones, J. Elizabeth, report, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_168">168</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_694">694</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Syracuse National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_530">530</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Journalism, women in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, <a href="#Page_629">629</a>, <a href="#Page_761">761</a>, <a href="#Page_813">813</a>.</li>
<li>Judge direct a verdict of guilty, can a, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_690">690</a>.</li>
<li>Julian, Geo. W., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_489">489</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_490">490</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_552">552</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_727">727</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;amendment to District of Columbia suffrage bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_282">282</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_801">801</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Juries, venerable decisions on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_705">705</a>.</li>
<li>Jury, women on, iii, <a href="#Page_732">732</a>.</li>
<li>Justice of Peace, Mrs. Esther Morris made, iii, <a href="#Page_731">731</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_K" name="IX_K">K.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Kalamazoo college, iii, <a href="#Page_525">525</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Kansas</span>, Mrs. Nichols' account, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_696">696</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;appeal, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_247">247</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;campaign, 1867, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_928">928</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;campaign, S. N. Wood's summing up of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_254">254</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Champion</i> (Atchison) on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_240">240</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Commercial</i>, (Leavenworth) on the campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_262">262</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;constitutional amendment to strike word "white" from suffrage clause, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_229">229</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;elections, iii, <a href="#Page_701">701</a>, <a href="#Page_708">708</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Harvey, Governor, message, iii, <a href="#Page_696">696</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislative action, iii, <a href="#Page_709">709</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Lincoln suffrage association, iii, <a href="#Page_701">701</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Lincoln Auxiliary of the National Association, iii, <a href="#Page_698">698</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;parties in convention, action of, iii, <a href="#Page_707">707</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;press, iii, <a href="#Page_699">699</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;property rights, iii, <a href="#Page_704">704</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Radical Reform Christian Association, iii, <a href="#Page_703">703</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reminiscences, Helen Ekin Starrett's, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_250">250</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;schools, iii, <a href="#Page_706">706</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stanton Suffrage Society organized, iii, <a href="#Page_702">702</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage organizations, history of, iii, <a href="#Page_698">698</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage song, the Hutchinsons, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_934">934</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Superintendent of Public Instruction, Sarah A. Brown nominated, iii, <a href="#Page_705">705</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suppressed proceedings, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_931">931</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Temperance Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_231">231</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage facts, iii, <a href="#Page_709">709</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage indorsed by Republican State Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_707">707</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage petitions, report of Judiciary Franchise Committee, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_194">194</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Women's Christian Temperance Union, iii, <a href="#Page_703">703</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Women's Impartial Suffrage Association, address, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_932">932</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women run for office, iii, <a href="#Page_708">708</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in office, iii, <a href="#Page_706">706</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in the professions, iii, <a href="#Page_706">706</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Kasson, John A., iii, <a href="#Page_619">619</a>.</li>
<li>Keating, Harriette C., iii, <a href="#Page_791">791</a>.</li>
<li>Kelley, W. D., suffrage resolution, iii, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li>
<li>Kelly, Abby (<i>see Foster</i>).</li>
<li>Kemble, Fanny, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_412">412</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Kentucky</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_818">818</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;architecture, Miss White, iii, <a href="#Page_820">820</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;education, facilities for, iii, <a href="#Page_821">821</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Louisville School of Pharmacy, iii, <a href="#Page_821">821</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage society, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_862">862</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school suffrage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_869">869</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_821">821</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>King, Susan A., sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>.</li>
<li>King, Thos. Star, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_666">666</a>.</li>
<li>Kingman, Judge, Kansas, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_192">192</a>.</li>
<li>Kingman, J. W., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_836">836</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_727">727</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>.</li>
<li>Kingsbury, Benjamin, iii, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>.</li>
<li>Kingsbury, Elizabeth A., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_310">310</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_476">476</a>.</li>
<li>Kingsley, Henry, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_438">438</a>.</li>
<li>Kirk, Mrs. Eleanor (Nellie Ames), ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_390">390</a>.</li>
<li>Knight, Ann, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_438">438</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_837">837</a>.</li>
<li>Knowlton, Helen M., iii, <a href="#Page_302">302</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_L" name="IX_L">L.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Ladies' Art Association, iii, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>.</li>
<li>Lander, Mrs. Dick, iii, <a href="#Page_852">852</a>.</li>
<li>Lane, James H., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_191">191</a>.</li>
<li>Langdon, Lady Anna G., iii, <a href="#Page_854">854</a>.</li>
<li>Lapham, Elbridge G., presents petition, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_283">283</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;votes for, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_304">304</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Anthony trial, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_647">647</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;printing speeches in the House, iii, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;vote in Senate, iii, <a href="#Page_218">218</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Senate committee, <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Senate report, <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;thanks to, iii, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Lawrence, Amos A., iii, <a href="#Page_330">330</a>.</li>
<li>Lawrence, Sybil, iii, <a href="#Page_532">532</a>.</li>
<li>Lawyers, women, iii, <a href="#Page_575">575</a>.</li>
<li>Lee, Mary B., legacy, iii, <a href="#Page_624">624</a>.</li>
<li>Leftwich, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_649">649</a>.</li>
<li>Legacy, iii, <a href="#Page_624">624</a>.</li>
<li>Leipsic, iii, <a href="#Page_902">902</a>.</li>
<li>Leslie, Mrs. Frank, iii, <a href="#Page_441">441</a>.</li>
<li>Lester, Louise, iii, <a href="#Page_780">780</a>.</li>
<li><a name="Letters" id="Letters"><span class="sc">Letters:</span></a> Alcott, Louisa May, to Lucy Stone, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_831">831</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Amberly, Lady, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_439">439</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Andrews, Margaret <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_999" id="Page_999">[Pg 999]</a></span>H., to S. J. May, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_531">531</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Anthony, H. B., to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_350">350</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters, Anthony, Susan B., to her family; Boston Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_256">256</a>;
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;to Brooks, James, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_97">97</a>;</li>
  <li>&mdash;to Foote, E. B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_941">941</a>;</li>
  <li>&mdash;to Garfield, iii, <a href="#Page_185">185</a>;</li>
  <li>&mdash;to Mott, Lydia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_748">748</a>;</li>
  <li>&mdash;to National Democratic Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_340">340</a>;</li>
  <li>&mdash;to Wright, Martha C., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_676">676</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters, Barton, Clara, to Susan B. Anthony,  ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_916">916</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Bascom, E. C., to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_647">647</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Becker, Lydia E., to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Beecher, H. W., to St. Louis Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_825">825</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bennett, Alice, to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_472">472</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;National Association to Berlin Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_404">404</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Briggs, Caroline A., to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Blackwell, Elizabeth, to Emily Collins, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_91">91</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Blackwell, Antoinette Brown, to Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_862">862</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Blackwell, Elizabeth, to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_831">831</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Blackwell, H. B., to E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_235">235</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Blair, Henry W., to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_380">380</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bowles, Samuel, to Mrs. Hooker, iii, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bright, Jacob, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_438">438</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Brown, Olympia, to S. B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_259">259</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bruhn, Rosa, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_439">439</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Burleigh, Celia, giving account of Saratoga Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_402">402</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Burns, Alexander, to Des Moines Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_618">618</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Burr, Frances E., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_912">912</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_334">334</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Butler, Benjamin F., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_539">539</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_255">255</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters: Carpenter, C. C., to Iowa W. S. Association, iii, <a href="#Page_621">621</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Carpenter, M. H., to Elizabeth C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_423">423</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Channing, Wm. Henry, Cleveland National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_129">129</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Child, L. Maria, to St. Louis Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_825">825</a>; E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_910">910</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Clemmer, Mary, to Senator Wadleigh, iii, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_262">262</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Cobbe, Frances P., to Paulina W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_438">438</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Cole M. M., to H. B. Blackwell, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_832">832</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Colvin A. J., to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_691">691</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_750">750</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_914">914</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Corner, Mary T., to Mrs. Bloomer, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_122">122</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Corson, Hiram, to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_472">472</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Cutler, Mrs. H. M. T., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_915">915</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Dall, Caroline H., to <i>The Nation</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_101">101</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Darlington, Hannah M., to Mrs. Stanton, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_344">344</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Deroine, Jeanne, to women of America, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_234">234</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Dickinson, Anna E., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_916">916</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Douglass, Fred., to E. Cady Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_328">328</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Faithful, Emily, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_440">440</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fields, James T., to H. B. Blackwell, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_838">838</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Folger, Charles J., to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_750">750</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Foster, Rachel G., to <i>Our Herald</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Freedman's Relief Association, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_35">35</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fremont, Jessie B. to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_911">911</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters: Gage, Frances D., to Cincinnati Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_857">857</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li><ul class="IX">
        <li>Steinway Hall Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_769">769</a>;</li>
        <li>Gage, M. E. J., to, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_47">47</a>;</li>
        <li>Rochester Temperance Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_845">845</a>;</li>
        <li>Stone, Lucy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_656">656</a>;</li>
        <li>Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_424">424</a></li>
        </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Gage, M. J., to Mrs. Dahlgren, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_494">494</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Omaha Con., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_250">250</a>;</li>
    <li>to women of Dakota, iii, <a href="#Page_663">663</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Garfield, James A., to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_185">185</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Garrison, Wm. Lloyd, to American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Philadelphia, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_816">816</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Third Decade Convention, Rochester, iii, <a href="#Page_123">123</a>;</li>
    <li>to Concord Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Geddes, George, to M. J. Gage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_64">64</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Greeley</i>, Horace, to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_628">628</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Cleveland National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_125">125</a>;</li>
    <li>Davis, Paulina W., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_520">520</a>;</li>
    <li>Marsh, Rev. John, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_503">503</a>;</li>
    <li>May, S. J., on woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_653">653</a>.</li>
    <li>Severance, Mrs. C. M., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_125">125</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Griffing</i>, Josephine S., to Catharine A. F. Stebbins, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_874">874</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Greeley, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_36">36</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grimké, Angelina, to Wm. Lloyd Garrison, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_397">397</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grimké, Sarah M., to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_353">353</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grover, A. J., to Mrs. Stanton, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_591">591</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters: Hay, Wm., to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_631">631</a>;
  <ul class="IX">
    <li><ul class="IX">
    <li>Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_655">655</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Higginson, T. W., to S. B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_917">917</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Cleveland (Nat.) Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_131">131</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Hooker, Isabella B., to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_535">535</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Mrs. Dahlgren, iii, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>; Stone, Lucy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_566">566</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Howitt, Wm., to Lucretia Mott, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_434">434</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Hugo, Victor, to Clemence S. Lozier, iii, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Johnson, Samuel, National Convention in New York, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_635">635</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Johnson, Wm. H. and Mary, to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_832">832</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kingman, J. W., to Lucy Stone, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_836">836</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kingsley, Henry, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_438">438</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Lawrence, Amos A., to Abby Smith, iii, <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Leo, Andre, to Second Decade meeting, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_439">439</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Livermore, Mary A., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_921">921</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters: Manderson, C. F., to O. C. Dinsmoor, iii, <a href="#Page_688">688</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Marsh, J., to Horace Greeley, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_503">503</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Marsh, L. R., to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_922">922</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Martineau, Harriet, to P. W. Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_229">229</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mott, Lucretia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_437">437</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mayo, A. D., to Syracuse Con., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_851">851</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mendenhall, H. S., to Dr. Avery, iii, <a href="#Page_724">724</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Meriman, Emelia J., to the Second Decade meeting, ii,  <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_451">451</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mill, John Stuart, to Paulina W. Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_220">220</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_419">419</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to S. N. Wood, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_252">252</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Miller, Francis, to S. B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_536">536</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mills, Chas. D. B., to Mrs. Matilda J. Gage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_424">424</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mott, Lucretia, to Daniel O'Connell, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_432">432</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Josephine S. Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_873">873</a>;</li>
    <li>to <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1000" id="Page_1000">[Pg 1000]</a></span>Salem, Ohio, Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_812">812</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mott, Lydia, to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_630">630</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mott, Mary, to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_829">829</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters: <i>New York Tribune</i>, on, canvass of 1859-'60, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_677">677</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Nichols, Mrs. C. I. H., to Rochester Tem. Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_847">847</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Owen, Robert Dale, to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_292">292</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pastoral, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_81">81</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Phelps, Almira L., to Mrs. Hooker, iii, <a href="#Page_100">100</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Phelps, Elizabeth Stuart, to Am. W. S. Association meeting in Cooper In., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_831">831</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Phillips, Wendell, to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_62">62</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Third Decade Convention at Rochester, N. Y., iii, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pickler, J. A., to Matilda J. Gage, iii, <a href="#Page_668">668</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pomeroy, C. R., to Des Moines Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_618">618</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Post, Amy, to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pugh, Sarah, to Salem, Ohio, Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_814">814</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Rose, Ernestine L., to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_98">98</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_423">423</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_356">356</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Russell, Lucinda, to Harriet S. Brooks, iii, <a href="#Page_682">682</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters: Sanford, R. M., to Cleveland Con., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_819">819</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Sargent, A. A., to Third Decade Con., iii, <a href="#Page_121">121</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Omaha Con., iii, <a href="#Page_245">245</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sargent, J. T., to E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_911">911</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Saxon, Elizabeth L., to Mrs. Minor, iii, <a href="#Page_791">791</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Severance, Caroline M., to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_911">911</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Shaw, Sarah B., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_239">239</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Smith, Gerrit, to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_497">497</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_538">538</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_941">941</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Garrison, Wm. L., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_620">620</a>;</li>
    <li>Stanton, E. Cady, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_708">708</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_836">836</a>;</li>
    <li>St. Louis Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_825">825</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Somerville, Mary, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_440">440</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, to Akron, O., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_815">815</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Cooper Institute Con., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_860">860</a>;</li>
    <li>Greeley, Horace, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_738">738</a>;</li>
    <li>Mott, Lucretia, iii, <a href="#Page_45">45</a>;</li>
    <li>Omaha Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>;</li>
    <li>Salem, O., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_810">810</a>;</li>
    <li>Smith, Gerrit, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_839">839</a>;</li>
    <li>Syracuse Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_848">848</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stanton, Harriot, to Nebraska voters, iii, <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stebbins, Catharine A. F., to Lucretia Mott, iii, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stone, Lucy,
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_919">919</a>;</li>
    <li>to Elizabeth C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>;</li>
    <li>to Salem, O., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_813">813</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Letters: Taylor, Mrs. M., to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_438">438</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Tenney, Mrs. R. S., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_257">257</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Tilton, Theo., to American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_770">770</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wade, Benjamin F., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_117">117</a>,
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Josephine Sophie Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_35">35</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wallace, Zerelda G., to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_257">257</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wattles, Susan E. to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_255">255</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Weber, Helene M., to M. A. Spofford, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_822">822</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Weld, Angelina G., on organizations, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_540">540</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Whiting, N. H., letter to Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_861">861</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Winder, R. B., to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_817">817</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wright, Elizur, to Paulina W. Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_217">217</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wright, Henry C., to Garrison, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_310">310</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wright, Martha C., to Pillsbury, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_240">240</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Lewis, Ida, iii, <a href="#Page_347">347</a>.</li>
<li><i>Lily, The</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_486">486</a>.</li>
<li><i>Lincoln</i> (Kansas) <i>Beacon</i>, <i>Lincoln</i> (Kansas) <i>Register</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_699">699</a>.</li>
<li>Lippincott, Sarah J., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Saxe's poems, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_828">828</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Washington Convention (Nat.), description of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_359">359</a></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>List, Charles, address at Worcester National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>.</li>
<li>Little, Knox, iii, <a href="#Page_471">471</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;sermon to women, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_728">728</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Livermore, Mary A., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_777">777</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>, <a href="#Page_561">561</a>, <a href="#Page_565">565</a>, <a href="#Page_570">570</a>.</li>
<li>Livingston, William, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_441">441</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Lockwood</span>, Belva A., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_522">522</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_443">443</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_523">523</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_537">537</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_585">585</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="#Page_809">809</a>, <a href="#Page_811">811</a>, <a href="#Page_818">818</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;attempted to vote, iii, <a href="#Page_813">813</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;admitted to U. S. Supreme Court, iii, <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;brief to U. S. Senate, on women as lawyers, iii, <a href="#Page_106">106</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;motion to admit Lowry to Supreme Court, iii, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech in Dr. Furness' Church, iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women's rights, the way to get, iii, <a href="#Page_73">73</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Logan, John A., on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_207">207</a>.</li>
<li>Longfellow, Samuel, speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_711">711</a></li>
<li>Lord, Mrs. A., iii, <a href="#Page_703">703</a>.</li>
<li>Loring, Geo. B., iii, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>.</li>
<li>Lords, feudal, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_760">760</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_762">762</a>.</li>
<li>Loud, Huldah B., iii, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</li>
<li>Loughary. Mrs. H. A., iii, <a href="#Page_774">774</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Louisiana</span>, Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_789">789</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;married women, laws relating to, iii, <a href="#Page_799">799</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;press, iii, <a href="#Page_798">798</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;St. Anna's Asylum, iii, <a href="#Page_789">789</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;schools, physiology in, iii, <a href="#Page_797">797</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women eligible to school offices, iii, <a href="#Page_795">795</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women's club, iii, <a href="#Page_796">796</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Love, Mary F., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_583">583</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_587">587</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_589">589</a> (See <a href="#Davis">Davis, Mary F.</a>).</li>
<li>Lovering, J. F., iii, <a href="#Page_371">371</a>.</li>
<li>Lowell, Jas. R., poem "Endurance," iii, <a href="#Page_695">695</a>.</li>
<li>Lowell, Josephine Shaw, appointed to office, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_473">473</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>police matrons, iii, <a href="#Page_432">432</a></li>
    <li>&mdash;Com'r of Charities, made a, iii, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
<li>Lozier, Clemence S., M. D., iii, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, <a href="#Page_416">416</a>, <a href="#Page_421">421</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;presided, <a href="#Page_425">425</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;seats for shop girls, <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;protest against District Attorney Russell, <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;appeal to voters, <a href="#Page_437">437</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Lukens, Esther Ann, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_311">311</a>.</li>
<li>Lunt's, Bishop, defence of polygamy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_776">776</a>.</li>
<li>Luther, Martin, will of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_358">358</a>.</li>
<li>Luther and polygamy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_775">775</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_776">776</a>.</li>
<li>Lyford, Rev. C. P., on polygamy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_778">778</a>.</li>
<li>Lynn, Eliza, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>.</li>
</ul>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1001" id="Page_1001">[Pg 1001]</a></span></p>
<h3><a id="IX_M" name="IX_M">M.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Macaulay, Catharine Sawbridge, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_32">32</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_790">790</a>.</li>
<li>McCarthy, Justin, iii, <a href="#Page_864">864</a>.</li>
<li>McClellan, Geo. B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_42">42</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>.</li>
<li>McClintock, Thomas, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_539">539</a>.</li>
<li>McClintock, Mary Ann, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_454">454</a>.</li>
<li>McCook, Edward, on suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_713">713</a>.</li>
<li>McCook, Mrs. Mary, <a href="#Page_715">715</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;tribute, <a href="#Page_718">718</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>McDonald, Joseph E., women to the Supreme Court, iii, <a href="#Page_111">111</a>, <a href="#Page_139">139</a>, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;moves Standing Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, iii, <a href="#Page_553">553</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>McDowell, Anna E., <i>Woman's Advocate</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_388">388</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;<i>Sunday Dispatch</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_446">446</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;J. Edgar Thomson's will, iii, <a href="#Page_468">468</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Rev. Knox Little, iii, <a href="#Page_471">471</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>McDowell, Gertrude, iii, <a href="#Page_693">693</a>.</li>
<li>Mackey, T. J., iii, <a href="#Page_828">828</a>.</li>
<li>McLaren, Mrs. Duncan, iii, <a href="#Page_842">842</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;portrait, iii, <a href="#Page_849">849</a>; <a href="#Page_951">951</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>McLaren, Charles, Mr. and Mrs., iii, <a href="#Page_927">927</a>.</li>
<li>McLaren, Walter, iii, <a href="#Page_874">874</a>, <a href="#Page_936">936</a>.</li>
<li>McRae, Emma M., argument before House committee, iii, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>.</li>
<li>Madison, James, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_632">632</a>.</li>
<li>Mahan, Asa, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_151">151</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;argument at Cleveland National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_133">133</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Maine</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_351">351</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Bar, admissions to, iii, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;faithful friends, iii, <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Goddard, Judge, iii, <a href="#Page_353">353</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Industrial School for girls, iii, <a href="#Page_356">356</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislation, iii, <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married women, law, iii, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Moral Eminence of Maine," iii, <a href="#Page_359">359</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage society, first, iii, <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women holding office, Supreme Judicial Court opinion, iii, <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in office, Gov. Dingley's message, iii, <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women on school committees, iii, <a href="#Page_351">351</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, progress made, 1873, iii, <a href="#Page_357">357</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women tax-payers protest, iii, <a href="#Page_356">356</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>"Male" in the Constitution, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>.</li>
<li>Manderson, Charles F., iii, <a href="#Page_678">678</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to O. C. Dinsmoor, iii, <a href="#Page_688">688</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mandeville, Dr., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_486">486</a>.</li>
<li>Manikin, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>.</li>
<li>Mann, Horace, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_356">356</a>.</li>
<li>Mansfield, Arabella A., case of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_606">606</a>.</li>
<li>Manufactures in hands of women, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_291">291</a>.</li>
<li>Marcet, Jane, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>.</li>
<li>"Maria" and "Old Betty," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>.</li>
<li>Marriage amendment act, English, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_293">293</a>.</li>
<li>Marriage a cause of disfranchisement, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_621">621</a>.</li>
<li>Marriage and minority disabilities, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_603">603</a>.</li>
<li>Marriage, "Mrs. Schlachtfeld," on, iii, <a href="#Page_723">723</a>.</li>
<li>Marriage, what is legal status of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_456">456</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Marriage Question</span>: Church views, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_758">758</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;devils, with, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_769">769</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Greek church, under, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_773">773</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;heterogeneous, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_719">719</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;law, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_107">107</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;law of 1860, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_686">686</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;protest, Robert Dale Owen's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_295">295</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;protest, Lucy Stone's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_260">260</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;relations, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_293">293</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Rose, Ernestine L., on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Marriage and Divorce</span>: Anthony, Susan B., on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_735">735</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;bill before New York Legislature, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_745">745</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Blackwell, Antoinette B., on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_723">723</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;drunkenness, for, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_485">485</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Garrison, Wm. Lloyd, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_733">733</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Greeley, Horace, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_740">740</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Greeley-Owen discussion, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_746">746</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;law amended in Massachusetts, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_211">211</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mott, Lucretia, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_746">746</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Phillips, Wendell, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_732">732</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Rose, Ernestine L., on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_729">729</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_716">716</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stanton, Mrs., letter to Horace Greeley on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_738">738</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Marriages solemnized by women, iii, <a href="#Page_301">301</a>.</li>
<li>Marquette, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_762">762</a>.</li>
<li>Marsh, John, letter to Horace Greeley, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_503">503</a>.</li>
<li>Marsh, Luther R., iii, <a href="#Page_408">408</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_922">922</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>"Martian Statutes," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_31">31</a>.</li>
<li>Martin, John A., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_249">249</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Martineau</span>, Harriet, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_854">854</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Pauline W. Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_229">229</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letters to Lucretia Mott, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_437">437</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Maryland</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_814">814</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Baltimore Dental Surgery, iii, <a href="#Page_817">817</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Equal Rights Society, iii, <a href="#Page_815">815</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mason, O. P., iii, <a href="#Page_683">683</a>, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Massachusetts</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Association, anniversary, iii, <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;association, work done, iii, <a href="#Page_269">269</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Democratic Convention, action, iii, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;divorce law amended, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_211">211</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Governors, action of, iii, <a href="#Page_287">287</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grant campaign, Tremont Temple meeting, iii, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Harvard Annex, iii, <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislative, action, iii, <a href="#Page_284">284</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislature, petition before, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_258">258</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;New England Women's Club, iii, <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions, iii, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Philosophy at Concord, School of, iii, <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;prohibitionists, alliance with, iii, <a href="#Page_280">280</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Republican Convention, action, iii, <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="#Page_278">278</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school committees, women, iii, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, <a href="#Page_288">288</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage associations, iii, <a href="#Page_273">273</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Supreme Court decisions, iii, <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in the civil service, iii, <a href="#Page_306">306</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women delegates to Republican Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women opposed to suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women at the polls, iii, <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women, social condition, iii, <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage political party, iii, <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage ticket, iii, <a href="#Page_281">281</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mather, Cotton, iii, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li>
<li>Maule, Mollie K., iii, <a href="#Page_693">693</a>.</li>
<li>Maxwell, Lily, iii, <a href="#Page_842">842</a>.</li>
<li>May, Joseph, iii, <a href="#Page_34">34</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">May</span>, Samuel J., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_485">485</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_518">518</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_418">418</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_422">422</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;"Colored," on the word, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_215">215</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_265">265</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1002" id="Page_1002">[Pg 1002]</a></span>Rochester Convention, made, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_578">578</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at American Equal Rights Association meeting, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_191">191</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech on temperance, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_478">478</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mayo, A. D., letter to Syracuse Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_851">851</a>.</li>
<li>Medical, iii, <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, <a href="#Page_549">549</a>.</li>
<li>Medical College, first opened to women, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_88">88</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_389">389</a>.</li>
<li>Medical Education, Harriot K. Hunt on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_356">356</a>.</li>
<li>Medical profession, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_37">37</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Iowa women, iii, <a href="#Page_631">631</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Meetings (see Conventions).</li>
<li>Memorials, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_497">497</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, <a href="#Page_480">480</a>, <a href="#Page_517">517</a>, <a href="#Page_539">539</a>, <a href="#Page_855">855</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Democratic Party, iii, <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Gladstone, iii, <a href="#Page_883">883</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Greenback Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Ohio Constitutional Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_105">105</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Republican Party, iii, <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woodhull, Victoria C., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_443">443</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislatures, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_673">673</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mendenhall, Mrs. H. S., letter to Dr. Avery, iii, <a href="#Page_724">724</a>.</li>
<li>Meriman, Emelia J., letter to Second Decade meeting, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_441">441</a>.</li>
<li>Meriwether, Elizabeth A., iii, <a href="#Page_27">27</a>, <a href="#Page_154">154</a>, <a href="#Page_822">822</a>.</li>
<li>Merrick, Caroline E., iii, <a href="#Page_789">789</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;women as school officers, iii, <a href="#Page_795">795</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Merrick, Mrs. E. T., speech, Louisiana Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_792">792</a>.</li>
<li>Merrill, Catharine, iii, <a href="#Page_548">548</a>.</li>
<li>Merrimon, Senator, on the Pembina Territory bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_552">552</a>-560.</li>
<li>Merritt, Paulina, T., iii, <a href="#Page_540">540</a>.</li>
<li>Methodists and women preachers, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_784">784</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Michigan</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_513">513</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;churches, attitude of, iii, <a href="#Page_521">521</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;constitutional amendment, iii, <a href="#Page_518">518</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>lost, iii, <a href="#Page_522">522</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Episcopal Church bill, iii, <a href="#Page_529">529</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislative action, iii, <a href="#Page_516">516</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;local societies, iii, <a href="#Page_529">529</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorial, iii, <a href="#Page_517">517</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Northwestern Association, iii, <a href="#Page_516">516</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State Suffrage Society, iii, <a href="#Page_515">515</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;University, iii, <a href="#Page_525">525</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State University, Ann Arbor, opened to girls, iii, <a href="#Page_525">525</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;vote for woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_522">522</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women's literary clubs and libraries, iii, <a href="#Page_513">513</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women voting in Sturgis, iii, <a href="#Page_514">514</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Middlesex society, iii, <a href="#Page_270">270</a>.</li>
<li>Miles, Nelson A., iii, <a href="#Page_779">779</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Mill</span>, John Stuart, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_341">341</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_378">378</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_727">727</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_833">833</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;death of, iii, <a href="#Page_853">853</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_334">334</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Household Suffrage Bill" amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_182">182</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Letter to Paulina W. Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_220">220</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_419">419</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to S. N. Wood, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_252">252</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women government, on, iii, <a href="#Page_77">77</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mill, Mrs. John Stuart, essay, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>.</li>
<li>Miller, Francis, argument, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_523">523</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Argument Spencer-Webster suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_595">595</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_536">536</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mills, Chas. D. B., letter to M. J. Gage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_424">424</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_915">915</a>.</li>
<li>Milton, John, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_779">779</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_780">780</a>.</li>
<li>Ministers, charges against, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Minnesota</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_648">648</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Appendix: Early friends, iii, <a href="#Page_973">973</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>school officers, <a href="#Page_973">973</a>;</li>
    <li>authors and poets, iii, <a href="#Page_974">974</a>;</li>
    <li>graduates from State University, iii, <a href="#Page_974">974</a>;</li>
    <li>teachers and professors, iii, <a href="#Page_975">975</a>;</li>
    <li>medical profession, benevolent institutions, painters in oil and water colors, iii, <a href="#Page_976">976</a>;</li>
    <li>musical clubs, speakers and writers, iii, <a href="#Page_977">977</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;coëducation, iii, <a href="#Page_656">656</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;constitution, bill to amend, iii, <a href="#Page_651">651</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Evangelists, iii, <a href="#Page_657">657</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;homestead law, iii, <a href="#Page_655">655</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kasson Society, iii, <a href="#Page_652">652</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislative hearing, iii, <a href="#Page_651">651</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions to Congress, iii, <a href="#Page_651">651</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;property rights of married women, iii, <a href="#Page_655">655</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Rochester society, iii, <a href="#Page_651">651</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school officers, voting for, iii, <a href="#Page_653">653</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_652">652</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State association organized, iii, <a href="#Page_657">657</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;teachers, iii, <a href="#Page_660">660</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;temperance question, iii, <a href="#Page_655">655</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Miner, Myrtilla, iii, <a href="#Page_808">808</a>.</li>
<li>Minor, Francis, resolutions St. Louis Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_407">407</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_717">717</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Minor</span>, Virginia L., Dahlgren's, Mrs., memorial, on, iii, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;delegate to Nat. Democratic Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;labors of, iii, <a href="#Page_596">596</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sanitary work, iii, <a href="#Page_597">597</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speeches:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>St. Louis Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_409">409</a>;</li>
    <li>Washington Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_257">257</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_715">715</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Chief-Justice Waite's opinion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_734">734</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;decision reviewed by Mrs. Gage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_742">742</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reviewed by <i>Central Law Journal</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_748">748</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;taxes, refused to pay, iii, <a href="#Page_607">607</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;vote, attempted to, iii, <a href="#Page_606">606</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Mississippi</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_806">806</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Missouri</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_194">194</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_594">594</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;address to voters, iii, <a href="#Page_599">599</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Church and State, iii, <a href="#Page_601">601</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;colleges and law schools, iii, <a href="#Page_594">594</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;petition to Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_601">601</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage movement, facts and incidents, iii, <a href="#Page_604">604</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;taxation, iii, <a href="#Page_600">600</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman Suffrage Association organized, iii, <a href="#Page_599">599</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>division, iii, <a href="#Page_603">603</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman's union, iii, <a href="#Page_607">607</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in the war, iii, <a href="#Page_596">596</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mob Convention, Broadway Tabernacle, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_546">546</a>.</li>
<li>Mobs, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_467">467</a>.</li>
<li>Moody, W. W., iii, <a href="#Page_662">662</a>.</li>
<li>Morelli, Salvatore, iii, <a href="#Page_898">898</a>.</li>
<li>Morgan, E. D., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_687">687</a>.</li>
<li>Morgan, John T., on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_210">210</a>.</li>
<li>Morgan, Middie, live-stock reporter, iii, <a href="#Page_403">403</a>.</li>
<li>Morinella, Lucrezia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_29">29</a>.</li>
<li>Mormonism, see <i>Polygamy</i>.</li>
<li>Morrill, Senator, on Sargent's amendment to Pembina Territory bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_562">562</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech on woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_118">118</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_563">563</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Morris, Esther, made Justice of Peace, iii, <a href="#Page_731">731</a>.</li>
<li>Morris, W. H., iii, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1003" id="Page_1003">[Pg 1003]</a></span>Morrow, Jane, sketch of i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a>.</li>
<li>Morton, O. P., iii, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_553">553</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Pembina Territory bill, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_549">549</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_569">569</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_571">571</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Moss, Charles E., speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>.</li>
<li>"Mother Bickerdyke" iii, <a href="#Page_709">709</a>.</li>
<li>Mott, James, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_174">174</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_438">438</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Mott</span>, Lucretia, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_177">177</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_184">184</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_456">456</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;address at Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_355">355</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bible, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_143">143</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bible, position of woman, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_380">380</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Cleveland National Convention, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_124">124</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;dangerous woman, spoken of as a, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_423">423</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;divorce, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_746">746</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;eulogy by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_407">407</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Farewell, last Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;funeral, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_835">835</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Furness' church meeting, at, iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;home of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_411">411</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Howitt, William, correspondence, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_434">434</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Lydia Mott, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_746">746</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Josephine Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_873">873</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to St. Louis Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Salem, O., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_812">812</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Saratoga Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_626">626</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Luther's will, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_359">359</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_408">408</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_79">79</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Martineau, Harriet, correspondence, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_437">437</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorial service, iii, <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;ministry, engaged in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_412">412</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;O'Connell, Daniel, correspondence, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_432">432</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_369">369</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President of the American Equal Rights Association, made, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_174">174</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President, meeting in Dr. Furness' church, iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President National Woman's Rights at Syracuse, made, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_519">519</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President Washington National Convention, made, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_346">346</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pulpit, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_73">73</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;recollections of, by Robert Collyer, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_414">414</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;religion and theology, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_422">422</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Rochester Convention, at, iii, <a href="#Page_123">123</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_407">407</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;slavery, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_416">416</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_557">557</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Syracuse National Convention, argument, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_527">527</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, Susan B. Anthony's, iii, <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;womanhood, her reply to R. H. Dana's lecture, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_368">368</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mott, Lydia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_376">376</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_476">476</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_519">519</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_578">578</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_593">593</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_623">623</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_744">744</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_630">630</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Mott, Mary, letter to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_829">829</a>.</li>
<li>Mottoes, Washington Convention, 1880, iii, <a href="#Page_151">151</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Newbury Society, Ohio,  <a href="#Page_502">502</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Moulton, Louise Chandler, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_49">49</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_N" name="IX_N">N.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Nash, Clara H., iii, <a href="#Page_358">358</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;admitted to the Bar, iii, <a href="#Page_355">355</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Nash, Mary E., iii, <a href="#Page_623">623</a>.</li>
<li>National Association, officers 1886, iii, <a href="#Page_956">956</a>.</li>
<li><i>National Citizen</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>.</li>
<li>Nations, mortality of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>.</li>
<li>Neal, Alice Bradley, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_386">386</a>.</li>
<li>Neal, John, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_435">435</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Nebraska</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_670">670</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;campaign, iii, <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;canvass of the State, iii, <a href="#Page_686">686</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional amendment, iii, <a href="#Page_683">683</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>again defeated, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>;</li>
    <li>convention, <a href="#Page_677">677</a>;</li>
    <li>debate, <a href="#Page_678">678</a>;</li>
    <li>new constitution, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;description of, iii, <a href="#Page_671">671</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;electors, qualifications of, iii, <a href="#Page_680">680</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fourteenth Amendment ratified, iii, <a href="#Page_675">675</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Frontier life, iii, <a href="#Page_671">671</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislative action, iii, <a href="#Page_672">672</a>, <a href="#Page_674">674</a>, <a href="#Page_675">675</a>, <a href="#Page_676">676</a>, <a href="#Page_683">683</a>, <a href="#Page_695">695</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State, made a, iii, <a href="#Page_675">675</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage societies, first, iii, <a href="#Page_681">681</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Thayer County Association, iii, <a href="#Page_686">686</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman Suffrage Amendment beaten at the polls, iii, <a href="#Page_677">677</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage bill passed House, beaten in Senate, iii, <a href="#Page_672">672</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, first work in Lincoln, iii, <a href="#Page_675">675</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women, leading, iii, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Negro, civil and political right of, argument, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_59">59</a>.</li>
<li>Negroes opposed to woman suffrage in Kansas, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_238">238</a>.</li>
<li>Negro suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_106">106</a>.</li>
<li>Nevin, Dr., defence of the clergy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_140">140</a>.</li>
<li>New England Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_262">262</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">New Hampshire</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;married men, bill to protect, iii, <a href="#Page_372">372</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married women, Judicial decision, iii, <a href="#Page_379">379</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions, iii, <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Republican Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State Association formed, iii, <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, first organized action, iii, <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women on school committees, iii, <a href="#Page_374">374</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women voting, iii, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">New Jersey</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_441">441</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_476">476</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitution, defects in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_451">451</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Historical Society, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_447">447</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislative hearings, iii, <a href="#Page_490">490</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorial to Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_480">480</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;mothers' legal claim to their children, iii, <a href="#Page_483">483</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;property of married women, iii, <a href="#Page_484">484</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State Society, iii, <a href="#Page_479">479</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage, progress made, iii, <a href="#Page_479">479</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Women's Club of Orange, iii, <a href="#Page_482">482</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman's Political Science Club, iii, <a href="#Page_481">481</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in the pulpit, iii, <a href="#Page_484">484</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women as school trustees, iii, <a href="#Page_484">484</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, celebration of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_846">846</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, origin of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_447">447</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women voted, iii, <a href="#Page_476">476</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><i>New Orleans Picayune</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_798">798</a>.</li>
<li>Newspapers, women in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">New York</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_472">472</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_395">395</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;appendix, iii, <a href="#Page_959">959</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_269">269</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_282">282</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional revision commission, iii, <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;disfranchisement bill, Attorney-General Russell's opinion, iii, <a href="#Page_434">434</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Lansingburgh taxpayers, iii, <a href="#Page_441">441</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislative hearings, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_464">464</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_489">489</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_605">605</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_679">679</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_745">745</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_409">409</a>, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>disfranchisement bill, iii, <a href="#Page_426">426</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>;</li>
    <li>reports on petitions, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_612">612</a>;</li>
    <li>report on woman suffrage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_629">629</a>;</li>
    <li>school suffrage bill passed, iii, <a href="#Page_424">424</a>;</li>
    <li>suffrage, power to extend, iii, <a href="#Page_959">959</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;License Law</li>
  <li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1004" id="Page_1004">[Pg 1004]</a></span>of 1848, repeal, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_474">474</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;property rights granted, iii, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reception at the capitol, iii, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;results, iii, <a href="#Page_443">443</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><i>New York Christian Enquirer</i> on the Worcester National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>.</li>
<li><i>New York Evening Express</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_95">95</a>.</li>
<li><i>New York Evening Post</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_102">102</a>.</li>
<li><i>New York Herald</i> on Senator Wilson and woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_325">325</a>.</li>
<li><i>New York Independent</i> on the New York Constitutional Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_305">305</a>.</li>
<li><i>New York Times</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_645">645</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_648">648</a>.</li>
<li><i>New York Tribune</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_101">101</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_304">304</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_491">491</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_820">820</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>
   <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;support lost, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_269">269</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;World's Temperance Convention, on the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_511">511</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman as a voter, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_248">248</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Neyman, Clara, speech at Washington Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>.</li>
<li>Nichols, Elizabeth Pease, iii, <a href="#Page_837">837</a>, <a href="#Page_925">925</a>-6.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Nichols</span>, Clarina I. Howard, iii, <a href="#Page_704">704</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Centennial protest, iii, <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;education of women, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_356">356</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_258">258</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Rochester Temperance Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_847">847</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_192">192</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reminiscences, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_171">171</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_561">561</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Syracuse National Convention arguments, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_522">522</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, iii, <a href="#Page_764">764</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;work in Vermont, iii, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Nicholson, Mrs. E. J., iii, <a href="#Page_798">798</a>.</li>
<li>Nightingale, Florence, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_14">14</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_854">854</a>.</li>
<li>Nixon, Jennie C., iii, <a href="#Page_798">798</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">North Carolina</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_825">825</a>.</li>
<li>Northcote, Sir Stafford, iii, <a href="#Page_873">873</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_887">887</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Norton, Caroline, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_229">229</a>.</li>
<li>Norway, iii, <a href="#Page_912">912</a>.</li>
<li>Nye, Joshua, iii, <a href="#Page_359">359</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_O" name="IX_O">O.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Obituaries, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_905">905</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_891">891</a>.</li>
<li>O'Connell, Daniel, letter to Lucretia Mott, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_432">432</a>.</li>
<li>O'Connor, Henry, iii, <a href="#Page_617">617</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Ohio</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_101">101</a>; iii, 491
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;centennial celebration, women decline to take part, iii, <a href="#Page_507">507</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_565">565</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Equal Rights Association, iii, <a href="#Page_491">491</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Painesville Equal Rights Society, iii, <a href="#Page_509">509</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Senate Committee report on the suffrage question, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_870">870</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Soldiers' Aid society, first, iii, <a href="#Page_491">491</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Toledo society, iii, <a href="#Page_503">503</a>, <a href="#Page_506">506</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women of Oberlin protest against enfranchisement, iii, <a href="#Page_494">494</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Oliver, Anna, debate upon ordaining, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_784">784</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;suit, iii, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Oliver, Lewise, letters, iii, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>.</li>
<li><i>Omaha Republican</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_682">682</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;on Omaha Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_251">251</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Oregon</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_767">767</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;clergy favor woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_778">778</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;constitutional amendment lost, iii, <a href="#Page_778">778</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Convention at Portland, iii, <a href="#Page_773">773</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Donation Land Act, iii, <a href="#Page_770">770</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legislative action, iii, <a href="#Page_779">779</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married woman's property bill, iii, <a href="#Page_775">775</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married woman's sole trader bill, iii, <a href="#Page_771">771</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school offices, women made eligible, iii, <a href="#Page_775">775</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage organizations formed, iii, <a href="#Page_774">774</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage society, first, iii, <a href="#Page_768">768</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Temperance Alliance, iii, <a href="#Page_771">771</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage bill, iii, <a href="#Page_771">771</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage bill passed Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_776">776</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Oren, Mrs. Sarah A., iii, <a href="#Page_548">548</a>, <a href="#Page_972">972</a>.</li>
<li>Organizations, Angelina G. Weld, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_540">540</a>.</li>
<li>Orth, Judge, votes woman suffrage in Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_483">483</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;on national platform, iii, <a href="#Page_225">225</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Orient, iii, <a href="#Page_918">918</a>.</li>
<li>Orme, Miss, iii, <a href="#Page_928">928</a>, <a href="#Page_982">982</a>.</li>
<li>Ostrander, Mrs. R., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_180">180</a>.</li>
<li>Otis, James, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_291">291</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_644">644</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Owen</span>, Robert Dale, Women's Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_50">50</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;"male" in Federal Constitution, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_91">91</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;birthday anniversary, 83rd, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_619">619</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Greeley discussion on divorce, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_746">746</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_292">292</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, by Rosamond Dale Owen, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_293">293</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at meeting in Philadelphia, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_817">817</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, property rights of married women, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_296">296</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;spiritualism, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_301">301</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;testimonial, silver pitcher, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_300">300</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Owen, Mrs. Robert Dale, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_302">302</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a>,(see Robinson, Mary).</li>
<li>Owen, Sarah C., letter to Emily Collins, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_78">78</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_P" name="IX_P">P.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Pacific Northwest, iii, <a href="#Page_767">767</a>.</li>
<li>Paddock, A. S., iii, <a href="#Page_674">674</a>.</li>
<li>Painter, Hetty R., iii, <a href="#Page_693">693</a>.</li>
<li>Paist, Harriet W., iii, <a href="#Page_467">467</a>.</li>
<li>Pan-Presbyterians, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_783">783</a>.</li>
<li>Panim, Ivan, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_773">773</a>.</li>
<li>Parasol-makers, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_829">829</a>.</li>
<li>Parker, Alex., speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_560">560</a>.</li>
<li>Parker, Julia Smith, argument before Senate Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_156">156</a> (see Smith, Julia, and Abby).</li>
<li>Parker, Mary S., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_39">39</a>.</li>
<li>Parker Theodore, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_626">626</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_207">207</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;sermon "Function of Woman," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_277">277</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Parnell, Stewart, M. P., iii, <a href="#Page_71">71</a>.</li>
<li>Parnell, Rosina M., iii, <a href="#Page_956">956</a>.</li>
<li>Parody, woman suffrage in the courts, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_599">599</a>.</li>
<li>"Pastoral Letter," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>.</li>
<li>Pat and the Locomotive, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_188">188</a>.</li>
<li>Patridge, Lelia E., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_852">852</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_461">461</a>.</li>
<li>Patterson, Catherine G., iii, <a href="#Page_712">712</a>.</li>
<li>Patterson, Jessie, iii, <a href="#Page_708">708</a>.</li>
<li>Peckham, Lilia, career, iii, <a href="#Page_642">642</a>.</li>
<li>Peel, Sir Robert, iii, <a href="#Page_835">835</a>.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1005" id="Page_1005">[Pg 1005]</a></span>Pellet, Sarah, speech at Saratoga Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_621">621</a>.</li>
<li>Pembina Territory bill, U. S. Senate debate on Sargent's amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_545">545</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;bill rejected, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_582">582</a> (see also Congressional).</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Penn, William, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_320">320</a>.</li>
<li>Pennell, Mrs. Horace, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_92">92</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Pennsylvania</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_320">320</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_444">444</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;anti-slavery struggle, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_323">323</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;appendix, iii, <a href="#Page_961">961</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Century Club, iii, <a href="#Page_469">469</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Citizens' Suffrage Association, iii, <a href="#Page_460">460</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;common law, iii, <a href="#Page_961">961</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_495">495</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (<i>see Conventions</i>)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Fugitive Slave law i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_328">328</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;hall, destruction of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_333">333</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislature recommends a sixteenth amendment, iii, <a href="#Page_474">474</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;literary women, iii, <a href="#Page_469">469</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;medical school controversy, iii, <a href="#Page_447">447</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions to Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_463">463</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;property law, married women's, iii, <a href="#Page_445">445</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school officers, women elected, iii, <a href="#Page_467">467</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school offices, women made eligible, iii, <a href="#Page_465">465</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;statutes and court decisions, iii, <a href="#Page_963">963</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage association formed in Philadelphia, iii, <a href="#Page_457">457</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report, annual, iii, <a href="#Page_459">459</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Swarthmore college, iii, <a href="#Page_456">456</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;temperance work in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_344">344</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;University, attempt to open to women, iii, <a href="#Page_474">474</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;University, clinical instruction, iii, <a href="#Page_448">448</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman's Medical College, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_389">389</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman's Medical College, report on hospital clinics, iii, <a href="#Page_450">450</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman's rights, first legal argument, iii, <a href="#Page_462">462</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women sold with cattle, iii, <a href="#Page_445">445</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Perry, M. Frederica, lawyer, iii, <a href="#Page_574">574</a>.</li>
<li>Peru, iii, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>.</li>
<li>Peterson, Myra, iii, <a href="#Page_703">703</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Petition</span> to Congress for a XVI. amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_851">851</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;first, sent to New York Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_395">395</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sherman-Dahlgren against woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_494">494</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_78">78</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Petitions, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_262">262</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_315">315</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_489">489</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_588">588</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_625">625</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_629">629</a>;
 ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_91">91</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_282">282</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_283">283</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_286">286</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_401">401</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_514">514</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_516">516</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_560">560</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_698">698</a>;
 iii, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_790">790</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;form of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_676">676</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York Legislature report, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_612">612</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>against, iii, <a href="#Page_571">571</a>, <a href="#Page_841">841</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Petitioners, four classes of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_283">283</a>.</li>
<li>Phelps, Almira L., letter to Mrs. Hooker, iii, <a href="#Page_100">100</a>.</li>
<li>Phelps, Elizabeth B., woman's bureau, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_431">431</a>.</li>
<li>Phelps, Elizabeth Stuart, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_831">831</a>.</li>
<li><i>Philadelphia Press</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_359">359</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_44">44</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;<i>Ledger</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_43">43</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Society, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_325">325</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Phillips</span>, Wendell, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_268">268</a>; i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_469">469</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Anti-Slavery Convention, London, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_54">54</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grimké, Angelina, his opinion of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_399">399</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_230">230</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;last letter on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter of regret, Saratoga Con., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_627">627</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_62">62</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Mrs. Stebbins, iii, <a href="#Page_522">522</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage and divorce, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_732">732</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mrs. Eddy's will, iii, <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;self-government, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_258">258</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speeches:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_572">572</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_637">637</a>;</li>
    <li>Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_701">701</a>;</li>
    <li>Mozart Hall Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_674">674</a>;</li>
    <li>National Convention, Boston, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_178">178</a>;</li>
    <li>New England Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_273">273</a>;</li>
    <li>Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>;</li>
    <li>Worcester, Mass., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_227">227</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;treasurer of Jackson fund, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_189">189</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, apathy, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_318">318</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;World's Temperance Convention, at the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_152">152</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Philosophy, school of, at Concord, iii, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>.</li>
<li>Physical culture, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_908">908</a>.</li>
<li>Physicians and nurses, iii, <a href="#Page_298">298</a>.</li>
<li>Pickler, J. A., letter to M. J. Gage, iii, <a href="#Page_668">668</a>.</li>
<li>Pierce, J. D., on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_739">739</a>.</li>
<li>Pierce, Wm. S., on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_458">458</a>.</li>
<li>Pierpont, Rev. John, iii, <a href="#Page_294">294</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech at Broadway Tabernacle, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_451">451</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_569">569</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Pillsbury</span>, Parker, speeches, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_427">427</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_671">671</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_176">176</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_375">375</a>; iii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_275">275</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_948">948</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;appeal for, universal suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_917">917</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;editor, <i>The Revolution</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_264">264</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_335">335</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_337">337</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_265">265</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, <a href="#Page_945">945</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Pitkin, Benjamin C, on woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_209">209</a>.</li>
<li>Playfair, Lyon, iii, <a href="#Page_850">850</a>.</li>
<li>Plumb, P. B., the Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_253">253</a>.</li>
<li>Plumly, Rush, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_364">364</a>.</li>
<li>Pochin, Henry D., iii, <a href="#Page_847">847</a>.</li>
<li>Pochin, Mrs., iii, <a href="#Page_848">848</a>, <a href="#Page_929">929</a>.</li>
<li>Poem, "Endurance," Lowell, iii, <a href="#Page_695">695</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Frances D. Gage and the Hutchinsons, iii, <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"From Clatsop," iii, <a href="#Page_780">780</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Pastoral Letter," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_84">84</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Ancient Usage," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_371">371</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"The Times That Try Men's Souls," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_82">82</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Woman's Cause," Lowell, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_263">263</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Tennyson's Princess, iii, <a href="#Page_258">258</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Poland</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_917">917</a>.</li>
<li>Police, women as, iii, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>, <a href="#Page_432">432</a>.</li>
<li>Political campaigns, Anna E. Dickinson, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_43">43</a>.</li>
<li>Political disabilities, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_315">315</a>.</li>
<li>Polygamy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_776">776</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_777">777</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_778">778</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Miss Couzins on, iii, <a href="#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bishop Lunt's defense of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_776">776</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Pomeroy, C. R., letter to Des Moines Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_618">618</a>.</li>
<li>Pomeroy, Senator, S. C., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speeches, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_151">151</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_324">324</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_346">346</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_419">419</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_727">727</a>, <a href="#Page_811">811</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Poppleton, A. J., speech at Omaha Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>.</li>
<li>Porter, Albert G., iii, <a href="#Page_538">538</a>, <a href="#Page_553">553</a>.</li>
<li>Portugal, iii, <a href="#Page_901">901</a>.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1006" id="Page_1006">[Pg 1006]</a></span><span class="sc">Post</span>, Amy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_75">75</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Third Decade Meeting in Rochester, N. Y., iii, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tried to vote, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_647">647</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Potter, T. B., iii, <a href="#Page_848">848</a>.</li>
<li>Powell, Aaron M., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_468">468</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_671">671</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_783">783</a>.</li>
<li>Pray, Isaac C., speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_571">571</a>.</li>
<li>Presidential campaigns:
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;1856, John C. Fremont, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_633">633</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_641">641</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_643">643</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;1872, Grant and Wilson, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_217">217</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_520">520</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;1876, Hayes and Tilden, iii, <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, <a href="#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;1880, Garfield and Hancock, iii, <a href="#Page_175">175</a>, <a href="#Page_187">187</a>, <a href="#Page_431">431</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Preston, Ann, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_389">389</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_390">390</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;address at Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_360">360</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Dean Medical College, iii, <a href="#Page_450">450</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Pretorius, Emile, letter to Woman's Nat. Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_86">86</a>.</li>
<li>Price, Abby, speech at Syracuse National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_532">532</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Worcester Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_218">218</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_242">242</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Priestley, celibacy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_759">759</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_760">760</a>.</li>
<li>Prince, Bradford L., iii, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>.</li>
<li>Privileges and immunities, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_453">453</a>.</li>
<li>Progressive friends, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_141">141</a>.</li>
<li>Prohibition Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_183">183</a>.</li>
<li>Prohibitionists, alliance with, iii, <a href="#Page_280">280</a>.</li>
<li>Property Bill, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_64">64</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;bill, New York, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_256">256</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;laws, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_171">171</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;rights, Wm. Hay's paper, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_607">607</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;rights of married women, iii, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;opinions of Indiana Legislators, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_299">299</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Prostitution, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_264">264</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>(see, also, Vice).</li>
<li>Pryor, Margaret, iii, <a href="#Page_477">477</a>.</li>
<li>Pugh, Sarah, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_327">327</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_337">337</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_376">376</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Salem, O., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_814">814</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;at Third Decade Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Pulpit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_902">902</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;charges against, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_135">135</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Pulte medical college, iii, <a href="#Page_511">511</a>.</li>
<li>Purvis, Robert, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_183">183</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_347">347</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_358">358</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_418">418</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, <a href="#Page_72">72</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_Q" name="IX_Q">Q.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Quakers, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_412">412</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_783">783</a>.</li>
<li>"Queen's women," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_794">794</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_R" name="IX_R">R.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Ransier, A. J., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_542">542</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_829">829</a>.</li>
<li>Raymond, Henry J., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_547">547</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_649">649</a>.</li>
<li>Reconstruction, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_313">313</a>.</li>
<li>Reed, C. A., iii, <a href="#Page_768">768</a>, <a href="#Page_773">773</a>.</li>
<li>Reed, Thomas B., in Congress, iii, <a href="#Page_219">219</a>, <a href="#Page_366">366</a>.</li>
<li>Reformation, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_774">774</a>.</li>
<li>Reid, Mrs. Hugo, iii, <a href="#Page_836">836</a>, <a href="#Page_838">838</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Reminiscences</span>:
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Collins, Emily, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_88">88</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Davis, Paulina W., by "E. C. S.," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_283">283</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grimké, Angelina, by "E. C. S." i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_392">392</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Nichols, Clarina I. H., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_171">171</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Stanton's, Elizabeth C., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_456">456</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_922">922</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Starrett, Helen E., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_250">250</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Thomas, Mary F., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_306">306</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Way, Amanda, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_306">306</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Remond, Charles L., i,, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_214">214</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_220">220</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_225">225</a>.</li>
<li>Republican Party, iii, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>.</li>
<li>Republicans, treachery of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>.</li>
<li>Reports (see Woman Suffrage).</li>
<li>Resolutions:
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_71">71</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_219">219</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_535">535</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_537">537</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_542">542</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_570">570</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_574">574</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_580">580</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_593">593</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_633">633</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_641">641</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_644">644</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_646">646</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_673">673</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_694">694</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_706">706</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_708">708</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_716">716</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_723">723</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_787">787</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_808">808</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_814">814</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_816">816</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_817">817</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_820">820</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_821">821</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_823">823</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_825">825</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_827">827</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_833">833</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_834">834</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_855">855</a>;</li>
  <li>ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_57">57</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_190">190</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_213">213</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_358">358</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_384">384</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_388">388</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_396">396</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_407">407</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_420">420</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_436">436</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_493">493</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_521">521</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_533">533</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_537">537</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_583">583</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_584">584</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_780">780</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_809">809</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_810">810</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_818">818</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_826">826</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_837">837</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_843">843</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_859">859</a>;</li>
  <li>iii, <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>,
 <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="#Page_74">74</a>, <a href="#Page_124">124</a>,
 <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, <a href="#Page_252">252</a>,
 <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="#Page_493">493</a>, <a href="#Page_566">566</a>,
 <a href="#Page_619">619</a>, <a href="#Page_641">641</a>, <a href="#Page_676">676</a>,
 <a href="#Page_707">707</a>, <a href="#Page_708">708</a>, <a href="#Page_780">780</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Retrospect, iii, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>.</li>
<li>Revelation, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_647">647</a>.</li>
<li>Revolution, 1776, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_747">747</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Arnett, Hannah, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_441">441</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;battle, first, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_203">203</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;girls, two, with a drum and fife, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_204">204</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;spy, female, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_323">323</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_444">444</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><i>Revolution, The</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>;
 ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_317">317</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_319">319</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_324">324</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_333">333</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_340">340</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_344">344</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_345">345</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_372">372</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_381">381</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_382">382</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_400">400</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_401">401</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_407">407</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_411">411</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_426">426</a>,
 <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_431">431</a>;
 iii, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="#Page_478">478</a>,
 <a href="#Page_752">752</a>, <a href="#Page_802">802</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;editorial correspondence, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_367">367</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;establishment of, iii, <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;founded, when, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_264">264</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Rhode Island</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_339">339</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Conventions (see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;legislation, iii, <a href="#Page_346">346</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State Association, organized, iii, <a href="#Page_340">340</a>,
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>address, iii, <a href="#Page_345">345</a>;</li>
    <li>work done, iii, <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;women represented, iii, <a href="#Page_349">349</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Women's Board of Visitors, iii, <a href="#Page_345">345</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women on school boards, iii, <a href="#Page_341">341</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Richards, David M., iii, <a href="#Page_715">715</a>, <a href="#Page_716">716</a>, <a href="#Page_719">719</a>, <a href="#Page_721">721</a>.</li>
<li>Richardson, Susan Hoxie, iii, <a href="#Page_560">560</a>.</li>
<li>Ricker, Marilla M., iii, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;first woman to cast a vote, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_586">586</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;prison reform, on, iii, <a href="#Page_578">578</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Riddle, Albert G., iii, <a href="#Page_106">106</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech at Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_421">421</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech before Congressional Committee, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_448">448</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Spencer-Webster suit, argument, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_587">587</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Roberts, Mrs. Marshall O., iii, <a href="#Page_400">400</a>.</li>
<li>Roberts, William H., iii, <a href="#Page_777">777</a>.</li>
<li>Robinson, Charles, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_191">191</a>.</li>
<li>Robinson, Emily, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>.</li>
<li>Robinson, Harriett Hanson, iii, <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, <a href="#Page_196">196</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_227">227</a>, <a href="#Page_229">229</a>, <a href="#Page_265">265</a>.</li>
<li>Robinson, Lelia J., application to the bar, iii, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Supreme Court decision, iii, <a href="#Page_308">308</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Robinson, Lucius (Gov.), defeat of, iii, <a href="#Page_423">423</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;vetoes school suffrage bill, iii, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Robinson, Mary, sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_293">293</a>.</li>
<li><i>Rochester Democrat and Chronicle</i> on Miss Anthony's trial, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_715">715</a>.</li>
<li><i>Rochester Evening Express</i> on Miss Anthony's trial, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_714">714</a>.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1007" id="Page_1007">[Pg 1007]</a></span><i>Rocky Mountain News</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_715">715</a>.</li>
<li>Roebling, Mrs., iii, <a href="#Page_440">440</a>.</li>
<li>Roebuck's flattery of woman, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_537">537</a>.</li>
<li>Rogers, Nathaniel P., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_61">61</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_367">367</a>.</li>
<li>Roland, Pauline, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>.</li>
<li>Rome, "The City of God," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_794">794</a>.</li>
<li>Root, H. K., speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_560">560</a>.</li>
<li>Root J. P., on the Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Rose</span>, Ernestine L., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_52">52</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_619">619</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_624">624</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_626">626</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_636">636</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_390">390</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_514">514</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;biography, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_95">95</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;debate, Cleveland National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_133">133</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;English women, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_645">645</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Equal Rights Association, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_397">397</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Letters</i>:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_99">99</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_50">50</a>;</li>
    <li>to Mrs. J. F. Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_356">356</a>;</li>
    <li>to Rochester Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_237">237</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage and divorce, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_729">729</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_97">97</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;propagandist, <i>Albany Register</i> charges, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_608">608</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolutions, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_707">707</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Speeches</i>:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Broadway Tabernacle, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_562">562</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_661">661</a>;</li>
    <li>Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_692">692</a>;</li>
    <li>New York Legislature, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_607">607</a>;</li>
    <li>Philadelphia Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_376">376</a>;</li>
    <li>Rochester Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_579">579</a>;</li>
    <li>Syracuse Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_537">537</a>;</li>
    <li>Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_73">73</a>;</li>
    <li>Worcester Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_237">237</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute to Frances Wright, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_692">692</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Westchester, Pa., Convention, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_357">357</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in colleges, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_144">144</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_208">208</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;in London, 1883, iii, <a href="#Page_940">940</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Ross, E. G., letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_423">423</a>.</li>
<li>Ross, James, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_449">449</a>.</li>
<li>Ross, Laura J., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_374">374</a>; (see Wolcott, Laura Ross).</li>
<li>Russell, Leslie W., iii, <a href="#Page_434">434</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;defeat of, iii. <a href="#Page_437">437</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Russell, Lucinda, correspondence, iii, <a href="#Page_682">682</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_692">692</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Russia, iii, <a href="#Page_915">915</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_S" name="IX_S">S.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Sacrilegious child, Cardinal Antonelli's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_788">788</a>.</li>
<li>Safe deposit companies, iii, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>.</li>
<li>St. Chrysostom's description of woman, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_758">758</a>.</li>
<li>St. John, Gov., J. P., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_258">258</a>. iii, <a href="#Page_706">706</a>.</li>
<li>St. Paul, quotations, iii, <a href="#Page_720">720</a>.</li>
<li>Salic law, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_774">774</a>.</li>
<li>Sanborn, Frank B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_765">765</a>.</li>
<li>Sandford, Arch-Deacon, iii, <a href="#Page_848">848</a>.</li>
<li>Sanford, Rebecca M., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_77">77</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Cleveland Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_819">819</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Sandige, John M., iii, <a href="#Page_791">791</a>.</li>
<li>Sanitary Commission, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_13">13</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Sargent, A. A.</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_108">108</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;California Constitution, on the, iii, <a href="#Page_760">760</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;District of Columbia suffrage bill, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_483">483</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Omaha Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_245">245</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Rochester Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pembina Territory bill, amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_545">545</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>bill rejected, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_582">582</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pembina Territory bill, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_546">546</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_555">555</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_564">564</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_567">567</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolution, woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech in San Francisco, on woman's rights, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_483">483</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech in Senate, iii, <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage, joint resolution, iii, <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;minister at Berlin, iii, <a href="#Page_944">944</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Sargent, Elizabeth, M. D., iii, <a href="#Page_763">763</a>.</li>
<li>Sargent, J. T., letter to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_911">911</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech at New England Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_270">270</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Saunders, Alvin, on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_674">674</a>.</li>
<li>Savage, John, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>.</li>
<li>Saxe, Dana, and Grace Greenwood, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_828">828</a>.</li>
<li>Saxon Elizabeth L., iii, <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>, <a href="#Page_241">241</a>, <a href="#Page_690">690</a>, <a href="#Page_791">791</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;argument before Senate committee, iii, <a href="#Page_157">157</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Scatcherd, Mrs. Oliver, iii, <a href="#Page_875">875</a>, <a href="#Page_878">878</a>, <a href="#Page_923">923</a>, <a href="#Page_929">929</a>, <a href="#Page_936">936</a>.</li>
<li>Schell, Augustus, favors woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_422">422</a>.</li>
<li>Schenck, Elizabeth T., iii, <a href="#Page_750">750</a>, <a href="#Page_754">754</a>.</li>
<li>School of Design for Women, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_390">390</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_399">399</a>.</li>
<li>School officers, bill passed New York Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>vetoed by Gov. Robinson, iii, <a href="#Page_418">418</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>School suffrage (see Suffrage Gained).</li>
<li>Schurz, Carl, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_42">42</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_370">370</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_46">46</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Scotland</span> (see Great Britain, iii, <a href="#Page_833">833</a>).</li>
<li>Scott, Thomas A., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_5">5</a>.</li>
<li>Scovill, James M., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_420">420</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_477">477</a>.</li>
<li>Sears, Judge, in Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_240">240</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_253">253</a>.</li>
<li>See, Rev. Isaac M., trial of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_780">780</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_485">485</a>.</li>
<li>Segur, Rose L., iii, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>.</li>
<li>Selden, H. R., Miss Anthony's counsel, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_629">629</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_647">647</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_652">652</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_654">654</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_679">679</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_680">680</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_689">689</a>;
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>appeal to Congress, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_698">698</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Seneca Falls Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>.</li>
<li>Severance, Caroline M., address at Broadway Tabernacle, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_569">569</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;New England Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_262">262</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_911">911</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Sewall, Samuel E., iii, <a href="#Page_269">269</a>.</li>
<li>Seward, Wm. H., on self-government, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_77">77</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_85">85</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;on woman's rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_457">457</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Sewall, May Wright, iii, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_534">534</a>, <a href="#Page_557">557</a>, <a href="#Page_259">259</a>.</li>
<li>Seymour, Horatio, thirty pieces of silver, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_473">473</a>.</li>
<li>Shattuck, Harriette R., iii, <a href="#Page_226">226</a>, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li>
<li>Shaw, Sarah B., letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_239">239</a>.</li>
<li>Shelly, Kate, heroism of, iii, <a href="#Page_633">633</a>.</li>
<li>Sherman-Dahlgren petition against woman suffrage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_494">494</a>.</li>
<li>Shields, M. F., iii, <a href="#Page_719">719</a>.</li>
<li>Sholes, C. L., report on rights of women in Wisconsin, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_315">315</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_640">640</a>.</li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1008" id="Page_1008">[Pg 1008]</a></span>Shuman, Andrew, iii, <a href="#Page_561">561</a>.</li>
<li>Silk Culture, iii, <a href="#Page_762">762</a>.</li>
<li>Simpson, Bishop, favors woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_460">460</a>, <a href="#Page_616">616</a>.</li>
<li>Sixteenth Amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_333">333</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_350">350</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_351">351</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_352">352</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_353">353</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_400">400</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_420">420</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_422">422</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_425">425</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_436">436</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_112">112</a>.</li>
<li>Sixteenth Amendment, reasons for a, iii, <a href="#Page_235">235</a>.</li>
<li>Sixteenth Amendment, renewed appeal, iii, <a href="#Page_58">58</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;press comments, iii, <a href="#Page_67">67</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Sketches, <i>see Biography</i>.</li>
<li>Slave law, fugitive, Pennsylvania, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_328">328</a>.</li>
<li>Slavery, Angelina Grimké's speech, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_334">334</a> (see, also, Anti-Slavery).</li>
<li>Slavery sustained by the North, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_542">542</a>.</li>
<li>Slavery and the war, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_77">77</a>.</li>
<li>Slavonic countries, iii, <a href="#Page_915">915</a>.</li>
<li>Smith, Elizabeth Oakes, iii, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_826">826</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, at the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_253">253</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Syracuse Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_522">522</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Worcester Convention, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Smith</span> Gerrit, home of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_471">471</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Susan B. Anthony, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_497">497</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_538">538</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_941">941</a>;</li>
    <li>Wm. Lloyd Garrison, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_223">223</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_620">620</a>;</li>
    <li>St. Louis Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_825">825</a>;</li>
    <li>Elizabeth Cady Stanton, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_708">708</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_836">836</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Syracuse National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_526">526</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition for woman suffrage, refused to sign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_317">317</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Smith, Mrs. Gerrit, petition, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_98">98</a>.</li>
<li>Smith, Hannah Whitehall, speech at Philadelphia Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_230">230</a>.</li>
<li>Smith, Julia and Abby, iii, <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_328">328</a>, <a href="#Page_336">336</a>.</li>
<li>Smith, Sidney, iii, <a href="#Page_834">834</a>.</li>
<li>Snow, Lucy and Lavinia, iii, <a href="#Page_365">365</a>.</li>
<li>Social relations, Channing's report, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>.</li>
<li>Sojourner Truth, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_115">115</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_567">567</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_193">193</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_224">224</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_926">926</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_458">458</a>, <a href="#Page_531">531</a>.</li>
<li>Soldiers, women as, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_869">869</a>.</li>
<li>Somerville, Mary, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_790">790</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_440">440</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Song, "A Hundred Years Hence," iii, <a href="#Page_38">38</a>.</li>
<li>Song, "Kansas Suffrage," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_934">934</a>.</li>
<li>Sorosis, iii, <a href="#Page_402">402</a>, <a href="#Page_571">571</a>.</li>
<li>South, what the, can do, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_929">929</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">South Carolina</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_828">828</a>.</li>
<li>Southwick, Thankful, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_341">341</a>.</li>
<li>Southworth, Mrs. E. D. E. N., iii, <a href="#Page_813">813</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Spain</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_901">901</a>.</li>
<li>Spencer, Herbert, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_26">26</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Spencer</span>, Sarah Andrews, iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;argument before House Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;before Senate Judiciary Committee, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_543">543</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;before D. C. Committee, iii, <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;delegate Rep. Nat. Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_26">26</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolutions, iii, <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speeches, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_539">539</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_587">587</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Chief-Justice Cartter's opinion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_597">597</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Spider-crab, Theodore Tilton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_93">93</a>.</li>
<li>Sprague, Homer B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_425">425</a>.</li>
<li>Stanford, Leland, iii, <a href="#Page_764">764</a>.</li>
<li>Stansfeld, M. P., James, iii, <a href="#Page_872">872</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech, iii, <a href="#Page_886">886</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Stanton, Edwin M., and Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_33">33</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Stanton</span>, Elizabeth Cady, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_61">61</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_79">79</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_360">360</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_361">361</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_381">381</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_382">382</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_383">383</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_391">391</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_417">417</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_418">418</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_428">428</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_430">430</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_456">456</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_582">582</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, <a href="#Page_222">222</a>, <a href="#Page_529">529</a>, <a href="#Page_560">560</a>, <a href="#Page_630">630</a>, <a href="#Page_644">644</a>, <a href="#Page_811">811</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Abolitionists, and the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_264">264</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;address to New York Legislature, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_595">595</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;appeal to women of New York State, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_676">676</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;appeal to women of the Republic, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_51">51</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;appeal for Woman's Rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_858">858</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;argument before Senate committee, iii, <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Bloomer," in a, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_128">128</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;California visit, iii, <a href="#Page_756">756</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;call, loyal women, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_53">53</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;candidate for Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_180">180</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;children i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_457">457</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;civil rights bill for women, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_541">541</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"copperheads," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_320">320</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;divorce for drunkenness, argument, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_485">485</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;editorial correspondence in <i>The Revolution</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_362">362</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_367">367</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;eulogy: Lucretia Mott, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_407">407</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Equal Rights Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_173">173</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_174">174</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;eternal punishment, on, iii, <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_333">333</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;girls and boys at school, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_541">541</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Grant and Wilson campaign, in, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_520">520</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Greeley, Horace, and, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_287">287</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Hurlbut, Judge, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_39">39</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_253">253</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_261">261</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_263">263</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;lecture, "Education of Girls," iii, <a href="#Page_536">536</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;lectures in Omaha, iii, <a href="#Page_675">675</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;lecturing tour, Ohio, iii, <a href="#Page_491">491</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Letters:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>to Akron, O., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_815">815</a>;</li>
    <li>to <i>The Ballot Box</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_64">64</a>;</li>
    <li>to Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_860">860</a>;</li>
    <li>to Gerrit Smith, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_839">839</a>;</li>
    <li>to Gen. Hawley, iii, <a href="#Page_28">28</a>;</li>
    <li>to Horace Greeley, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_735">735</a>;</li>
    <li>to the <i>National Citizen</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_147">147</a>;</li>
    <li>to Omaha convention, iii, <a href="#Page_244">244</a>;</li>
    <li>to Salem, O., convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_810">810</a>;</li>
    <li>to Syracuse convention i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_848">848</a>;</li>
    <li>to Washington convention, iii, <a href="#Page_261">261</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;London visit, 1882-3, iii, <a href="#Page_922">922</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"male" in the constitution, on the word, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_91">91</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;manhood suffrage, on, iii, <a href="#Page_566">566</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage and divorce, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_716">716</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_738">738</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Michigan campaign iii, <a href="#Page_521">521</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Negro's hour," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_94">94</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Newport Con., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_403">403</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Oregon, Mo., visit, iii, <a href="#Page_609">609</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_721">721</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President Albany convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_592">592</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President Loyal League, made, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_66">66</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;press comments on Rochester and Seneca Falls conventions, her reply to, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_806">806</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reception, Sorosis, Chicago, iii, <a href="#Page_571">571</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reconstruction, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_214">214</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Reminiscences: i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_456">456</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_836">836</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_922">922</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>of Angelina Grimké, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_392">392</a>;</li>
    <li>of Paulina Wright Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_283">283</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolutions before Congress affecting women, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_92">92</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;resolutions, Washington convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_542">542</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sermon, St. Louis, iii, <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sixteenth Amendment, urges a, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_350">350</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Smith, Gerrit, refusing to sign petition for <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1009" id="Page_1009">[Pg 1009]</a></span>woman suffrage, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_317">317</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Speeches:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Cooper Institute, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_716">716</a>;</li>
    <li>Congressional committee, before, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_411">411</a>;</li>
    <li>Furness' Church, in, iii, <a href="#Page_35">35</a>;</li>
    <li>Legislature, claiming woman's rights, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_271">271</a>;</li>
    <li>Milwaukee, iii, <a href="#Page_641">641</a>;</li>
    <li>National protection for National citizens, iii, <a href="#Page_80">80</a>;</li>
    <li>New York Legislature, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_679">679</a>;</li>
    <li>New York National convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>;</li>
    <li>Rochester Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_117">117</a>;</li>
    <li>Rochester Temperance Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_481">481</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_493">493</a>;</li>
    <li>Senate Judiciary Committee, before, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_506">506</a>;</li>
    <li>suffrage, question of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>;</li>
    <li>Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_495">495</a>;</li>
    <li>Washington Nat. Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_348">348</a>;</li>
    <li>Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_87">87</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;testimonial ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_533">533</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Train, G. F., and <i>The Revolution</i>, criticism, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_264">264</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute from <i>Leavenworth Commercial</i> (Kansas), ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_263">263</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;view of, an objective, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_456">456</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wadleigh, Senator, on, iii, <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;western trip, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_367">367</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Wyoming visit, iii, <a href="#Page_734">734</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Stanton Harriot, letter to Nebraska voters, iii, <a href="#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="#Page_933">933</a>.</li>
<li>Stanton, Theodore, iii, <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, <a href="#Page_895">895</a>, <a href="#Page_928">928</a>.</li>
<li>Starrett, Helen Ekin, reminiscences Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_348">348</a>.</li>
<li>Stearns, O. P., iii, <a href="#Page_528">528</a>.</li>
<li>Stearns, Sarah Burger, iii, <a href="#Page_527">527</a>, <a href="#Page_649">649</a>.</li>
<li>Stebbins, Catharine A. F., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_514">514</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;before House committee, iii, <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Lucretia Mott, iii, <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;vote, attempts to, iii, <a href="#Page_523">523</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Steck, Amos, iii, <a href="#Page_714">714</a>.</li>
<li>Steele, William, iii, <a href="#Page_319">319</a>.</li>
<li>Stephens, Alexander H., reception, iii, <a href="#Page_98">98</a>, <a href="#Page_830">830</a>.</li>
<li>Stevens, Louisa B., iii, <a href="#Page_633">633</a>.</li>
<li>Stevens, Thaddeus, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_354">354</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_632">632</a>.</li>
<li>Stevenson, Emily Pitts, iii, <a href="#Page_752">752</a>.</li>
<li>Stevenson, Sarah Hackett, iii, <a href="#Page_579">579</a>.</li>
<li>Stewart's Home for Working Women, iii, <a href="#Page_420">420</a>.</li>
<li>Stewart, Senator, on the Pembina Territory bill, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_548">548</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_558">558</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_559">559</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_564">564</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_573">573</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_579">579</a>.</li>
<li>Stone, Dr. James A. B., address at St. Louis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_821">821</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_525">525</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Stone</span>, Lucy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_473">473</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_619">619</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_626">626</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_56">56</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, <a href="#Page_513">513</a>, <a href="#Page_722">722</a>, <a href="#Page_724">724</a>, <a href="#Page_818">818</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention at Albany, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_284">284</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;husband, and her, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_164">164</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;husband's name, refusing to take her, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_261">261</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas, in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_200">200</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, in, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_232">232</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_237">237</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_919">919</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Salem, O., Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_813">813</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letters to E. Cady Stanton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_234">234</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to <i>The Una</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_501">501</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marriage of, under protest, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_260">260</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;meetings held in New Jersey, iii, <a href="#Page_479">479</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions, iii, <a href="#Page_104">104</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;National Convention, Broadway Tabernacle, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_631">631</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Philadelphia National Convention, at, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_375">375</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_761">761</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report, American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_803">803</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;scripture, on, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_650">650</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speeches:
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_554">554</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_565">565</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_632">632</a>;</li>
    <li>American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Cooper Institute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_829">829</a>;</li>
    <li>in Steinway Hall, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_811">811</a>;</li>
    <li>in Detroit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_837">837</a>;</li>
    <li>in St. Louis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_823">823</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_827">827</a>;</li>
    <li>in Washington, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_858">858</a>;</li>
    <li>Cincinnati, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_165">165</a>;</li>
    <li>Cleveland, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>;</li>
    <li>Concord, iii, <a href="#Page_271">271</a>;</li>
    <li>Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_64">64</a>;</li>
    <li>Worcester, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_233">233</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage, negro, first, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_383">383</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Syracuse National Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_524">524</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;taxes, refused to pay, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_450">450</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Story, Judge, on the Constitution, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_477">477</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_478">478</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_588">588</a>.</li>
<li>Strahan, Robert H., iii, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>.</li>
<li>Strong, Rev. A. H., iii, <a href="#Page_155">155</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;on subordination of women, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_787">787</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Stuart, Abby H. H., iii, <a href="#Page_787">787</a>.</li>
<li>Stuart, Mary A., iii, <a href="#Page_158">158</a>, <a href="#Page_817">817</a>.</li>
<li>Studwell, Edwin A., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_398">398</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Suffrage Gained</span>:</li>
  <li><ul class="IX">
  <li><i>Full</i> suffrage:</li>
  <li> Isle of Man, iii, <a href="#Page_870">870</a>, <a href="#Page_982">982</a>;</li>
  <li>Utah Territory, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_426">426</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_432">432</a>;</li>
  <li>Washington Territory, iii, <a href="#Page_777">777</a>;</li>
  <li>Wyoming Territory, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_426">426</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_432">432</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_730">730</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Suffrage Gained</span>:</li>
  <li><ul class="IX">
    <li><i>Municipal</i> suffrage:</li>
    <li>Canada, iii, <a href="#Page_832">832</a>,</li>
    <li>England, iii, <a href="#Page_845">845</a>;</li>
    <li>Madras, iii, <a href="#Page_983">983</a>;</li>
    <li>Scotland, iii, <a href="#Page_871">871</a>, <a href="#Page_983">983</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Suffrage Gained</span>:</li>
  <li><ul class="IX">
    <li><i>School</i> suffrage:</li>
    <li>Canada, iii, <a href="#Page_831">831</a>;</li>
    <li>Colorado, iii, <a href="#Page_718">718</a>;</li>
    <li>Dakota, iii, <a href="#Page_633">633</a>;</li>
    <li>England, iii, <a href="#Page_850">850</a>;</li>
    <li>Kansas, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_185">185</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_701">701</a>, <a href="#Page_710">710</a>;</li>
    <li>Kentucky, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_869">869</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_821">821</a>;</li>
    <li>Massachusetts, iii, <a href="#Page_288">288</a>;</li>
    <li>Michigan, iii, <a href="#Page_515">515</a>, <a href="#Page_530">530</a>;</li>
    <li>Minnesota, iii, <a href="#Page_652">652</a>, <a href="#Page_653">653</a>, <a href="#Page_654">654</a>;</li>
    <li>Nebraska, iii, <a href="#Page_675">675</a>;</li>
    <li>New Hampshire, iii, <a href="#Page_375">375</a>, <a href="#Page_376">376</a>;</li>
    <li>New York, iii, <a href="#Page_424">424</a>;</li>
    <li>Oregon, iii, <a href="#Page_775">775</a>;</li>
    <li>Scotland, iii, <a href="#Page_851">851</a>;</li>
    <li>Vermont, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_304">304</a>.</li>
    </ul></li>
<li>Suits (see Trials).</li>
<li><span class="sc">Sumner</span>, Charles, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_35">35</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_81">81</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;ballot, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_95">95</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;equal rights to all, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_322">322</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fourteenth Amendment, opposed, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_323">323</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;voted for, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_324">324</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter, Woman's National Loyal League anniversary, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_86">86</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"male," and the word, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_91">91</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petition, presents, under protest, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_96">96</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions, asks for, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_93">93</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;rebuked by Senator Cowan, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_113">113</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech in U. S. Senate on presentation of petition of the Woman's Nat. League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_78">78</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Taxation without Representation, on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Sunday-school teachings, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_786">786</a>.</li>
<li>Sunderland-Gage controversy, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_543">543</a>.</li>
<li>Sunderland, Mrs. H. E., iii, <a href="#Page_564">564</a>.</li>
<li>Sutherland, Julia K., iii, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>.</li>
<li>Swank, Emma B., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_307">307</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Sweet, Ada, pension agent, iii, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>.</li>
<li>Swisshelm, Jane Grey, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_386">386</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_650">650</a>, <a href="#Page_813">813</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;<i>Saturday Visitor</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_46">46</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter, "Borders of Monkeydom," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_807">807</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Washington Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_61">61</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Switzerland</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_909">909</a>, <a href="#Page_911">911</a>.</li>
</ul>

<p><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1010" id="Page_1010">[Pg 1010]</a></span></p>
<h3><a id="IX_T" name="IX_T">T.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Taney, Justice, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_639">639</a>.</li>
<li>Tax, society, anti, iii, <a href="#Page_413">413</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Susan A. King, iii, <a href="#Page_420">420</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;protest, Harriet K. Hunt's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_259">259</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Report of N. Y. State Assessors, iii, <a href="#Page_412">412</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;representation, without, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_169">169</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_475">475</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Lucy Stone refused to pay, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_450">450</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Taylor, Helen, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_425">425</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_852">852</a>, <a href="#Page_923">923</a>, <a href="#Page_940">940</a>.</li>
<li>Taylor, Mrs. Mentia, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_438">438</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Mrs. P. A., iii, <a href="#Page_848">848</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Taylor, R. B., in Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_231">231</a>.</li>
<li>Tea, Anti, Leagues, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_202">202</a>.</li>
<li>Telegrapher, Hattie Hutchinson, age ten years, iii, <a href="#Page_805">805</a>.</li>
<li>Teller, Willard, iii, <a href="#Page_715">715</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Temperance</span> conventions:
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Albany, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_489">489</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Dayton, Ohio, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_118">118</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Half World's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_506">506</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Lawrence, Kansas, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_231">231</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Pennsylvania, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_348">348</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;World's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_152">152</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;press comments, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_854">854</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;daughters of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_474">474</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York, Brick Church meeting, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_499">499</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York, Metropolitan Hall meeting, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_490">490</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York Woman's State Society, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_484">484</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Woman Suffrage, and, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_819">819</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Tennessee</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_822">822</a>.</li>
<li>Tennessee campaign, Miss Carroll, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>-9.</li>
<li>Tenney, Mrs. R. S., letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_257">257</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Texas</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_801">801</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_801">801</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Legislative action, iii, <a href="#Page_802">802</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women in government offices, iii, <a href="#Page_804">804</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Theological discussion, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_647">647</a>.</li>
<li>Thirteenth Amendment, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_77">77</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_313">313</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_663">663</a>.</li>
<li>Thomas', Mrs. Abel C., farm, iii, <a href="#Page_469">469</a>.</li>
<li>Thomas, Julia J., and Greek prize, iii, <a href="#Page_6">6</a>.</li>
<li>Thomas, Mary F., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_860">860</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;reminiscences of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_306">306</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_314">314</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Winchester, Ind., convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Thompson, Geo., speech, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_56">56</a>.</li>
<li>Thompson, Mary A., iii, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, <a href="#Page_775">775</a>.</li>
<li>Thomson, J. Edgar, will of, iii, <a href="#Page_468">468</a>.</li>
<li>Thornton, J. Quinn, iii, <a href="#Page_773">773</a>.</li>
<li>Tilden, Samuel J., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_473">473</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>.</li>
<li>Tillotson, Mary A., iii, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Tilton</span>, Theodore, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_117">117</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_376">376</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Beecher colloquy, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_167">167</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifteenth Amendment, and the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_327">327</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_230">230</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_770">770</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Nat. Convention in New York, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_154">154</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Tod, Isabella M., iii, <a href="#Page_866">866</a>, <a href="#Page_888">888</a>, <a href="#Page_938">938</a>.</li>
<li>Toucey, Sinclair, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_419">419</a>.</li>
<li>Train, Geo. Francis, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_381">381</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_431">431</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Constitutional Convention at Albany, before, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_284">284</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, in, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_243">243</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_264">264</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Tracts, prize, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_379">379</a>.</li>
<li><a name="trials_decisions" id="trials_decisions"><span class="sc">Trials</span> and Decisions</a>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_586">586</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_934">934</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Allen, Jane, case of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_592">592</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Anthony, Susan B. (see Anthony)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Bly, Mrs., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_671">671</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bradwell, Myra (see Bradwell)</li>
  <li>&mdash;Burnham, Carrie, suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_600">600</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Gardner, Nannette B., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_587">587</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Huntington, Sarah M. T., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_628">628</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Inspectors of election, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_691">691</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;jury convicts, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_696">696</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;pardoned by President Grant, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_715">715</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sentenced, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_698">698</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;trial, motion for new, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_696">696</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mansfield, Arabella A., case of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_606">606</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Minor, Virginia L., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_715">715</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Chief-Justice Waite's opinion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_734">734</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;opinion reviewed by Mrs. Gage, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_742">742</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reviewed by <i>Central Law Journal</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_748">748</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;parody, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_599">599</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Ricker, Mrs. M. M., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_586">586</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Spencer, Sarah Andrews, suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_587">587</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Chief-Justice Cartter's opinion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_597">597</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Van Valkenburg, Ellen Rand, suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_600">600</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Waite, Catharine V., suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_601">601</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_571">571</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Webster, Sarah E., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_587">587</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_571">571</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;5,000 women householders and Lord Coleridge, iii, <a href="#Page_884">884</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Truman, James, on Women in dentistry, iii, <a href="#Page_452">452</a>.</li>
<li>Trumbull, Lyman, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_498">498</a>.</li>
<li>Tudor, Mrs. Fenno, reception, iii, <a href="#Page_197">197</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Turkey</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_919">919</a>.</li>
<li>Turner, Eliza Sproat, iii, <a href="#Page_451">451</a>.</li>
<li>Turner, Jennie, iii, <a href="#Page_407">407</a>.</li>
<li>Tyler, Moses Coit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_813">813</a>.</li>
<li>Tyler, W. S., iii, <a href="#Page_497">497</a>.</li>
<li>Tyndale, Sarah, tribute, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_218">218</a>.</li>
<li>Tyndale, Sharon, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_371">371</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_U" name="IX_U">U.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li><span class="sc">Una</span>, Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_46">46</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_246">246</a>.</li>
<li>Uncle Tom's Cabin, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_102">102</a>.</li>
<li>Underhill, Sarah E., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_308">308</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_313">313</a></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>United States a nation? Is the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_529">529</a>.</li>
<li>Updegraff, W. W., Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_250">250</a>.</li>
<li>Upham, Hon. Charles W., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_210">210</a>.</li>
<li>Underwood, John C., iii, <a href="#Page_823">823</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;tribute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_538">538</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_640">640</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Utah</span>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_325">325</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_V" name="IX_V">V.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Van Cleve, Charlotte O., iii, <a href="#Page_653">653</a>.</li>
<li>Van Lew, Elizabeth, postmaster at Richmond, iii, <a href="#Page_824">824</a>.</li>
<li>Van Pelt, Maggie, journalist, iii, <a href="#Page_629">629</a>.</li>
<li>Van Valkenburg, Ellen Rand, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_600">600</a>.</li>
<li>Van Voorhis, John, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_692">692</a>-697.</li>
<li>Vassar College, iii, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>.</li>
<li>Vaughan, Mary C., speech on temperance, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_476">476</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Vermont</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_171">171</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_383">383</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;homestead law, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_172">172</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;St. Andrew's letter, iii, <a href="#Page_384">384</a>, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;University opens to women, iii, <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage amendment, Reed's report, iii, <a href="#Page_385">385</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>Vermont Watchman</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_386">386</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1011" id="Page_1011">[Pg 1011]</a></span>Vest, Senator, on woman suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_199">199</a>, <a href="#Page_203">203</a>.</li>
<li>Vice, legalization of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_795">795</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_796">796</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_145">145</a>, <a href="#Page_397">397</a>.</li>
<li>Vicksburg, naval attack on, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_11">11</a>.</li>
<li>Virginia, iii, <a href="#Page_823">823</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Woman Suffrage Association, iii, <a href="#Page_823">823</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Voltaire, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_658">658</a>.</li>
<li>Voris, A. C., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_837">837</a>.</li>
<li>Vote, first woman to cast a, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_586">586</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;first woman to claim the right, iii, <a href="#Page_815">815</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Mrs. Gage attempted to, iii, <a href="#Page_406">406</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman earned her right to, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_89">89</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;in Scotland, iii, <a href="#Page_871">871</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reports of voting in New York, iii, <a href="#Page_429">429</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;voted with Miss Anthony, list of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_647">647</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;voted in New Jersey, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_448">448</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_476">476</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;voting in 1776, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_33">33</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;persons entitled to, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_272">272</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Voted, 1867, Lily Maxwell, iii, <a href="#Page_981">981</a>.</li>
<li>Voters, qualification of, T. W. Higginson's speech, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_249">249</a>.</li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_W" name="IX_W">W.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Wade, Benjamin, F., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_9">9</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_117">117</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>J. S. Griffing, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_34">34</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_123">123</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;remarks to Anna Ella Carroll, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_9">9</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letters to Miss Carroll, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_866">866</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_867">867</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Wadsworth, L. A., iii, <a href="#Page_352">352</a>.</li>
<li>Wait, Anna C., iii, <a href="#Page_696">696</a>, <a href="#Page_709">709</a>.</li>
<li>Waite, Catharine V., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_601">601</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_571">571</a>.</li>
<li>Waite, Chas. B., iii, <a href="#Page_569">569</a>.</li>
<li>Waite, Jessie T., argument before House committee, iii, <a href="#Page_161">161</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;report of National Convention, iii, <a href="#Page_254">254</a>-260.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Waite, M. R., iii, <a href="#Page_505">505</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Supreme Court opinion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_734">734</a>-742.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Waldo, Peter, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_27">27</a>.</li>
<li>Walker, Dr. Mary, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_20">20</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_813">813</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_103">103</a>.</li>
<li>Wall, Sarah E., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_636">636</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_310">310</a>.</li>
<li>Wallace, W. D., iii, <a href="#Page_540">540</a>, <a href="#Page_966">966</a>.</li>
<li>Wallace, Zerelda G., iii, <a href="#Page_536">536</a>-7, <a href="#Page_539">539</a>-40, <a href="#Page_551">551</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;argument before Senate com., iii, <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to S. B. Anthony, iii, <a href="#Page_257">257</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Walling, Mrs. M. C., speech in U. S. Senate, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_327">327</a>.</li>
<li>Walter, Cornelia, iii, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li>
<li>War, woman's patriotism in, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_1">1</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_863">863</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_596">596</a>, <a href="#Page_631">631</a>.</li>
<li>Warn Kate, iii, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>.</li>
<li>Warner, Esther L., iii, <a href="#Page_693">693</a>.</li>
<li>Warren, Mercy, Otis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_31">31</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>.</li>
<li>Washington Conventions (see Conventions)
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;(see also District of Columbia).</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><i>Washington Evening Star</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_97">97</a>.</li>
<li><i>Washington Sunday Chronicle</i>, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_599">599</a>.</li>
<li>Washington, George, letter to ladies of Trenton, N. J., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_447">447</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Washington</span> Territory, iii, <a href="#Page_786">786</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;women enfranchised, iii, <a href="#Page_776">776</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Watterson, Henry, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_861">861</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_862">862</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_182">182</a>.</li>
<li>Wattles, John O., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_189">189</a>.</li>
<li>Wattles, Susan E., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_255">255</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_697">697</a>.</li>
<li>Way, Amanda M., iii, <a href="#Page_533">533</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;legislative hearing, iii, <a href="#Page_539">539</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;reminiscences, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_306">306</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_311">311</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Weber, Helene Marie, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_41">41</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;letter to M. A. Spofford, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_825">825</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Webster, Rev. D. L., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_114">114</a>.</li>
<li>Webster, Sarah E., suit, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_587">587</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Chief-Justice Cartter's opinion, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_597">597</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Weed, Thurlow, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_720">720</a>.</li>
<li>Weld, Angelina Grimké, on organizations, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_540">540</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;speech, Loyal Women's Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_54">54</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech, Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_60">60</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_282">282</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Weld, Theodore, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_392">392</a>.</li>
<li>Wells, Charlotte Fowler, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_45">45</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_435">435</a>.</li>
<li>Wendt, Mathilda F., iii, <a href="#Page_405">405</a>.</li>
<li>Wendte, W. C., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_855">855</a>.</li>
<li>Wenthworth, Elizabeth R., iii, <a href="#Page_643">643</a>.</li>
<li>Wesley, John, on witchcraft, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_765">765</a>.</li>
<li>Wesley, Susannah, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_790">790</a>.</li>
<li>Weston, Hannah and Rebecca, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_203">203</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">West Virginia</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_824">824</a>.</li>
<li>Wheatly, Phillis, colored, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_205">205</a>.</li>
<li>Wheeler, L. May, iii, <a href="#Page_659">659</a>.</li>
<li>Whipple, E. P., views of George Eliot, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_791">791</a>.</li>
<li>White, Andrew D., iii, <a href="#Page_398">398</a>, <a href="#Page_528">528</a>.</li>
<li>White, Bessie Heagen, pharmacy, iii, <a href="#Page_820">820</a>.</li>
<li>White, Laura R., architect, iii, <a href="#Page_820">820</a>.</li>
<li>White, Richard Grant, on the word "citizen," ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_567">567</a>.</li>
<li>Whitehead, Wm. A., paper on woman suffrage, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_447">447</a>.</li>
<li>Whiting, Lilian, iii, <a href="#Page_303">303</a>.</li>
<li>Whiting, N. H., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_861">861</a>.</li>
<li>Whitman, Sarah Helen, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_433">433</a>.</li>
<li>Whittier, John G., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_83">83</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_520">520</a>.</li>
<li>Wife ownership, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_772">772</a>.</li>
<li>Wigham, Eliza, iii, <a href="#Page_852">852</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Wilbour</span>, Charlotte B., iii, <a href="#Page_396">396</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;organized Sorosis, iii, <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President New York City Society, iii, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;remarks at Washington Convention, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_421">421</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_424">424</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Corresponding Secretary Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_80">80</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Wilbur, Hervey Backus, iii, <a href="#Page_421">421</a>.</li>
<li>Wilcox, Hamilton, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_346">346</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_441">441</a>, <a href="#Page_959">959</a>.</li>
<li>Wildman, John R., iii, <a href="#Page_457">457</a>.</li>
<li>Willard, Emma, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_36">36</a>.</li>
<li>Willard, Frances E., iii, <a href="#Page_104">104</a>, <a href="#Page_578">578</a>, <a href="#Page_587">587</a>, <a href="#Page_660">660</a>.</li>
<li>Willard, Judge John, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_750">750</a>.</li>
<li>Will of Bridget Smith, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_563">563</a>.</li>
<li>Williams, George, iii, <a href="#Page_774">774</a>.</li>
<li>Williams, Nellie, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_48">48</a>.</li>
<li>Williams, Sarah Langdon, iii, <a href="#Page_503">503</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;<i>The Ballot-Box</i>, iii, <a href="#Page_51">51</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Williams, Senator, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_108">108</a>.</li>
<li>Willing, Mrs. J. F., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_368">368</a>.</li>
<li>Willis (see Olympia Brown).</li>
<li>Wilson, Elizabeth, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_103">103</a>.</li>
<li>Wilson, Hannah, iii, <a href="#Page_697">697</a>.</li>
<li>Wilson, Henry, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_113">113</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_128">128</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_322">322</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_390">390</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_267">267</a>.</li>
<li>Winchell, Charlotte, S., career of, iii, <a href="#Page_653">653</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Wisconsin</span>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_178">178</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_290">290</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_638">638</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Conventions <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1012" id="Page_1012">[Pg 1012]</a></span>(see Conventions)</li>
  <li>&mdash;legislation, iii, <a href="#Page_638">638</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Shole's report, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_315">315</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;report of David Noggle, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_867">867</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married women, rights of, iii, <a href="#Page_638">638</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Milwaukee Female College, iii, <a href="#Page_643">643</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State Association, iii, <a href="#Page_645">645</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;State University, iii, <a href="#Page_643">643</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;statutes, modification of, iii, <a href="#Page_639">639</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage amendment, iii, <a href="#Page_644">644</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;temperance question, iii, <a href="#Page_645">645</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women as lawyers, iii, <a href="#Page_648">648</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;voters, iii, <a href="#Page_640">640</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Wise, Mary E., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_869">869</a>.</li>
<li>Witchcraft, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_759">759</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_764">764</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_765">765</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_766">766</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_767">767</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_768">768</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_769">769</a>.</li>
<li>Wives in Russia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_773">773</a>.</li>
<li>Wives, sale of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_792">792</a>.</li>
<li>Wizards, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_766">766</a>.</li>
<li>Wolcott, Laura Ross, graduated medical college i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_389">389</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;organized Wisconsin State Society, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_374">374</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, iii, <a href="#Page_638">638</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;National Convention, Milwaukee, iii, <a href="#Page_184">184</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Wollstonecraft, Mary, eulogy of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_126">126</a>-7
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;"Rights of Women," i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_34">34</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Wollstenholme, Mrs. Almy, with Mrs. Jacob Bright, iii, <a href="#Page_893">893</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Woman</span>, advice of men, warned against, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_268">268</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Anglo-Saxon laws, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_863">863</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;army, in the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_290">290</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;bar, admissions to, iii, <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, <a href="#Page_355">355</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;British Parliament, in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_30">30</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;census enumerators, first appointments, iii, <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;church poll, at the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_781">781</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;civil service, in, iii, <a href="#Page_306">306</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;clinical instruction, Pennsylvania University, iii, <a href="#Page_448">448</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;coeducation, statistics, iii, <a href="#Page_496">496</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;colleges, and the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_541">541</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;colleges, in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_144">144</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;college in Evanston, Illinois, iii, <a href="#Page_578">578</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;congress organized in New York, iii, <a href="#Page_411">411</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;degradation of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_791">791</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_794">794</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;emancipation, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_29">29</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;employment of, in insane asylums, iii, <a href="#Page_421">421</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;employments, varied capacity for, iii, <a href="#Page_406">406</a>, <a href="#Page_572">572</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;excluded as delegates, Anti-slavery Convention, London, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_60">60</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;chronological table of successive steps in England, iii, <a href="#Page_980">980</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;history of, in three pictures;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>under Hindoo laws, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_863">863</a>;</li>
    <li>under Anglo-Saxon laws, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_863">863</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_864">864</a>;</li>
    <li>under Signs of the Times, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_865">865</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_866">866</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;illiteracy of, iii, <a href="#Page_372">372</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;inventions by, iii, <a href="#Page_632">632</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;jury, on, iii, <a href="#Page_731">731</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>list of the first grand, iii, <a href="#Page_738">738</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas, of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_642">642</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;labor performed in Christian countries, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_792">792</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;laborer, unpaid, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_28">28</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legal disabilities, removed of, iii, <a href="#Page_893">893</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;legal rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_107">107</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;list of names of friends in California, iii, <a href="#Page_977">977</a>-80;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>list of names of friends in Minnesota, iii, <a href="#Page_973">973</a>-80</li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_3">3</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>address to Abraham Lincoln, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>;</li>
    <li>anniversary of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_80">80</a>;</li>
    <li>letters in response to a call for a meeting, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_875">875</a>;</li>
    <li>petition, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_78">78</a>;</li>
    <li>platform, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_891">891</a>;</li>
    <li>press comments, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_893">893</a>;</li>
    <li>resolutions, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_84">84</a>;</li>
    <li>secretary's report, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_80">80</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;married, act relative to rights of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_618">618</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married, laws regarding, iii, <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married, and their legal status, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_642">642</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;married, property rights of, iii, <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;marry, will the coming, iii, <a href="#Page_723">723</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;national protection, claim, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_531">531</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;naval heroines, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_21">21</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;official position, first appointed to, in New York, iii, <a href="#Page_417">417</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Ohio, protest against enfranchisement, iii, <a href="#Page_494">494</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;outrages, 1880, in Ireland, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_794">794</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;pharmacy, 379, 820, 980</li>
  <li>&mdash;physician, first, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_260">260</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;physicians in insane asylums, as, iii, <a href="#Page_473">473</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;politics, in, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_277">277</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_304">304</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;preachers, as, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_784">784</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;professions, in the, iii, <a href="#Page_706">706</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;property rights, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_38">38</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_64">64</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_146">146</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_256">256</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_296">296</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_770">770</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;property rights granted, iii, <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;public affairs, why meddle in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_109">109</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;revolution, in the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_31">31</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_201">201</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_321">321</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_444">444</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Roman law, under i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_754">754</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school of design, Philadelphia, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_390">390</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school boards, on, iii, <a href="#Page_892">892</a>, <a href="#Page_981">981</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school officers, bill passed New York Legislature, iii, <a href="#Page_417">417</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>vetoed by Gov. Robinson, iii, <a href="#Page_418">418</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;school officers, made so in Illinois, iii, <a href="#Page_575">575</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;science and literature, degraded in, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_790">790</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sermon to, Rev. Knox Little's, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_782">782</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sin, Original, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_756">756</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;slaves, legislated for as, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_772">772</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;social evolution of, iii, <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;social relations, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_233">233</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sold with cattle in Pennsylvania, iii, <a href="#Page_445">445</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;soldiers, as, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_18">18</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_889">889</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sphere, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_76">76</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_93">93</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_148">148</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_265">265</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_317">317</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_522">522</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_660">660</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_662">662</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_694">694</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_713">713</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_716">716</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_62">62</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_163">163</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_779">779</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;spy, anecdote, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_323">323</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;subordination, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_780">780</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Evarts in the Beecher-Tilton trial upon, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_789">789</a>;</li>
    <li>sermon by Rev. A. H. Strong, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_787">787</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;Supreme Court opened to, iii, <a href="#Page_138">138</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Senator Hoar's speech, iii, <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;torture of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_26">26</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_766">766</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_768">768</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;type-setters, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_585">585</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;wardens, iii, <a href="#Page_893">893</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;work, statistics, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_267">267</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;work done by, iii, <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;work and wages, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_78">78</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_589">589</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;working, of Boston, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_389">389</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;working, seats in shops, iii, <a href="#Page_433">433</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Woman Suffrage</span>, (see Suffrage Gained);
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;appeals, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_588">588</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_856">856</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_858">858</a>; ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_168">168</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_247">247</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_364">364</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;arguments in favor of, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_349">349</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Bible argument, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_374">374</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>Bible, and the, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_380">380</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_535">535</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;complaints, 1869, the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_323">323</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;debate between Anna Dickinson and R. L. Collier, iii, <a href="#Page_567">567</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Democratic National Convention, letters and delegates, iii, <a href="#Page_22">22</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;discussion at Woman's National Loyal League, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_59">59</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;England, Gen. Butler's report in, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_465">465</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_466">466</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_467">467</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;essay, in <i>Westminster Review</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_225">225</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Equal Rights Association organized, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_173">173</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Fifth Avenue conference, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_427">427</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Kansas, report of Judiciary Franchise Committee, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_194">194</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;<i>National Association</i> organized, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_400">400</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>address to President Hayes, iii, <a href="#Page_129">129</a>;</li>
    <li>appeal, Mrs. Hooker's, to women of the United <span class="pagenum"><a name="Page_1013" id="Page_1013">[Pg 1013]</a></span>States, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_485">485</a>;</li>
    <li>appeal to women, Grant and Wilson Presidential campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_517">517</a>;</li>
    <li>Congressional Committee grant hearings, iii, <a href="#Page_75">75</a>;</li>
    <li>constitution and officers, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_401">401</a>, iii, <a href="#Page_955">955</a>-6;</li>
    <li>letter to Berlin Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_404">404</a>;</li>
    <li>delegates to Berlin, ii,  <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_406">406</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York and Boston wings, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_406">406</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;New York City society, iii, <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;opponents, iii, <a href="#Page_570">570</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;organ, need of an, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_378">378</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;periods, most trying, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_319">319</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;petitions in many States, one year's work, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_869">869</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;power of legislature to extend suffrage, iii, <a href="#Page_959">959</a>-6</li>
  <li>&mdash;presidential suffrage iii, <a href="#Page_966">966</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;principles, mode of disseminating, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_379">379</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;progress made, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_905">905</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;"Fair Play," from Rev. Wm. H. Channing, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_611">611</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Second Decade celebration, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_427">427</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Third Decade Celebration, iii, <a href="#Page_117">117</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;subscriptions, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_923">923</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sympathizers, celebrated, iii, <a href="#Page_233">233</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><i>Woman's Journal</i>, Lucy Stone editor, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_819">819</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_820">820</a>; iii, <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, <a href="#Page_297">297</a>, <a href="#Page_388">388</a>.</li>
<li>"Woman's Kingdom," <i>Chicago Inter-Ocean</i>, Mrs. Harbert, editor, iii, <a href="#Page_583">583</a>.</li>
<li><i>Woman's Review, English</i>, Caroline Ashurst Biggs, editor, iii, <a href="#Page_120">120</a>, <a href="#Page_970">970</a>.</li>
<li><i>Women's Suffrage Journal</i>, Lydia E. Becker, editor, iii, <a href="#Page_850">850</a>, <a href="#Page_852">852</a>, <a href="#Page_880">880</a>, <a href="#Page_981">981</a>.</li>
<li><i>Woman's Tribune</i>, Mrs. Colby, editor, iii, <a href="#Page_695">695</a>.</li>
<li>Wood, Bradford R., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_500">500</a>.</li>
<li>Wood, Rev. Jeremiah, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_690">690</a>.</li>
<li>Wood, S. N., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_200">200</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;Kansas campaign, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_230">230</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_232">232</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_233">233</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_234">234</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_236">236</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_250">250</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_251">251</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_252">252</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_254">254</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Woodall, William, iii, <a href="#Page_877">877</a>.</li>
<li>Woodhull, Victoria C., memorial to Congress, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_443">443</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;memorial supported in a speech by A. G. Riddle, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_448">448</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorial, House majority report, iii, <a href="#Page_461">461</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;memorial, House minority report, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_464">464</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech before Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_444">444</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Woolson, Abba G., ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_832">832</a>.</li>
<li>Wooster, Wilder M., iii, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>.</li>
<li>Worden, Mrs., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_462">462</a>.</li>
<li>Wright, Elizur, letter to Paulina W. Davis, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_217">217</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Wright</span>, Frances, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_44">44</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_52">52</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;editor, <i>Free Enquirer</i>, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_296">296</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Owen, Robert Dale, and, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_293">293</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_1">1</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;sketch of, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_35">35</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_429">429</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>tribute, Mrs. Rose's, i, 692.</li>
    </ul></li>
  </ul></li>
<li>Wright, Henry C., letter to Garrison, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_310">310</a>.</li>
<li><span class="sc">Wright</span>, Martha C., i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_67">67</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_69">69</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_376">376</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_429">429</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_462">462</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_519">519</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_522">522</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_535">535</a>, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_744">744</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;May Anniversary, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_545">545</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President Cincinnati Convention, made, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_163">163</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;President N. Y. State Society, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_623">623</a>; presided, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_628">628</a>-31</li>
  <li>&mdash;thanks Rev. Sam'l Longfellow, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_716">716</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;portrait, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_640">640</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Equal Rights Association, on the, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_175">175</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;letter to Pillsbury, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_240">240</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28020/28020-h/28020-h.htm#Page_689">689</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;tribute, ii, <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/28039/28039-h/28039-h.htm#Page_582">582</a>-3.</li>
  </ul></li>
<li><span class="sc">Wyoming</span>, iii, <a href="#Page_726">726</a>
  <ul class="IX">
  <li>&mdash;act to protect property rights of married women, iii, <a href="#Page_728">728</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;election, first, iii, <a href="#Page_729">729</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;election under woman suffrage, first, iii, <a href="#Page_738">738</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;jury, women on, iii, <a href="#Page_731">731</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>list of the first grand, iii, <a href="#Page_738">738</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;press, iii, <a href="#Page_745">745</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;school law, iii, <a href="#Page_728">728</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;Sunday laws enforced, iii, <a href="#Page_734">734</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;suffrage bill signed by Gov. Campbell, iii, <a href="#Page_731">731</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;territory organized, iii, <a href="#Page_729">729</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;women granted citizenship, iii, <a href="#Page_726">726</a></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage act, Legislature votes to repeal, iii, <a href="#Page_741">741</a>;
    <ul class="IX">
    <li>bill vetoed, iii, <a href="#Page_741">741</a></li>
    </ul></li>
  <li>&mdash;woman suffrage respected, iii, <a href="#Page_744">744</a>.</li>
  </ul></li>
</ul>

<h3><a id="IX_Y" name="IX_Y">Y.</a></h3>

<ul class="IX">
<li>Yocum, A. P., iii, <a href="#Page_691">691</a>.</li>
<li>Yount, A. K., iii, <a href="#Page_718">718</a>.</li>
</ul>
</div>
</html>