Produced by Richard J. Shiffer and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net





[Transcriber's Note: Every effort has been made to replicate this
text as faithfully as possible, including obsolete and variant
spellings and other inconsistencies. Text that has been changed to
correct an obvious error is noted at the end of this ebook.

Also, many occurrences of mismatched single and double quotes
remain as they were in the original.]




[Illustration: Phoebe W. Couzins.]




  HISTORY

  of

  WOMAN SUFFRAGE.


  EDITED BY


  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON,
            SUSAN B. ANTHONY, AND
                        MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.


  ILLUSTRATED WITH STEEL ENGRAVINGS.


  _IN THREE VOLUMES._


  VOL. III.

  1876-1885.


  "WOMEN ARE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES, ENTITLED TO ALL
       THE RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES GUARANTEED
          TO CITIZENS BY THE NATIONAL CONSTITUTION."


  SUSAN B. ANTHONY,
  17 MADISON ST., ROCHESTER, N. Y.


  Copyright, 1886, by SUSAN B. ANTHONY.




PREFACE.


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.

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.

For the completion of this work we are indebted to Eliza Jackson
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.

The three volumes now completed we leave as a precious heritage
to coming generations; precious, because they so clearly
illustrate--in her ability to reason, her deeds of heroism and her
sublime self-sacrifice--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.

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
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.

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.

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 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.

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--the
ballot--which makes every citizen who holds it a full-armed
monitor"?




LIST OF ENGRAVINGS.

VOL. III.


  PHOEBE W. COUZINS         _Frontispiece._
  MARILLA M. RICKER                 page 112
  FRANCES E. WILLARD                     129
  JANE H. SPOFFORD                       192
  HARRIET H. ROBINSON                    273
  PHEBE A. HANAFORD                      337
  ARMENIA S. WHITE                       369
  LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE                  417
  RACHEL G. FOSTER                       465
  CORNELIA C. HUSSEY                     481
  MAY WRIGHT SEWALL                      545
  ELIZABETH BOYNTON HARBERT              592
  SARAH BURGER STEARNS                   656
  CLARA BEWICK COLBY                     689
  HELEN M. GOUGAR                        704
  LAURA DEFORCE GORDON                   753
  ABIGAIL SCOTT DUNIWAY                  769
  CAROLINE E. MERRICK                    801
  MARY B. CLAY                           817
  MENTIA TAYLOR                          833
  PRISCILLA BRIGHT MCLAREN               864
  GEORGE SAND                            896




CONTENTS.

                                                                  PAGE

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CENTENNIAL YEAR--1876.

The Dawn of the New Century--Washington Convention--Congressional
Hearing--Woman's Protest--May Anniversary--Centennial Parlors in
Philadelphia--Letters and Delegates to Presidential
Conventions--50,000 Documents sent out--The Centennial Autograph
Book--The Fourth of July--Independence Square--Susan B. Anthony
reads the Declaration of Rights--Convention in Dr. Furness' Church,
Lucretia Mott, Presiding--The Hutchinson Family, John and Asa--The
Twenty-eighth Anniversary, July 19, Edward M. Davis,
Presiding--Letters, Ernestine L. Rose, Clarina I. H. Nichols--The
_Ballot-Box_--Retrospect--The Woman's Pavilion                       1


CHAPTER XXVIII.

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS, HEARINGS AND REPORTS.

1877-1878-1879.

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


CHAPTER XXIX.

CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS AND CONVENTIONS.

1880-1881.

Why we Hold Conventions in Washington--Lincoln Hall
Demonstration--Sixty-six Thousand Appeals--Petitions Presented in
Congress--Hon. T. W. Ferry of Michigan in the Senate--Hon. Geo. B.
Loring of Massachusetts in the House--Hon. J. J. Davis of North
Carolina Objected--Twelfth Washington Convention--Hearings before
the Judiciary Committee of both Houses, 1880--May Anniversary at
Indianapolis--Series of Western Conventions--Presidential
Nominating Conventions--Delegates and Addresses to
each--Mass-Meeting at Chicago--Washington Convention,
1881--Memorial Service to Lucretia Mott--Mrs. Stanton's
Eulogy--Discussion in the Senate on a Standing Committee--Senator
McDonald of Indiana Champions the Measure--May Anniversary in
Boston--Conventions in the chief cities of New England             150


CHAPTER XXX.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND CONVENTIONS.

1882-1883.

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


CHAPTER XXXI.

MASSACHUSETTS.

The Woman's Hour--Lydia Maria Child Petitions Congress--First New
England Convention--The New England, American and Massachusetts
Associations--_Woman's Journal_--Bishop Gilbert Haven--The
Centennial Tea-Party--County Societies--Concord
Convention--Thirtieth Anniversary of the Worcester
Convention--School Suffrage Association--Legislative Hearing--First
Petitions--The Remonstrants Appear--Women in Politics--Campaign of
1872--Great Meeting in Tremont Temple--Women at the
Polls--Provisions of Former State Constitutions--Petitions,
1853--School-Committee Suffrage, 1879,--Women Threatened with
Arrest--Changes in the Laws--Woman Now Owns her own
Clothing--Harvard Annex--Woman in the Professions--Samuel E. Sewall
and William I. Bowditch--Supreme-Court Decisions--Sarah E.
Wall--Francis Jackson--Julia Ward Howe--Mary E. Stevens--Lucia M.
Peabody--Lelia Josephine Robinson--Eliza (Jackson) Eddy's Will     265


CHAPTER XXXII.

CONNECTICUT.

Prudence Crandall--Eloquent Reformers--Petitions for Suffrage--The
Committee's Report--Frances Ellen Burr--Isabella Beecher Hooker's
Reminiscences--Anna Dickinson in the Republican Campaign--State
Society Formed October 28, 29, 1869--Enthusiastic Convention in
Hartford--Governor Marshall Jewell--He recommends More Liberal Laws
for Women--Society Formed in New Haven, 1871--Governor Hubbard's
Inaugural, 1877--Samuel Bowles of the _Springfield
Republican_--Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Chaplain, 1870--John Hooker,
Esq., Champions the Suffrage Movement--The Smith Sisters--Mary
Hall--Chief-Justice Park--Frances Ellen Burr--Hartford Equal Rights
Club                                                               316


CHAPTER XXXIII.

RHODE ISLAND.

Senator Anthony in _North American Review_--Convention in
Providence--State Association organized, Paulina Wright Davis,
President--Report of Elizabeth B. Chase--Women on School
Boards--Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional
Institutions--Dr. Wm. F. Channing--Miss Ida Lewis--Letter of
Frederick A. Hinckley--Last Words of Senator Anthony 339


CHAPTER XXXIV.

MAINE.

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


CHAPTER XXXV.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

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


CHAPTER XXXVI.

VERMONT.

Clarina Howard Nichols--Council of Censors--Amending the
Constitution--St. Andrew's Letter--Mr. Reed's Report--Convention
Called--H. B. Blackwell on the _Vermont Watchman_--Mary A.
Livermore in the _Woman's Journal_--Sarah A. Gibbs' Reply to Rev.
Mr. Holmes--School Suffrage, 1880 383


CHAPTER XXXVII.

NEW YORK--1860-1885.

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


CHAPTER XXXVIII.

PENNSYLVANIA.

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


CHAPTER XXXIX.

NEW JERSEY.

Women Voted in the Early Days--Deprived of the Right by Legislative
Enactment in 1807--Women Demand the Restoration of Their Rights in
1868--At the Polls in Vineland and Roseville Park--Lucy Stone
Agitates the Question--State Suffrage Society Organized in
1867--Conventions--A Memorial to the Legislature--Mary F.
Davis--Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford--Political Science Club-- Mrs.
Cornelia C. Hussey--Orange Club, 1870--Mrs. Devereux Blake gives
the Oration, July 4, 1884--Dr. Elizabeth Blackwell's Letter--The
Laws of New Jersey in Regard to Property and
Divorce--Constitutional Commission, 1873--Trial of Rev. Isaac M.
See--Women Preaching in his Pulpit--The Case Appealed--Mrs. Jones,
Jailoress--Legislative Hearings                                    476


CHAPTER XL.

OHIO.

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


CHAPTER XLI.

MICHIGAN.

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


CHAPTER XLII.

INDIANA.

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


CHAPTER XLIII.

ILLINOIS.

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


CHAPTER XLIV.

MISSOURI.

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


CHAPTER XLV.

IOWA.

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


CHAPTER XLVI.

WISCONSIN.

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


CHAPTER XLVII.

MINNESOTA.

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


CHAPTER XLVIII.

DAKOTA.

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


CHAPTER XLIX.

NEBRASKA.

Clara Bewick Colby--Nebraska Came into the Possession of the United
States, 1803--The Home of the Dakotas--Organized as a Territory,
1854--Territorial Legislature--Mrs. Amelia Bloomer Addresses the
House--Gen. Wm. Larimer, 1856--A Bill to Confer Suffrage on
Women--Passed the House--Lost in the Senate--Constitution
Harmonized with the Fourteenth Amendment--Admitted as a State March
1, 1867--Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony Lecture in the State,
1867--Mrs. Tracy Cutler, 1870--Mrs. Esther L. Warner's
Letter--Constitutional Convention, 1871--Woman Suffrage Amendment
Submitted--Lost by 12,676 against, 3,502 for--Prolonged
Discussion--Constitutional Convention, 1875--Grasshoppers Devastate
the Country--_Inter-Ocean_, Mrs. Harbert--Omaha _Republican_,
1876--Woman's Column Edited by Mrs. Harriet S. Brooks--"Woman's
Kingdom"--State Society Formed, January 19, 1881, Mrs. Brooks
President--Mrs. Dinsmoor, Mrs. Colby, Mrs. Brooks, before the
Legislature--Amendment again Submitted--Active Canvass of the
State, 1882--First Convention of the State Association--Charles F.
Manderson--Unreliable Politicians--An Unfair Count of Votes for
Woman Suffrage--Amendment Defeated--Conventions in Omaha--Notable
Women in the State--Conventions--_Woman's Tribune_ Established in
1883                                                               670


CHAPTER L.

KANSAS.

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


CHAPTER LI.

COLORADO.

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


CHAPTER LII.

WYOMING.

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


CHAPTER LIII.

CALIFORNIA.

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


CHAPTER LIV.

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.

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


CHAPTER LV.

LOUISIANA--TEXAS--ARKANSAS--MISSISSIPPI.

St. Anna's Asylum, Managed by Women--Constitutional Convention,
1879--Women Petition--Clara Merrick Guthrie--Petition Referred to
Committee on Suffrage--A Hearing Granted--Mrs. Keating--Mrs.
Saxon--Mrs. Merrick--Col. John M. Sandige--Efforts of the Women all
in Vain--Action in 1885--Gov. McEnery--The _Daily Picayune_--Women
as Members of the School Board--Physiology in the Schools--Miss
Eliza Rudolph--Mrs. E. J. Nicholson--Judge Merrick's Digest of
Laws--Texas--Arkansas--Mississippi--Sarah A. Dorsey                789


CHAPTER LV. (CONTINUED).

DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA--MARYLAND--DELAWARE--KENTUCKY--TENNESSEE--VIRGINIA--WEST
VIRGINIA--NORTH CAROLINA--SOUTH
CAROLINA--FLORIDA--ALABAMA--GEORGIA.

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


CHAPTER LV. (CONCLUDED).

CANADA.

Miss Phelps of St. Catharines--The Revolt of the Thirteen
Colonies--First Parliament--Property Rights of Married
Women--School Suffrage Thirty Years--Municipal Suffrage, 1882,
1884--Women Voting in Toronto, 1886--Mrs. Curzon--Dr. Emily H.
Stone--Woman's Literary Club of Toronto--Nova Scotia--New
Brunswick--Miss Harriet Stewart                                    831


CHAPTER LVI.

GREAT BRITAIN.

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


CHAPTER LVII.

CONTINENTAL EUROPE.

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


CHAPTER LVIII.

REMINISCENCES.

BY E. C. S.                                                        922


Appendix                                                           955


INDEX                                                              985




CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CENTENNIAL YEAR--1876.

     The Dawn of the New Century--Washington Convention--Congressional
     Hearing--Woman's Protest--May Anniversary--Centennial Parlors in
     Philadelphia--Letters and Delegates to Presidential
     Conventions--50,000 Documents sent out--The Centennial Autograph
     Book--The Fourth of July--Independence Square--Susan B. Anthony
     reads the Declaration of Rights--Convention in Dr. Furness'
     Church, Lucretia Mott, Presiding--The Hutchinson Family, John and
     Asa--The Twenty-eighth Anniversary, July 19, Edward M. Davis,
     Presiding--Letters, Ernestine L. Rose, Clarina I. H. Nichols--The
     _Ballot-Box_--Retrospect--The Woman's Pavilion.


During 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.

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."

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 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.

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.

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.[1] Woman's achievements in art, science and
industry would necessarily be recognized in 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:

     CALL FOR THE EIGHTH ANNUAL WASHINGTON CONVENTION.--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.

     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.

     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.

                 MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _President_, Fayetteville, N. Y.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Ch'n Ex. Com._, Rochester, N. Y.

At the opening session of this convention the president, Matilda
Joslyn Gage, said:

     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.

     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--fit slaves
     of a powerful ring.

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

     _To the Political Sovereigns of the United States in Independence
     Hall assembled:_

     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--the ballot; because it has been deaf to our
     appeals, our petitions and our prayers;

     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.

Letters[2] were read and a series of resolutions were discussed and
adopted:

          _Resolved_, That the demand for woman suffrage is but the
          next step in the great movement which began with _Magna
          Charta_, and which has ever since tended toward vesting
          government in the whole body of the people.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

     BELVA A. LOCKWOOD 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 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.

     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--the
     _Leader_--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.

     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
     _vs._ 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.

     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 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.

     SARA ANDREWS SPENCER 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."

     REV. OLYMPIA BROWN, 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--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.

     Hon. FREDERICK DOUGLASS 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.

     Miss PHOEBE COUZINS of St. Louis reviewed in an able manner the
     decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Virginia L. Minor.

     Mrs. DEVEREUX BLAKE 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--paying taxes, serving
     on jury, and military service--she said 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.

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:

                              IN THE SENATE, Tuesday, January 25, 1876.

     Mr. SARGENT: 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.

     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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Is there objection? The chair hears
     none, and the secretary will report the petition. The secretary
     read:

          _To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
          States in Congress assembled:_

          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 _vs._ The Board of
          Registration, and Webster _vs._ 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 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,

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

     Mr. SARGEANT: 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The petition will be referred to the
     Committee on the District of Columbia.

               IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Friday, March 31, 1876.

     Mr. COX: 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 _Record_.

     Mr. BANKS: 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.

     Mr. KASSON: I suggest that the memorial be printed without the
     names.

     Mr. COX: 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.

     Mr. HENDEE: 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 _Record_.

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.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, of New York, said: _Mr. Chairman and
     Gentlemen of the Committee_: 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:

          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, * * * * * to make
          all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying
          into execution the foregoing powers.

     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 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?

     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.

     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.

     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."

     These principles are:

     _First_--The natural rights of each individual.

     _Second_--The exact equality of these rights.

     _Third_--That rights not delegated are retained by the
     individual.

     _Fourth_--That no person shall exercise the rights of others
     without delegated authority.

     _Fifth_--That non-use of rights does not destroy them.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     Mrs. SARA ANDREWS SPENCER, Secretary of the District of Columbia
     Woman's Franchise Association, said: For no legal or political
     right I 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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--the social evil--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:

          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.

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

          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.

     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.

     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.

     There is not an interest in this District that is not as vital to
     me as to any man in Washington--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!

     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 _his_ head; his body is _his_
     body; his feet are _his_ 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?"

     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:

          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.

     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:

          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.

     Therefore the honorable gentleman denies them the right to vote.

     Upon the civil rights bill, Senator Howe said:

          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.

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

          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.

     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:

          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.

     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"--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."

     And here on this national soil, for the women of this District of
     Columbia--your peculiar wards--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.

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.

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, 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:

     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.[3] 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.

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[4] as will be seen by the following
correspondence:

     _To the President and Officers of the Carpenter Company of
     Philadelphia:_

     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.

     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.

     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,

               I am respectfully yours,         MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE,
               _President of the National Woman Suffrage Association._

Two months afterward, the following reply was received:

                              HALL, CARPENTER COURT, 322 Chestnut St.,}
                                         PHILADELPHIA, April 24, 1876.}

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _President of the Woman Suffrage
     Association_:

     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.

     [Extract of minutes].            GEORGE WATSON, _Secretary_.

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.

In the midst of these preparations the usual May anniversary was
held:

     CALL FOR THE MAY ANNIVERSARY, 1876.--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.

     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.

     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.

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

                                   MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _President_.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

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 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[5] for the centennial year were chosen and a campaign[6]
and congressional[7] committee appointed to take charge of affairs
at Philadelphia and Washington. The resolutions show the general
drift of the discussions:[8]

     WHEREAS, The right of self-government inheres in the individual
     before governments are founded, constitutions framed, or courts
     created; and

     WHEREAS, 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

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, 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

     WHEREAS, 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 WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, That the women of this nation, in 1876, have greater
     cause for discontent, rebellion and revolution, than the men of
     1776.

     _Resolved_, 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."

     WHEREAS, 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

     WHEREAS, This government is false to its underlying principles in
     denying to women the only means of self-government, the ballot;
     and

     WHEREAS, One-half of the citizens of this nation, after a century
     of boasted liberty, are still political slaves; therefore,

     _Resolved_, That we protest against calling the present
     centennial celebration a celebration of the independence of the
     people of the United States.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, 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.

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 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--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.

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 _feme sole_, 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:

                         NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE PARLORS,            }
                            1,431 Chestnut Street, PHILADELPHIA, PA. }

     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
     condition. In addition to the parlor gatherings, meetings and
     conventions will be held during the season in various halls and
     churches throughout the city.

     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.

     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.

     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 ---- 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.

                  MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Corresponding Secretary_.

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:

     _To the President and Members of the National Republican
     Convention, Cincinnati, O., June 14, 1876._

     GENTLEMEN: The National Woman Suffrage Association asks you to
     place in your platform the following plank:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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. 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.

     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--as members
     of the nation--as citizens of the United States--ask national
     recognition of their right of suffrage.

     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--as according to the Minor-Happersett
     decision of the Supreme Court--a decision rendered under the
     auspices of the Republican party against suffrage as a
     constituent element of United States citizenship--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.

     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.

     The National Woman Suffrage Association calls your attention to
     the fact that the Republican party has itself reopened this
     battle, and now 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--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.

     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.

     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--where all the people are
     citizens, and all citizens are equal before the law.

                  MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Corresponding Secretary_.
     _Centennial Headquarters_,
        1,431 Chestnut street, _Philadelphia_, June 10, 1876.


     _To the President and Members of the National Democratic
     Convention assembled at St. Louis, June 27, 1876_:

     GENTLEMEN: 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.

     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.

     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
     _Magna Charta_ 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.

     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.

     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--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--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--the right of suffrage--specifically
     secured by recent Republican amendments to the federal
     constitution.

     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 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."

     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--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 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.

     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--their own
     mothers, sisters, wives and daughters--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."

     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.

                                  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, _President_.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.
     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Corresponding Secretary_.
     _Centennial Headquarters_,
         1,431 Chestnut street, _Philadelphia_, June 20, 1876.

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. 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.[9]

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.

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"--that even his own wife had no place--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,
_The Leavenworth Times_, and, ultimately, cards of invitation were
sent to four others,[10] representing the 20,000,000 disfranchised
citizens of the nation.

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:

     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.

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

     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.

     General HAWLEY 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.

     Mrs. SPENCER 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.

     General HAWLEY 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--the
     topic of discussion to the exclusion of all others. I am sorry to
     refuse so slight a demand; we cannot grant it.

General Hawley also addressed a letter to Mrs. Stanton:

     DEAR MADAM: 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.

                    Yours very respectfully,
                          JOS. R. HAWLEY, _President U. S. C. C._

As General Grant was not to attend the celebration, the acting
vice-president, Thomas W. Ferry, representing the government, 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.[11] 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.

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 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.

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.

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--not quite certain if at this final moment they would be
permitted to reach the presiding officer--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!"

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[12] the Declaration
of Rights for Women by the National Woman Suffrage Association,
July 4, 1876:

     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.

     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:

     _First_--The natural rights of each individual.

     _Second_--The equality of these rights.

     _Third_--That rights not delegated are retained by the
     individual.

     _Fourth_--That no person can exercise the rights of others
     without delegated authority.

     _Fifth_--That the non-use of rights does not destroy them.

     And for the violation of these fundamental principles of our
     government, we arraign our rulers on this Fourth day of July,
     1876,--and these are our articles of impeachment:

          _Bills of attainder_ 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 sex a
          crime--an exercise of power clearly forbidden in article I,
          sections 9, 10, of the United States constitution.

          _The writ of habeas corpus_, the only protection against
          _lettres de cachet_ 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--the marital rights of the husband being in all
          cases primary, and the rights of the wife secondary.

          _The right of trial by a jury of one's peers_ 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--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--victims,
          perchance, of judge, jurors, advocates--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.

          _Taxation without representation_, 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."

          _Unequal codes for men and women._ 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.

          _Special legislation for woman_ has placed us in a most
          anomalous position. Women invested with the rights of
          citizens in one section--voters, jurors,
          office-holders--crossing 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.

          _Representation of woman_ 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.

          _Universal manhood suffrage_, 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.

          _The judiciary above the nation_ 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.

     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 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.

     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--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--that woman was made for
     man--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.[13]

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 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.

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 _habeas corpus_, 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--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.

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 happy inspiration, burst into "Nearer,
my God, to Thee." The effect was marvelous; the audience at once
arose, and spontaneously joined in the hymn.

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:

     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.

     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--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 _in silence_; 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 and the pursuit of individual happiness, the American
     people, applauding a crowned monarch, received _in silence_ the
     immortal document and protest of its discrowned queens!

     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, _not
     a tribute_, 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 _denied_!

     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"--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"--"Oh, mother, we can
     never forget." But alas they _did_ 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 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--_not a tribute_ marked its
     gratitude to her who had proved its savior and friend, in the
     hour of peril.

     Again, came the colored man in rank and file--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"--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--throughout the
     land, unto all the inhabitants thereof," pealed forth its
     jubilant reiteration,--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--long live the king!"

     And thus to-day we round out the first century of a professed
     republic,--with woman figuratively representing freedom--and yet
     all free, save woman.

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,"[14] it was 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.

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 _ever_ such a meeting as that in Dr. Furness' church?" and
thus was Woman's Declaration of Rights joyously received.

The day was also celebrated by women in convocations of their own
all over the country.[15]

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[16] 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.

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

     MY DEARS: I suppose I had best tell you in this letter about the
     Fourth of July celebration at the centennial city--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."

     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--assisted the latter part of the time by
     Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton--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--a lady delegate to the Cincinnati
     Republican convention, June 12.

     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--the venerable and
     venerated president--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, 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.

     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."

     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 _The Revolution_, she said she
     never would have paid that fine had she been imprisoned till now.

     Mrs. Lucretia Mott, whom the younger Hutchinson[17] assisted into
     the pulpit--a beautiful sight to see cultured youth supporting
     refined old age--stated that she went up there, "not because she
     was higher-minded 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--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.

                                             LEWISE OLIVER.
     _Philadelphia_, July 13, 1876.

The press of the country commented extensively upon the action of
the women:

     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.--[Philadelphia _Ledger_, July 4.

     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 new
     forms of violence and disregard of order which may accompany the
     participation of women in active partisan politics.--[New York
     _Tribune_.

     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 _habeas corpus_
     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--the
     instinct, namely, to write only of matters in which the public is
     interested.

     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--we have platform authority for saying it--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.--[New York _Evening Post_.

     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 _a la_ 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
     _cap-a-pie_, and demand the passage of a law in behalf of woman
     suffrage, or the alternative of the general cleaning 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.--[St. Louis _Dispatch_, July 13.

     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--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.--[Philadelphia _Press_, July 15.

On July 19, the Citizens' Suffrage Association, of Philadelphia,
joined with the National Association in commemorating the first
woman's rights convention called by Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth
Cady Stanton, at Seneca Falls, N. Y., July 19, 1848--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:

                                   TENAFLY, New Jersey, July 19, 1876.

     LUCRETIA MOTT--_Esteemed Friend_: 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.

     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 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 _Tribune_ being our only strong
     arm of defense.

     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.

     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--his helpmeet--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?

     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 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--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--denied the right to vote, denied
     the right to practice in the Supreme Court, denied jury trial--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.

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

               Sincerely yours,                ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.


                                        DETROIT, July 17, 1876.

     _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:_

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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."

     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,

                                             CATHARINE A. F. STEBBINS.


                                   ROCHESTER, N. Y., June 27, 1876.

     MY DEAR SUSAN ANTHONY: 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.

                                                   AMY POST.


                    POMO, Mendocino Co., California, June 26, 1876.

     July 4, 1776, our revolutionary fathers--in convention
     assembled--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.

     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.

     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--the reproach of our
     republican government. As if sons did not follow the condition of
     the mothers--as if daughters had no claim to the birthright of
     the fathers--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--"dead in law"!

     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--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--taxed
     to pauperism, loved to death!"

     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--legally divested of any
     claim on her or the husband who absorbs her personal services and
     earnings--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--yields up the ghost of a legal existence! That she
     escapes the extreme 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.

     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--lessons that compel depotisms to change
     their base and constitutional monarchies to make broader the
     phylacteries of popular rights.

     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--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"--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.

     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.

                                             C. I. H. NICHOLS.


                                        LONDON, Eng., July 4, 1876.

     MY DEAR SUSAN: 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 _Investigator_. 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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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,

                         Yours affectionately,     ERNESTINE L. ROSE.

A new paper, _The Ballot-Box_, 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:

     THE RETROSPECT.--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--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:

          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.

     Yet that very day in that very city was a large assemblage of
     women convened to protest against the gross wrongs of their
     sex--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--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.

     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:

          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.

     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:

          And now there is but one step more--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 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.

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

          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.

     But Mr. Evarts approached the close of his oration with these
     words--and may they not be prophetic--may not the orator have
     spoken with a deeper meaning than he knew?

          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.

     Whether the wise (?) legislators see it or not--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--and
     they who scoff now will be compelled to rejoice hereafter. But as
     Mr. Evarts remarked in his allusions to future centennials:

          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.

     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--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"?

The woman's pavilion upon the centennial grounds was an
after-thought, as theologians claim woman herself to have been.[18]
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.

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,[19]
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."

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; 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 _The New Century for Women_, 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--following the profession of engineer as a
regular business--an engine requiring far less attention than is
given by a nurse-maid or mother to a child.

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 _danseuse_ 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--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 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.

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.

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.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[1] 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."

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.

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.

[2] 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.

[3] News of the cannonade of Boston had been received the day
previous.

[4] Though thus discourteously refused to an association to secure
equality of rights for women, it was subsequently rented to "The
International Peace Association."

[5] _President_--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Tenafly, New Jersey.

_Vice-Presidents_--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.

_Advisory Committee_--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.

_Corresponding Secretaries_--Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.;
Laura Curtis Bullard, New York; Jane Graham Jones, Chicago, Ill.

_Recording Secretary_--Lillie Devereux Blake, New York.

_Treasurer_--Ellen Clark Sargent, Washington, D. C.

_Executive Committee_--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.

[6] _1876 Campaign Committee_--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.

[7] _Resident Congressional Committee_--Sara Andrews Spencer, Ellen
Clark Sargent, Ruth Carr Denison, Belva A. Lockwood, Mrs. E. D. E.
N. Southworth.

[8] 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.

[9] 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.

[10] Mrs. Mott, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs. Gage, and Mrs. Spencer.

[11] 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.--[E.C.S.

[12] 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.

[13] 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.

[14]

    One hundred years hence, what a change will be made,
    In politics, morals, religion and trade,
    In statesmen who wrangle or ride on the fence,
    These things will be altered _a hundred years hence_.

    Our laws then will be uncompulsory rules,
    Our prisons converted to national schools.
    The pleasure of sinning 'tis all a pretense,
    And the people will find it so, _a hundred years hence_.

    Lying, cheating and fraud will be laid on the shelf,
    Men will neither get drunk, nor be bound up in self,
    But all live together, good neighbors and friends,
    Just as _Christian folks_ ought to, _a hundred years hence_.

    Then woman, man's partner, man's equal shall stand,
    While beauty and harmony govern the land,
    To think for oneself will be no offense,
    The world will be thinking _a hundred years hence_.

    Oppression and war will be heard of no more,
    Nor the blood of a slave leave his print on our shore,
    Conventions will then be a useless expense,
    For we'll all go _free-suffrage a hundred years hence_.

    Instead of speech-making to satisfy wrong,
    All will join the glad chorus to sing Freedom's song;
    And if the Millenium is not a pretense,
    We'll all be good brothers _a hundred years hence_.

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.

[15] 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.

[16] See Appendix.

[17] Henry Hutchinson, the son of John.

[18] 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.

[19] Afterwards killed by the Indians in Colorado.




CHAPTER XXVIII.

NATIONAL CONVENTIONS, HEARINGS AND REPORTS.

1877-1878-1879.

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


With 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--so far as the few were able to rouse the many to
simultaneous action--nevertheless a wide-spread agitation had been
secured by the presentation of this phase of the question.

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 question of
woman's enfranchisement that cannot be overestimated.

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.

The following appeal and petition were extensively circulated:

     _To the Women of the United States:_

     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.

     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. * * * 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.

     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--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 they
     remand her to the State. If our _Magna Charta_ 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.

     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.

     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."

                                  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, _President._
     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee._
     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Corresponding Secretary._


          _Tenafly, N. J._, November 10, 1876.

          _To the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress
          assembled:_

          The undersigned citizens of the United States, residents of
          the State of ----, 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.

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 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:

     _To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States
     in Congress assembled:_

     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.

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

     AN ACT _to relieve the political disabilities of Matilda Joslyn
     Gage_:

     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.

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.

The first convention[20] 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
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[21] was reported by Mrs. Gage which was adopted.
Mrs. Swisshelm of Pennsylvania, was introduced. She said:

     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.

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

     WHEREAS 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,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS 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,

     _Resolved_, 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 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.

     WHEREAS 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,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

Among the many letters to the convention we give the following:


                                   BOSTON, 16th January, 1877.

     DEAR FRIEND: 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--the best method to agitate the
     question; and I am with you. I mean always to help everywhere and
     every one.

                                             WENDELL PHILLIPS.
     Miss ANTHONY.


                              MANCHESTER, Eng., January 3, 1877.

     MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.

     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.

     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--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.

                                   Yours truly,
                                             LYDIA E. BECKER.


                                   BOSTON, Mass., January 10, 1877.

     DEAR MRS. STANTON: 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--I fear very displeasing--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--the waste-basket.

     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--that the Bible sanctions the slavery
     principle itself, and applies it to woman as the divinely
     ordained subordinate of man--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--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.

     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 _human rights as such_; yet it is on human rights
     as such--on the equality of all individuals, man or woman, with
     respect to natural rights--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
     _anti-Christian_, 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.

                              Yours very cordially,
                                                FRANCIS E. ABBOT.


                                   WASHINGTON, D. C., January 16, 1877.

     MY DEAR FRIENDS: 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.

                                             ROBERT PURVIS.


                                   OAKLAND, Cal., January 9, 1877.

     _To the National Suffrage Convention, Washington, D. C.:_

     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.

                    Yours very truly,
                        LAURA DEFORCE GORDON,
                            _Pres. California W. S. S._ (Incorporated).

Mrs. Stanton's letter to _The Ballot-Box_ briefly sums up the
proceedings of the convention:

                                   TENAFLY, N. J., January 24, 1877.

     DEAR EDITOR: If the little _Ballot-Box_ 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."

     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.

     Belva A. Lockwood, who had recently been denied admission to the
     Supreme Court of the United States, although a lawyer in good
     practice 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.'"

     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--of whose works she inferred the judges were
     ignorant--gives several precedents for women in the English
     courts. As Mrs. Lockwood--tall, well-proportioned, with dark hair
     and eyes, regular features, in velvet dress and train, with
     becoming indignation at such injustice--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.

     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--black
     coats only kneeling and standing--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 from
     Maine to California would bring these bigoted presbyteries to
     their senses.

     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--from fitting out ships for Columbus, to sharing
     the toils of the great exposition--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.

     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.

     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.

     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 _coup
     d'etat_ that, with her brave coadjutors, she appeared on the
     floor of the House at the moment of adjournment, 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 _vis-a-vis_ 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--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?

                         Yours sincerely,    ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

The press commented as follows:

     SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT.--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.--[_National Republican._

     SIXTEENTH AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE--THE TEN THOUSAND PETITIONERS
     ROYALLY TREATED.--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.

     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.

     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 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.--[_Washington Star._

     The time has evidently arrived when demands for a recognition of
     the personal, civil and political rights of
     one-half--unquestionably the better half--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--Hoar, Kelley, Banks, Kasson,
     Lawrence, and Lapham--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.

     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.

     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.--[_The National Republican_, January 22,
     1877.

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[22] and adopted:

     WHEREAS, 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 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

     WHEREAS, 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

     WHEREAS, the right of self-government by the use of the ballot
     inheres in the citizen of the United States; therefore,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

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.

The day before the opening of the Tenth Washington Convention a
caucus was held in the ladies' reception-room[23] 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 _en route_, 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.

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

          WHEREAS, 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,

          _Resolved_, That at a session of the Senate, to be held on
          ----, 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.

     Mr. EDMUNDS demanded the regular order.

     Mr. SARGENT 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.

     Mr. EDMUNDS 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.

     Mr. SARGENT 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.

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, reminding them
of several occasions when the Senate had extended similar
courtesies. The resolution was voted down--31 to 13.[24]

Hon. Wm. D. Kelly, of Pennsylvania, performed like service in the
House:

     Mr. KELLY 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.

     Mr. CRITTENDEN of Missouri, objected, and the resolution was not
     entertained.

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 _Union_ of January 11, 1878, largely sustained by
federal patronage, commented as follows:

     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.

The convention was held in Lincoln Hall, January, 8, 9, 1878. The
house was filled to overflowing at the first session. A large
number of representative women occupied the platform.[25] 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."[26] Mrs. Lockwood
presented the following resolutions, which called out an amusing
debate on the "man idea"--that he can best represent the home, the
church, the State, the industries, etc., etc.:

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, That to further this object the committee be
     instructed to confer with the President, the Secretary of State,
     and Commissioner McCormick.

A committee was appointed[27] 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.

     Miss JULIA SMITH 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.

     ELIZABETH BOYNTON HARBERT of the Chicago _Inter-Ocean_, spoke on
     the temperance work being done in Chicago, in connection with the
     advocacy of the sixteenth amendment.

     LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE 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.

     Dr. MARY THOMPSON of Oregon, and Mrs. CROMWELL of Arkansas, gave
     interesting reports from their States, relating many laughable
     encounters with the opposition.

     ROBERT PURVIS of Philadelphia, read a letter from the suffragists
     of Pennsylvania, in which congratulations were extended to the
     convention.

     MARY A. S. CAREY, 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 her views on the question, and said the
     colored women would support whatever party would allow them their
     rights, be it Republican or Democratic.

     Rev. OLYMPIA BROWN 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.

     ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER 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.

     Mrs. LAWRENCE 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--for bringing into life children who grow up in
     vice from their inborn tendencies.

     Dr. CAROLINE B. WINSLOW 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.

     BELVA A. LOCKWOOD 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.

     The Rev. OLYMPIA BROWN 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?

     Marshal FREDERICK DOUGLASS 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.

     LAVINIA C. DUNDORE, 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.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE spoke of the influence of the church on
     woman's liberties, and then referred to a large number of law
     books--ancient and modern, ecclesiastical and lay--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.

     Mrs. DEVEREUX BLAKE 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.]

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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, 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 $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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

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:

     JOINT RESOLUTION _proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of
     the United States_.--

     _Resolved_ 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:

     ARTICLE 16, SEC. 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.

     SEC. 2.--Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
     appropriate legislation.

The Committee on Privileges and Elections granted hearings to the
National Association on January 11, 12, when the delegates,[28]
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:

     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.

     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.

     Miss SMITH said: _Gentlemen of the Committee_--This is the first
     time in my life that I have trod these halls, and what has
     brought me here? I say, oppression--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.

     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 _Republican_.] 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?

     ELIZABETH BOYNTON HARBERT, vice-president for Illinois:
     _Gentlemen of the Committee_--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:

          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?--If land is to
          be taxed, none but landholders should elect the
          legislature.--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.

     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.

     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:

          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--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.

     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? 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.

     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?

     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?

     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 _is_ our sphere--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 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:

          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.

     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.

     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--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--a diviner justice for all!

     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 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.

     ELIZABETH CADY STANTON said: _Gentlemen of the Committee_: 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.

     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.

     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: _First_--That the immunities
     and privileges of American citizenship, however defined, are
     national in character, and paramount to all State authority.
     _Second_--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.
     _Third_--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.
     _Fourth_--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.

     Let me give you a few extracts from the national constitution
     upon which these propositions are based:

          _Preamble:_ 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.

     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--as
     well represent us at the throne of grace as at the ballot-box.

          ARTICLE 1, SEC. 9.--No bill of attainder, or _ex post facto_
          law shall be passed; no title of nobility shall be granted
          by the United States.

          SEC. 10.--No State shall pass any bill of attainder, _ex
          post facto_ law, or law impairing the obligation of
          contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

     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.

          ARTICLE 4, SEC. 2.--The citizens of each State shall be
          entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in
          the several States.

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

          ARTICLE 4, SEC. 4.--The United States shall guarantee to
          every State in the Union a republican form of government.

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

          ARTICLE 6.--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.

          ARTICLE 14, SEC. 1.--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.

     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 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--to have had
     a fixed residence--to be of sane mind and unconvicted of
     crime,--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.

     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.

     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 (_Federalist_, No. 83):

          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.

     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.

     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 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."

     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:

          ARTICLE 16.--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.

     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.

     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--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.

     Accordingly, women tested their right, registered and voted--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.

     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.

     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.

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

          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.

     Jefferson said:

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

     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.

     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.

     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.

     As the laws now are, a woman who can vote, hold office, be tried
     by a jury of her own peers--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
     votes of women, it is time to have some national recognition of
     this class of citizens.

     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--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!

     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:

          The Constitution of the United States is the result of a
          fourfold compromise: _First_--Of unity with individual
          interests; of national sovereignty with the so-called
          sovereignty of States; _Second_--Of the republic with
          monarchy; _Third_--Of freedom with slavery; _Fourth_--Of
          democracy with aristocracy.

     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, and of carrying
     out their practical results--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.

     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.

     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?

     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 _Index_:

          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 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.

     On the other hand, what is centralization?

          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 _municipia_ 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.

     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:

          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--your Jefferson,
          your Madison, your Monroe, your Washington.

     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--not by the muskets of United
     States troops, but by the peaceable authority of United States
     courts--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
     _Journal_ of July 19, said:

          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.

     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:

          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.

     General Hawley, in an address before a college last spring, said:

          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.

     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 _Tribune_, June 9, signed "Merchant," said:

          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?

     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--State rights or no State rights, no matter how much blood
     and treasure it may cost--is a government to protect the humblest
     citizen in the exercise of all his rights.

     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 _National Republican_ of July 16, said of the
     president's policy:

          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.

     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--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 _Magna Charta_ 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.

     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, and the twentieth by
     the nineteenth, the world will always be governed by dead men....

     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.

     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--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--in our courts, prisons, asylums, of every class of
     petitioners before congress--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.

     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, 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--by a wise
     forethought, and reformation; or by general dissatisfaction,
     resistance, and revolution.

     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.[29]

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, of New York, corresponding secretary of the
     association, said: _Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the
     Committee_--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.

     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--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.

     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; "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."

     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.

     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.

     Our demands are often met by the most intolerable tyranny. The
     Albany _Law Journal_, 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
     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.

     In our hearts we feel that there is a word sweeter than mother,
     home, or heaven. That word is LIBERTY. We ask it of you now. We
     say to you, secure to us this liberty--the same liberty you have
     yourselves. In doing this you will not render yourselves poor,
     but will make us rich indeed.

     Mrs. STEWART 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.

     The Rev. OLYMPIA BROWN, a delegate from Connecticut, addressed
     the committee as follows: _Gentlemen of the Committee_--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.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     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--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 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 _Congressional Record_, a report of the
     proceedings of this committee, and the action of the Senate in
     favor of woman's right to vote.

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.

At the close of these two day's hearings before the Committee on
Privileges and Elections,[30] Senator Hoar of Massachusetts,
offered, and the committee adopted the following complimentary
resolution:

     _Resolved_, 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 A.M.

The Washington _Evening Star_ of January 11, 1876, said:

     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 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.

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--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.

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:

     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.

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 closed the
first of the many delightful receptions given by Mr. and Mrs.
Spofford to the officers and members of the National Association.

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.[31]

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:

     _To the Editor of the Post:_

     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.

                                             Mrs. DAHLGREN.


                         EUTAW PLACE, BALTIMORE, January, 30, 1871.

     _To Mrs. Beecher Hooker:_

     DEAR MADAM--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.

                         Yours respectfully,
                                             ALMIRA LINCOLN PHELPS.

To which Mrs. Hooker, through _The Post_, replied:

                                   WASHINGTON, January 15, 1878.

     Mrs. DAHLGREN--_Dear Madam_: 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." * * * 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 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.

     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?

     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

                                   Yours sincerely,
                                         ISABELLA BEECHER HOOKER.

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:

     _To the Honorable Committee on Privileges and Elections:_

     GENTLEMEN--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.

     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. 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.

     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.

     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--union.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

                                   Very respectfully,
                                          MADELEINE VINTON DAHLGREN.

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

     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.

The Toledo society, through its president Mrs. Rose L. Segur, said:

     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.

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

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.

On January 30 the House Judiciary Committee granted Mrs. Hooker a
hearing. Of the eleven members of the committee nearly all were
present.[32] The room and all the corridors leading to it were
crowded with men and women eager to hear Mrs. 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.

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.

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:

     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. _First_--Because suffrage is a subject referred by
     the constitution to the voters of each State. _Second_--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.

By request of a large number of the senators,[33] the Committee on
Privileges and Elections granted a special hearing to Mrs. Hooker
on Washington's birthday--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 _Post_:

     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.[34]
     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.

     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.

     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.

     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, 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.

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.[35]

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:

     _To the Honorable, the Senate of the United States:_

     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 _sex_ a disability. The fourteenth
     amendment to the 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. 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.

     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:

          The free inhabitants of each of these States--paupers and
          fugitives from justice excepted--shall be entitled to all
          privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several
          States.

     Article 4 of the constitution says:

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

     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:

          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.

     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:

          RULE NO. 2.--_Attorneys_: 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.

     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:

          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 _females_,
          etc., etc.

     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 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?

     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., II, c. 43, he must be a
     lawyer of three years standing.

     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 _Aula Regia_, 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.

     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 _Aula Regia_.

     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?

     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.

                          BELVA A. LOCKWOOD, _Attorney and Solicitor_.
     _Washington, D. C._, March 7, 1878.

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:

          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.

     Mr. SARGENT: 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? * * *

     Mr. GARLAND: I should like to ask the senator from California if
     the courts of the United States cannot admit them upon their own
     motion anyhow?

     Mr. SARGENT: 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 _Aula Regia_ 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 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.

     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--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.

     Mr. GARLAND: 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?

     Mr. SARGENT: I do not see any pretense that the court could
     exclude them on except on account of sex.

     Mr. GARLAND: 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.

     Mr. SARGENT: 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, 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.

     Mr. MCDONALD: 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.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER: The senator from California moves that the
     bill be recommitted to the Committee on Judiciary.

     Mr. SARGENT: 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.]

     Mr. SARGENT: I ask that the amendment which I propose be printed.

     The PRESIDING OFFICER: The order to print will be made.

Mary Clemmer, the gifted correspondent of the New York
_Independent_, 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:

     Hon. BAINBRIDGE WADLEIGH--_Dear Sir_: 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?

     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. 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.

     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.

     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.

                              Your friend,            MARY CLEMMER.

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:

     _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:_

     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.

[Illustration: Marilla M. Ricker]

     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.

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

     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.

     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.

     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.

     For these reasons, your committee report back said resolution
     with a recommendation that it be indefinitely postponed.

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 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.

Senator Wadleigh's report called forth severe criticism; notably
from the _New Northwest_ of Oregon, the _Woman's Journal_ of
Boston, the _Inter-Ocean_ of Chicago, the _Evening Telegram_ and
the _National Citizen_ of New York. We quote from the latter:

     The report is not a statesman-like answer based upon fundamental
     principles, but a mere politician's dodge--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--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;--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"?

     "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--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.[36]

     "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 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.

     "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.

     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;--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.

     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 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 FREE.

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.[37]

In April, 1878, Mrs. Williams transferred the _Ballot-Box_ to Mrs.
Gage, who removed it to Syracuse, New York, and changed its name to
the _National Citizen_. In her prospectus Mrs. Gage said:

     The _National Citizen_ 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.

     As the first step towards becoming well is to know you are ill,
     one of the principal aims of the _National Citizen_ 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 _National
     Citizen_ 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 _National Citizen_ 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--a genuine republic.

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:

     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.

                               CLEMENCE S. LOZIER, M. D., _President_.

    SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

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,[38] 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:

     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 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--from slavery to freedom. We already see the
     mile-stones of a new civilization on every highway.

     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."

     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.

     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 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.

     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--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.

     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--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.

Congratulatory letters[39] and telegrams were received from all
portions of the United States and from the old world. Space 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:

     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." * * * I well remember the incidents
     of that meeting and the thoughts awakened by it. * * * 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.

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

     How I should like to be with you at the anniversary--it reminds
     me of the delightful convention we had at Rochester, long, long
     ago--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 _forty_ 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. *
     * * 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--the
     insignia of citizenship in a republic.

Caroline Ashurst Biggs, editor of the _Englishwoman's Review_,
London, wrote:

     I have read with great interest in the _National Citizen_ and the
     _Woman's Journal_ the announcement of the forthcoming convention
     in Rochester. * * * 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 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.

Lydia E. Becker, editor of the _Women's Suffrage Journal_,
Manchester, England, wrote:

     * * * 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. * * * 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.

Senator Sargent, since minister to Berlin, wrote:

     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.

                              Respectfully yours,      A. A. SARGENT.

The following letters from the great leaders of the anti-slavery
movement were gratefully received. As Mr. Garrison soon after
finished his eventful life, this proved to be his last message to
our association:

                                   BOSTON, June 30, 1878.

     MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY--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--which is but another name for the labor movement--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--the
     ballot. Everything helps us, and if we are united, success cannot
     long be delayed.

                                   Very cordially yours,
                                             WENDELL PHILLIPS.


                                        BOSTON, July 16, 1878.

     MY DEAR FRIEND--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 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--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.

     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--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.

                         Yours, to abate nothing of heart or hope,
                                               WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON.

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.[40] 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, 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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, That in celebrating our third decade we have reason
     to congratulate ourselves on the marked change in woman's
     position--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.

     _Resolved_, That the International Congress[41] called in Paris,
     July 20, to discuss the rights of woman--the eminent Victor Hugo,
     its presiding officer--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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, Woman's rights and duties in all matters of legislation
     are the same as those of man.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, That it is through the perversion of the religious
     element in woman--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--that she and the children she has trained have
     been so completely subjugated by priestcraft and superstition.

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!"

The last three resolutions called out a prolonged discussion[42]
not only in the convention but from the pulpit and press of the
State.

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."

An immense audience assembled at Corinthian Hall in the evening to
listen to the closing speeches[43] 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[44] clerk in the legislature of that State.

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 _National
Citizen_ said:

     None too soon have we issued our resolutions, proclaiming woman's
     right to self-development--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--which is to quote something or other having
     no bearing upon the question--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.

     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--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--a man who does not
     understand true Christianity--who is not just--who would strike
     those who are down--who would keep woman in slavery--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.

     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.

     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 arouse attention
     and compel investigation of this subject by lawyers and
     theologians as well as by women themselves.

Francis E. Abbot, editor of _The Index_, the organ of the Free
Religious Association, spoke grandly in favor of the resolutions.
He said:

     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.

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.

The newspapers of the French capital in general treated the
congress with respect. The _Rappel_, Victor Hugo's organ, spoke of
it in a most complimentary manner. Theodore Stanton, in a letter to
the _National Citizen_, said:

     In one important respect this congress differed entirely from an
     American convention of like character--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 Europe is
     moving, and the next international congress will, undoubtedly,
     give more attention to suffrage and less to hygiene.

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:[45]

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, 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--yet forgets to mention twenty million women robbed of
     their social, civil and political rights; therefore,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, The general government has refused to exercise federal
     power to protect women in their right to vote in the various
     States and territories; therefore,

     _Resolved_, 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.

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, 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.


[Illustration: Frances E. Willard]


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,[46] the following address was presented:

     _To his Excellency, the President of the United States_:

     WHEREAS, 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,

     WHEREAS, 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,

     WHEREAS, 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,

     THEREFORE, 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.

     On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.

                                  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, _President_.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Corresponding Secretary_.
     SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

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 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:

     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.

     And your petitioners will ever pray.

                                   EMMELINE B. WELLS.
                                   ZINA YOUNG WILLIAMS.

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.

The _Congressional Record_ of January 24, under the head of
petitions and memorials, said:

     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.

     Mr. FERRY--If there be no objection I ask that the petition be
     read at length.

     The VICE-PRESIDENT--The Chair hears no objection, and it will be
     reported by the secretary.

     The petition was read and referred to the Committee on Privileges
     and Elections, as follows:

          _To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
          States, in Congress assembled:_

          WHEREAS, 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

          WHEREAS, 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

          WHEREAS, 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

          WHEREAS, 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

          WHEREAS, 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,

          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

          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.

          And your petitioners will ever pray.

                                  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, _President_.

          MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Corresponding Secretary_.
          SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

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:

     _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:_

     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.

     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 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.

     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--intelligence, ability, integrity, experience, title
     to public confidence by reason of previous public service--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.

     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--he who points out to the people their dangers
     and their faults.

     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 other systems. The
     abuses attributed by political hostility to negro governments at
     the South--governments from which the intelligence and education
     of the State held themselves sulkily aloof--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.

     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.

     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.

     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:

          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 competitor for the
          highest honors has revealed that truly noble nature that
          entitled him to a place in the hearts of a nation.

     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.

     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.

     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--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.

     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.

     The majority of the committee state the following as their
     reasons for the conclusion to which they come:

          _First_--If the petitioners' prayer be granted it will make
          several millions of female voters.

          _Second_--These voters will be inexperienced in public
          affairs.

          _Third_--They are quite generally dependent on the other
          sex.

          _Fourth_--They are incapable of military duty.

          _Fifth_--They are without the power to enforce the laws
          which their numerical strength may enable them to make.

          _Sixth_--Very few of them wish to assume the irksome and
          responsible duties which this measure thrusts upon them.

          _Seventh_--Such a change should only be made slowly and in
          obedience to a general public demand.

          _Eighth_--There are but thirty thousand petitioners.

          _Ninth_--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."

          _Tenth_--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."

          _Eleventh_--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."

     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 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--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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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
     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?

     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.

     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.

     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 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:

          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.

     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.

                                             GEO. F. HOAR,
                                             JOHN H. MITCHELL,
                                             ANGUS CAMERON.

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[47] 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:

     _Mr. President_--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?

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

The press commented favorably upon this new point gained for women.
We give a few extracts:

     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.--[Telegraph to the New
     York _Tribune_, February 7.

     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.--[Special dispatch to
     the New York _World_, February 7.

     A WOMAN'S RIGHTS VICTORY IN THE SENATE.--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.--[Washington _Post_, February 8.

     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.--[Washington _Star_, February 8.

     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.--[New York _Nation_.

     It was noticeable that all the presidential candidates dodged the
     issue except Senator Blaine, who voted for the bill.--[Chicago
     _Inter-Ocean_.

     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--the just rewards of her own true
     worth.--[_Havre Republican_, Havre de Grace, Maryland.

     ENTER PORTIA.--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--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. * * * Nowhere are
     these great attributes of civilization and regulated
     liberty--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.--[_Public Ledger_, Philadelphia, February 12.

     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. * * * United States Senator
     Edmunds of Vermont, has fallen into disfavor with the ladies for
     voting against the above bill.--[From John W. Forney's
     _Progress_, February 22.

On March 3, by motion of Hon. A. G. Riddle, Mrs. Lockwood was
admitted to the bar of the United States Supreme Court,[48] 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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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.

The anniversary of 1879 was held in St. Louis, Missouri, May 7, 8,
9. Mrs. Virginia L. Minor and Miss Phoebe W. Couzins made all
possible arrangements for the success of the meeting and the
comfort of the delegates.[49] 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:

     _Mrs. President and Members of the National Woman Suffrage
     Association:_

     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--not only in behalf of the
     friends of woman suffrage, but 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.

     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--the cause of woman--St. Louis is the leader.

     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.

     When other cities had refused equality of wages and position, St.
     Louis placed Miss Brackett at the head of our normal school,
     giving her--a heretofore exclusively male prerogative--the
     highest wages, added to the highest educational rank.

     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.

     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--a blow at our homes and a lasting stigma on
     our civilization--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.

     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.

     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 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--no
     time-honored tradition or untenable doctrine can evade her
     searching investigation.

Mrs. Gage responded to this address in a few earnest, appropriate
words.

Of the many letters[50] 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:

                                   ROADSIDE, Fourth Month, 26, 1879.

     MY DEAR SUSAN ANTHONY--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--yes,
     full faith in your success. I have signed Edward's letter, so it
     is hardly necessary for me to say,

                                             LUCRETIA MOTT.

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:

     There are two points which may be considered open for discussion
     during the afternoon--one, the fact that there are existing in
     all forms of society, barbaric, semi-civilized, civilized or
     enlightened, two separate codes of morals; the strict code to
     which women are held accountable, and the lax code which governs
     the conduct of men.

     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?"

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:

     _To the Annual Meeting of the National Suffrage Association in
     St. Louis:_

     DEAR FRIENDS--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 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."

     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:

          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--equal for men and women, for rich and
          poor--is once more raised in the face of all the nations.

     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.

     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. 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.

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.

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--hundreds
unable to gain admission--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 _National Citizen_, Mrs.
Stanton thus describes the incident of the evening:

     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:

          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 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.

     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.

     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.

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.

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 _St. Louis Globe_ the next morning.[51]
Mrs. Thompson was also invited to occupy a Presbyterian pulpit,
but imperative duties compelled her to leave the city.

The enthusiasm aroused by the convention in woman's enfranchisement
was encouraging to those who had so long and earnestly labored in
this cause.[52] 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[20] The annual convention of the National Woman Suffrage
Association will be held in Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C.,
January 16, 17, 1877.

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.

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. On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage
Association,

                                  ELIZABETH CADY STANTON, _President_.
      MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Ex. Committee_.
      SUSAN B. ANTHONY, _Corresponding Secretary_.
  _Tenafly, N. J._, November 10, 1876.



[21] Committees: _Finance_--Sara A. Spencer, Ellen Clark Sargent,
Lillie Devereux Blake. _Resolutions_--Matilda Joslyn Gage, Susan B.
Anthony. Belva A. Lockwood, Edward M. Davis, C. B. Purvis, M. D.,
Jane G. Swisshelm. _Business_--John Hutchinson. Mary F. Foster,
Rosina M. Parnell, Mary A. S. Carey, Ellen H. Sheldon, S. J.
Messer, Susan A. Edson, M. D.

[22] 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.

[23] 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.

[24] _Yeas_--Anthony, Bruce, Burnside, Cameron of Wis., Dawes,
Ferry, Hoar, Matthews, Mitchell, Rollins, Sargent, Saunders,
Teller--13.

_Nays_--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--31.

[25] 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.

[26] This argument was subsequently given before the Committee on
Privileges and Elections and will be found on page 80.

[27] The members of the committee were Belva A. Lockwood, Matilda
Joslyn Gage, Mary A. Thompson, M. D., Marilla M. Ricker, Elizabeth
Boynton Harbert.

[28] 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.

[29] 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.--[E. C. S.

[30] 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.

[31] 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--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 _New York Herald_, 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--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.

                                             H. LOUISE GATES.

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.--[Washington _Post_.


[32] 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.

[33] 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.--[Washington
_Post_.

[34] 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.--[Washington _Post_.

[35] Mrs. Ricker makes a specialty of looking after the occupants
of the jail--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.

[36] THE SELFISH RATS--A FABLE BY LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE.--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--Irish rats and German rats,
and French rats, and even black rats and dirty sewer rats.

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.

_Moral_: Woe to the weaker.

[37] 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.

[38] DELEGATES TO THE THIRTIETH ANNIVERSARY.--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, _Albany county_, Arethusa L.
Forbes; _Dutchess_, Helen M. Loder; _Lewis_, Mrs. E. M. Wilcox;
_Madison_, Helen Raymond Jarvis; _Monroe_, Susan B. Anthony, Amy
Post, Sarah H. Willis, Mary H. Hallowell, Mary S. Anthony, Lewia C.
Smith and many others; _Orleans_, Mrs. Plumb, Mrs. Clark;
_Onondaga_, Lucy N. Coleman, Dr. Amelia F. Raymond, Matilda Joslyn
Gage; _Ontario_, Elizabeth C. Atwell, Catherine H. Sands, Elizabeth
Smith Miller, Helen M. Pitts; _Queens_, Mary A. Pell; _Wayne_,
Sarah K. Rathbone, Rebecca B. Thomas; _Wyoming_, Charlotte A.
Cleveland; _Genesee_, the Misses Morton; _New York_, 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.

[39] 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.

[40] 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."

[41] For account of this International Congress, see chapter on
Continental Europe in this volume.

[42] 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.

[43] By Miss Couzins, Mr. Douglass, Mrs. Spencer.

[44] Mr. Robinson, as "Warrington," was well known as one of the
best writers on the _Springfield Republican_.

[45] 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.

[46] 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.

[47] At its final action, the bill was called up by Hon. J. E.
McDonald of Indiana. After some discussion it was passed without
amendment--40 to 20. _Yeas_--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. _Nays_--Baily, Chaffee, Coke, Davis (Illinois),
Davis (West Virginia), Eaton, Edmunds, Eustis, Grover, Harris,
Hereford, Hill, Kernan, Maxey, Merrimon, Morgan, Randolph,
Saulsbury, Wallace, White.

[48] 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.

[49] _Washington, D. C._--Sara A. Spencer. _Illinois_--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.
_Missouri_--Virginia L. Minor, Mrs. M. A. Peoquine, Mrs. P. W.
Thomas, Eliza J. Patrick, Mrs. E. M. Dan, Eliza A. Robbins, Phoebe
W. Couzins, Alex. Robbins, St. Louis; James L. Allen, Oregon; Miss
A. J. Sparks, Warrensburg. _Wisconsin_--Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine.
_New York_--Susan B. Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Mary R. Pell,
Florence Pell. _Indiana_--Helen Austin, Richmond; May Wright
Thompson, Amy E. Dunn, Gertrude Garrison, Mary E. Haggart,
Indianapolis. _Tennessee_--Elizabeth Avery Meriwether, Minor Lee
Meriwether, Memphis, _Kentucky_--Mary B. Clay, Richmond.
_Louisiana_--Emily P. Collins, Ponchatoula. _Ohio_--Eva L. Pinney,
South Newbury. _Pennsylvania_--Mrs. L. P. Danforth, Julia and
Rachel Foster, Philadelphia.

[50] 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 _Woman's Suffrage Journal_.

[51] 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.

[52] 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--twenty-five new members were obtained.




CHAPTER XXIX.

CONGRESSIONAL REPORTS AND CONVENTIONS.

1880-1881.

     Why we Hold Conventions in Washington--Lincoln Hall
     Demonstration--Sixty-six Thousand Appeals--Petitions Presented in
     Congress--Hon. T. W. Ferry of Michigan in the Senate--Hon. George
     B. Loring of Massachusetts in the House--Hon. J. J. Davis of
     North Carolina Objected--Twelfth Washington Convention--Hearings
     before the Judiciary Committees of both Houses--1880--May
     Anniversary at Indianapolis--Series of Western
     Conventions--Presidential Nominating Conventions--Delegates and
     Addresses to each--Mass-meeting at Chicago--Washington
     Convention, 1881--Memorial Service to Lucretia Mott--Mrs.
     Stanton's Eulogy--Discussion in the Senate on a Standing
     Committee--Senator McDonald of Indiana Championed the
     Measure--May Anniversary in Boston--Conventions in the Chief
     Cities of New England.


The 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.

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 hung familiar
mottoes,[53] 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[54] from
sixteen States responded.

Mrs. Gage read the call:

     The National Association will hold its twelfth annual convention
     in Lincoln Hall, Washington, D. C., January 21, 22, 1880.

     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.

     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 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.[55]

Mrs. Spencer presented a series of resolutions which were ably
discussed by the speakers and adopted:

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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: _Resolved_, That the
     right to use the ballot _inheres_ 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.

     _Resolved_, 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, diseases and deaths, and who would not be likely to
     overlook ten millions of housekeepers.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

The comments of the press[56] were very complimentary, and their
daily reports of the convention full and fair. Among the many
letters[57] to the convention, the following from a Southern lady
is both novel and amusing:

                                   MEMPHIS, Tenn., December 11, 1889.

     DEAR MRS. SPENCER: 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 _white_ 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:

     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 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 _whip their wives_, 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.

                         Yours,       ELIZABETH AVERY MERIWETHER.

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.

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.

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.

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.

                    THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, U. S. SENATE, }
                                Friday, Jan. 23, 1880.            }

     The committee assembled at half-past 10 o'clock A.M. Present, Mr.
     Thurman, _chairman_, Mr. McDonald, Mr. Bayard, Mr. Davis of
     Illinois, Mr. Edmunds.

     The CHAIRMAN: 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.

     Mrs. ZERELDA G. WALLACE of Indiana said: _Mr. Chairman, and
     Gentlemen of the Committee_: 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:

          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.

     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
     and glorious privileges. This movement is the legitimate result
     of this development, and of the suffering that woman has
     undergone in the ages past.

     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.

     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.

     JULIA SMITH PARKER of Glastonbury, Conn., said: _Gentlemen_: 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.]

     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.

     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 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.

     ELIZABETH L. SAXON of Louisiana, said: _Gentlemen_: 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.

     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?

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     MARY A. STEWART 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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     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?"

     NANCY R. ALLEN of Iowa said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
     Judiciary Committee_: 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.

     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.

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.[58] When Miss
Anthony had finished, the chairman, Senator Thurman of Ohio, said:

     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.

     Mrs. WALLACE: 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.


       HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 24, 1880.

     The CHAIRMAN _pro tem._ (Mr. HARRIS 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.

     Mrs. MCRAE said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Judiciary
     Committee_: 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.

     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 _for the party_. 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.

     Miss JESSIE T. WAITE of Illinois said: _Mr. Chairman, and
     Gentlemen of the Judiciary Committee_: 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 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.

     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.

     CATHERINE A. STEBBINS 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.

     But in our councils no one has dwelt upon _one_ of the great
     evils of our civilization, the scourge of war; though it has been
     said that women will 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 _is_ a better
     way, and that women can bring a moral power to bear that shall
     make war needless.

     Let us take one picture representative of the general features of
     the war--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--brothers--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!

     Mrs. DEVEREUX BLAKE said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
     Committee_: I come here with your own laws in my hands--and the
     volume is quite a heavy one, too--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:

          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.

     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:

          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.

     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:

          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.

     One would think the logical conclusion from that which I have
     last read would be that _all citizens_ are entitled to equal
     protection everywhere. It appears to mean that. Then I turn to
     another piece of legislation--that which is known as "The
     Enforcement Act"--one which some of you, gentlemen, did not like
     very much when it was enacted--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:

          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.

     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?

     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--a State which is not without a representative among the
     members of the Judiciary Committee--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--

          Without firing a gun, without shedding a drop of blood,
          without striking a single blow, without one disorderly
          assemblage. _The people_ have regained their own right
          through the might and majesty of their own laws.

     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 _women are people_. 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:

          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.

     Does that mean the ballot _for men only_ or the ballot _for the
     people_, 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.

     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.

     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:

          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.

     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:

          An act having been passed to enforce the rights of _male_
          citizens to vote, the true vigor of _half_ the population is
          thus expressed, and no interests of government will ever
          displace the zeal of _half_ of our people in defense of the
          primary rights of our _male_ citizens. _The prosperity of
          the States depends upon the protection afforded to our male
          citizens_; and the name and character of _male_ citizens of
          the United States shall mean one and the same thing and
          carry with them unchallenged security and respect.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     Mr. WILLITS of Michigan: _Mr. Chairman_: 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.

     SARA A. SPENCER 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
     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.

     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE 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.

     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

          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.

     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

          The constitution and the laws of the United States which
          shall be made in pursuance thereof * * * shall be the
          supreme law of the land.

     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.

     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.

     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 woman to the ballot, on the ground that the United States had
     no voters in the States of its own creation?

     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.

     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.

     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--abrogating and repealing State
     constitutions and State laws contradictory to its provisions.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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,

          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.

     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.

     PHOEBE W. COUZINS of Missouri, to whom had been assigned the
     next thirty minutes, said: _Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the
     Judiciary Committee_: 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."

     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."

     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"--we are much obliged to them
     for that definition of our identity as persons--"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 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.

     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--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.

     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 _State_ 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, 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:

          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--the government would perish, and there
          is no provision of the constitution to prevent it.

     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.

     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, _after_ the
     war, _after_ 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:

          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.

     It was the tax on tea--woman's drink prerogative--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 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--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.

     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:

          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.

     You notice the phraseology. Again, he says:

          The laws of the United States are supreme, and so,
          consequently, is the action of officials of the United
          States in enforcing them.

     Secretary Sherman said in his speech at Steubenville, July 6:

          The negroes are free and are citizens and voters. That, at
          least, is a part of the constitution and cannot be changed.

     And President Hayes in his two last messages, as Mrs. Blake
     recited to you, has declared  that--

          United States citizenship shall mean one and the same thing
          and carry with it all over our wide territory unchallenged
          security and respect.

     And that is what we ask for women.

     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.

     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--the last to be first.[59]

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 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.

The Washington _Republican_ of February 6, 1880, describes a novel
event that took place at that time:

     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--a fitting subject for an historical painting.

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.

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.

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 _Congressional Record_ of
March 27 contains the following:

     Mr. FRYE: 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.

     Mr. CONGER: Let it be read.

     The clerk read the resolution as follows:

          _Resolved by the House of Representatives_, 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.

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.

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.[60] 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.

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[61] were present 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.

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--Don Cameron--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:

     A committee of women have been here and they ask for seventy-six
     seats in this convention. I move that they be furnished.

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:

     _Resolved_, That we pledge ourselves to secure to women the
     exercise of their right to vote.

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.

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--Don Cameron of
Pennsylvania--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 _ten_ 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.

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.

     _To the Republican Party in Convention assembled, Chicago, June
     2, 1880_:

     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:

          _Resolved_, That we pledge ourselves to secure to women the
          exercise of their right to vote.

     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, 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.

     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.

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--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
_ten_ 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.

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.

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.

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--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[62] deem these expressions of woman's desire to vote, that
it made a formal request to be put in possession of _all_ letters
and postals, with a promise that they should be carefully guarded
in a fire-proof safe.

After the eloquent speeches[63] 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.

     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,

     _Resolved_, 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.

A delegation[64] went to the Greenback convention and presented the
following memorial:

     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--a slave, who, as wife and daughter, absolutely works
     for her board and clothes. The question of finance deeply
     interests 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.

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.

After trying in vain for recognition as a political factor from the
Republican and Greenback nominating conventions the delegates went
to Cincinnati.[65]

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[66]
before the platform committee was granted with no limit as to time.
At the close a delegate approached the table, saying, "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:

     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.

But although the platform committee sat until 2 A.M., 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.

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 _Courier-Journal_, 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:

     _To the Democratic Party in Nominating Convention Assembled,
     Cincinnati, June 22, 1880:_

     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.

     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 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.

     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, Phoebe 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.

     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.

     In furtherance of this demand we ask you to adopt the following
     resolution:

          WHEREAS, 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,

          _Resolved_, 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.

     On behalf of the National Woman Suffrage Association.

              MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Chairman Executive Committee_.

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:

     _To the National Woman Suffrage Association of the United
     States:_

     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.

                        JAMES BLACK, _Chairman of National Committee._

     Per J. W. HAGGARD.

A letter was received from Mr. Black urging the acceptance of the
invitation. Accordingly Miss Phoebe Couzins was sent as a delegate
from the association. The Prohibition party in its eleventh plank
said:

     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.

After attending all these nominating conventions, some of the
delegates[67] 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.[68]
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.[69] 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.[70]

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.

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 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.

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.

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:

                                   ROCHESTER, N. Y., August 17, 1880.

     Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD: _Dear Sir_: 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 _official influence_ to secure to the women of the several
     States a _national guarantee_ 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--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,

                                             SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

To this General Hancock vouchsafed no reply, while General Garfield
responded as follows:

                                   MENTOR, O., August 25, 1880.

     Dear MISS ANTHONY: 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
     speak, "as their nominee"--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,

                                                    JAMES A. GARFIELD.
     Miss SUSAN B. ANTHONY, Rochester, N. Y.


                                   ROCHESTER, N. Y., September 9, 1880.

     Hon. JAMES A. GARFIELD: _Dear Sir_: Yours of the 25th ult. has
     waited all these days that I might consider and carefully reply.

     _First_. 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--not only for
     women, but for colored men--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 _is lost_ by the
     _Republican_ party, and not _to be lost_ by the _Democratic_
     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 _name_ that the Republican
     party is the party of national supremacy. Grant did not protect
     the negro's ballot in 1876--Hayes cannot in 1880--nor could
     Garfield in 1884--for the "sceptre has departed from Judah."

     _Second_. For the candidate of a party to _add_ 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 _inside_ the line of the platform. And I _know_, 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.

     _Third_. As to picking fruit before it is ripe! Allow me to
     remind you that very much fruit is _never_ 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;--if, after seeing, and hearing, and repeating, that _no
     class_ ever got justice and equality of chances from any
     government except it had the power--the ballot--to clutch them
     for itself;--if, after all your opportunities for growth and
     development, you cannot yet see the truth of the great principle
     of individual self-government;--if you have only reached the idea
     of class-government, and that, too, of the most hateful and cruel
     form--bounded by sex--there must be some radical defect in the
     ethics of the party of which you are the chosen leader.

     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
     _good_ 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--alone, without father,
     brother, husband, son--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,

                                             SUSAN B. ANTHONY.

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.

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[71] 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.[72] 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.

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,[73] holding the
rapt attention of her audience over an hour. At the close Frederick
Douglass said:

     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.

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:

     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.

     Miss ANTHONY 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.

Mrs. Sewall, after speaking of the many admirable qualities of Mrs.
Mott, said:

     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.

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.

An able paper from Alexander Dumas, on "Woman Suffrage as a means
of Moral Improvement and Prevention of Crime,"[74] 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.[75] 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.

From the _Congressional Record_, January 20, 1881:

     Mr. MCDONALD: 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.

     The VICE-PRESIDENT (Mr. Wheeler of New York): The senator from
     Indiana calls up for consideration a resolution on the calendar,
     which will be reported.

     The chief clerk read the resolution, as follows:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     The VICE-PRESIDENT: The question is, Will the Senate agree to the
     resolution?

     Mr. MCDONALD: 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 properly before
     the country. I hope there will be no opposition to the resolution
     but that it will be adopted by unanimous consent.

     Mr. CONKLING: 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?

     Mr. MCDONALD: That is precisely what I propose to do.

     Mr. CONKLING: 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.[76]

     Mr. MCDONALD: 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 and acted upon. Therefore I cannot accept the
     suggestion of the senator from New York to make this a special
     committee.

     Mr. DAVIS 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.

     The VICE-PRESIDENT: The question is on the motion of the senator
     from Virginia, that the resolution be referred to the Committee
     on Rules.

     Which was agreed to by a vote of 26 yeas to 23 nays.[77]

Amid all the pleasure of political excitement the social amenities
were not forgotten. A brilliant reception[78] 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:

     Mrs. ELIZABETH CADY STANTON--_Dear Madam_: 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,

                                             EDWARD M. DAVIS.

In receiving the beautiful gift, Dr. Patton, president of the
institution, made a graceful response.

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
_Hartford Courant_:

     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 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.


[Illustration: Jane H. Spofford]


     Mrs. Harriet Hansom Robinson (wife of "Warrington," so long the
     able correspondent of the _Springfield Republican_), 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.

     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.[79] The well-known Francis 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.

     Rev. Ada C. Bowles of Cambridge, and Rev. Olympia Brown, of
     Racine, Wis., opened the various sessions with prayer--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.

     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 & 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 _The Alpha_, 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:

          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.

     The Governor responded, and then introduced his secretary, who
     conducted the ladies through the building.

          Mrs. HOOKER 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 _people_ 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--the end of our wearisome warfare--a warfare which
          though bloodless, has 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--always a woman--and she bids
          us go on--go on--even unto the end.

     Miss Anthony standing close to the governor, said in low,
     pathetic tones:

          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.

     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 & 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.

     From Jordan, Marsh & 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--through whose desire the Association visited the
     prison--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. The
     present physician, a delicate, cultured woman, with sympathy for
     her suffering charges, is a recent graduate of Ann Arbor.

     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.

     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 _Advertiser_, 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:

          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.

     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:

          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 _men_ of the race, the innocent victims of our
          disobedience, fills us with satisfaction.

     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.

At the close of the anniversary week in Boston, successful meetings
were held in various cities,[80] 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[53] "True labor reform: the ballot for woman, the unpaid laborer
of the whole earth."

    "Man's work is from sun to sun,
    But woman's work is never done."

"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."

"Women are voting on education, the bulwark of the republic, in
Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Colorado, Oregon, New Hampshire and
Massachusetts."

"Women are voting on all questions in Wyoming and Utah. The vote of
women transformed Wyoming from barbarism to civilization."

"The financial problem for woman: equal pay for equal work, and one
hundred cents on the dollar."

"When a woman _Will_, she WILL, and you may depend on it, she WILL
vote."

[54] _California_, Jane B. Archibald; _Connecticut_, Julia E. Smith
(Parker), E. C. Champion; _Delaware_, Mary A. Stuart; _District of
Columbia_, 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; _Illinois_, Miss Jessie Waite, daughter of
Caroline V. and Judge Waite; _Indiana_, Zerelda G. Wallace, Emma
Mont McRae; Flora M. Hardin; _Iowa_, Nancy R. Allen; _Kansas_,
Della Ross; _Louisiana_, Elizabeth L. Saxon, _Maine_, Sophronia C.
Snow; _Maryland_, Lavinia Dundore; _Michigan_, Catherine A. F.
Stebbins; _Missouri_, Phoebe W. Couzins; _New Hampshire_, Marilla
M. Ricker; _New Jersey_, Lucinda B. Chandler; _New York_, Susan B.
Anthony, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Lillie Devereux Blake, Dr. A.
W. Lozier, Jennie de M. Lozier, M. D., Helen M. Slocum;
_Pennsylvania_, Rachel G. Foster, Julia T. Foster; _South
Carolina_, Mary R. Pell.

[55] Signed by Matilda Joslyn Gage, _Chairman Executive Committee_:
Susan B. Anthony, _Vice-president-at-large_; Sara Andrews Spencer,
_Corresponding Secretary_: Jane H. Spofford, _Treasurer_.

[56] 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.--[Washington correspondent of the
Portland (Me.) _Transcript_, Jan. 23, 1880.

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.--[Washington _Critic_, Jan. 21,
1880.

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.--[Washington _National Republican_, Jan. 22, 1880.

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.--[Washington correspondent Syracuse _Daily Standard_.

[57] 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.

[58] 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.--[M. J. G.

[59] Speeches were also made by Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Spencer and Miss
Anthony.

[60] _Alabama_, Mrs. P. Holmes Drake, Huntsville. _Connecticut_,
Elizabeth C. Champion, Bridgeport. _District of Columbia_, Belva A.
Lockwood, Eveleen L. Mason, Jerusha G. Joy, Ellen H. Sheldon, Sara
Andrews Spencer, Jane H. Spofford. _Illinois_, Elizabeth Boynton
Harbert, vice-president of the National Association and editor of
the "Woman's Kingdom" in the _Chicago Inter-Ocean_, Evanston;
Dr. Ann M. Porter, Danville. _Indiana_, 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 _Lafayette Courier_, Lafayette;
Thomas Atkinson, Oxford; Mrs. Dr. Rogers, Greencastle; Florence M.
Hardin, Pendelton. _Iowa_, Mrs. J. C. M'Kinney, Mrs. Weiser,
Decorah. _Kentucky_, Mary B. Clay, Richmond; Mrs. Carr, Mrs. E. T.
Housh, Louisville. _Louisiana_, Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans,
_Maryland_; Mary A. Butler, Baltimore. _Michigan_, Catherine A. F.
Stebbins, Detroit. _Missouri_, Mrs. Virginia L. Minor, Mrs. Eliza
J. Patrick, Mrs. Annie T. Anderson, Mrs. Caroline Johnson Todd,
Mrs. Endie J. Polk, Miss Phoebe Couzins, Miss M. A. Baumgarten,
Miss Emma Neave, Miss Eliza B. Buckley, St. Louis; Mrs. Frances
Montgomery, Oregon. _New Hampshire_, Parker Pillsbury, Concord.
_New Jersey_, Lucinda B. Chandler. _New York_, Mrs. Blake, Mrs.
Gage, Miss Anthony. _Ohio_, Mrs. Amanda B. Merrian, Mrs. Cordelia
A. Plimpton, Cincinnati; Sophia L. O. Allen, Eva L. Pinney, South
Newberry; Mrs. N. L. Braffet, New Paris. _Pennsylvania_, Rachel
Foster, Julia T. Foster, Philadelphia. _South Carolina_, Mary R.
Pell, Cowden P. O.

[61] _Colorado_, Florence M. Haynes, Greely. _Connecticut_,
Elizabeth C. Champion, Bridgeport. _District of Columbia_; 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. _Illinois_, 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. _Indiana_, Helen M. Gougar, Lafayette; Dr. Rachel B.
Swain, Gertrude Garrison, Indianapolis. _Iowa_, Nancy R. Allen,
Maquoketa; Jane C. M'Kinney, Mrs. Weiser, Decorah; Virginia
Cornish, Hamburg; Ellen J. Foster, Clinton; Clara F. Harkness,
Humboldt. _Kansas_, Amanda B. Way, Elizabeth M'Kinney, Kenneth.
_Kentucky_, Mary B. Clay, Sallie Clay Bennett, Richmond.
_Louisiana_, Elizabeth L. Saxon, New Orleans. _Maryland_, Mary A.
Butler, Baltimore. _Massachusetts_, Addie N. Ayres, Boston.
_Minnesota_, A. H. Street, Albert Lee. _Michigan_, Catherine A. F.
Stebbins, Detroit; Eliza Burt Gamble, Miss Mattie Smedly, East
Saginaw; P. Engle Travis, Hartford; Dr. Elizabeth Miller, South
Frankford. _Missouri_, Virginia L. Minor, Phoebe W. Couzins, Annie
T. Anderson, Caroline J. Todd, St. Louis; Dr. Augusta Smith,
Springfield. _New Hampshire_, Parker Pillsbury, Concord.
_Nebraska_, Harriet S. Brooks, Omaha; Dr. Amy R. Post, Hastings.
_New Jersey_, Margaret H. Ravenhill. _New York_, Susan B. Anthony,
Rochester; Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville; Lillie Devereux
Blake, New York city. _Ohio_, Eva L. Pinney, South Newbury; Julia
B. Cole. _Oregon_, Mrs. A. J. Duniway (as substitute), Portland.
_Pennsylvania_, Rachel Foster, Julia T. Foster, Lucinda B.
Chandler, Philadelphia; Cornelia H. Scarborough, New Hope. _South
Carolina_, Mary R. Pell, Cowden P. O. _Tennessee_, Elizabeth Avery
Meriwether, Memphis. _Wisconsin_, Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine;
Almedia B. Gray, Schofield Mills. _Wyoming Territory_, Amelia B.
Post.

[62] HISTORICAL SOCIETY ROOMS, 140-42 DEARBORN AVE.,
                                                CHICAGO, May 19, 1880.

_Mrs. E. C. Stanton, President National Woman Suffrage Association,
476 West Lake street:_

_Dear Madam:_ 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
_mass-meeting_ 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.

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.

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.

The leaders should not be content _to suffer it to be so_, 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.

We should be glad to have you and your friends call at these rooms,
which are open and free for all.

                    Very Respectfully,       A. D. HAGER, _Librarian_.

[63] 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--" "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 _Inter-Ocean_ 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."

[64] Miss Anthony, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Chandler, Mrs. Spencer and Mrs.
Haggart.

[65] Twenty delegates from eleven different States, who had been in
attendance at Chicago, went to Cincinnati.

[66] Before which Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Meriwether, Miss Anthony, Mrs.
Spencer and Mrs. Blake spoke.

[67] Miss Anthony, Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Meriwether, Mrs.
Saxon, Miss. Couzins, Rev. Olympia Brown, Misses Rachel and Julia
Foster.

[68] This was the last time this noble German woman honored our
platform, as her eventful life closed a few years after.

[69] Among others, from Assemblyman Lord,
State-Superintendent-of-Public-Instruction Whitford, J. M. Bingham
and Superintendent MacAlister.

[70] The delegates were Olympia Brown, _Racine_; L. C. Galt, M. M.
Frazier, _Mukwonago_; E. A. Brown, _Berlin_; E. M. Cooley,
_Eureka_; E. L. Woolcott, _Ripon_; O. M. Patton, M. D., _Appleton_;
H. Suhm, E. Hohgrave, _Sauk City_; M. W. Mabbs, C. M. Stowers,
_Manitowoc_; S. C. Guernsey, _Janesville_; H. T. Patchin, _New
London_; Jennie Pomeroy, _Grand Rapids_; Mrs. H. W. Rice,
_Oconomowoc_; Amy Winship, _Racine_; Almedia B. Gray, Matilda
Graves, Jessie Gray, _Scholfield Mills_; Mrs. Mary Collins,
_Mukwonago_; Mrs. Jere Witter, _Grand Rapids_; Mrs. Lucina E.
DeWolff, _Whitewater_. 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.

[71] 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, Phoebe W.
Couzins. 7. Closing Hymn--"_Nearer, my God, to Thee_."

[72] 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 _epergne_ 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.

[73] The eulogy will be found in Volume I., page 407.

[74] See _National Citizen_ of February, 1881.

[75] 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.

[76] 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.

[77] _Yeas_--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--26.

_Nays_--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--23.

[78] Of this reception the _National Republican_ 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.

[79] 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.--[E. C. S.

[80] PROVIDENCE, R. I.--First Light Infantry Hall, May 30, 31. Rev.
Frederick A. Hinckley gave the address of welcome.

PORTLAND, Me.--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.

DOVER, N. H.--Belknap Street Church, June 3, 4. Marilla M. Ricker
took the responsibility of this meeting.

CONCORD, N. H.--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--nearly all the members present--the latter returned on Sunday
and spoke on temperance and woman suffrage at the Opera House in
the afternoon, Universalist church in the evening.

KEENE, N. H.--Liberty, Hall, June 9, 10. Prayer offered by Rev. Mr.
Enkins. Mayor Russell presided and gave the address of welcome.

HARTFORD, Ct.--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.

NEW HAVEN, Ct.--Athæneum, June 15, 16. Joseph and Abby Sheldon,
Catherine Comstock and others entertained the visitors and
speakers.

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.




CHAPTER XXX.

CONGRESSIONAL DEBATES AND CONVENTIONS.

1882-1883.


     Prolonged Discussions in the Senate on a Special Committee to
     Look After the Rights of Women, Messrs. Bayard, Morgan and Vest
     in Opposition--Mr. Hoar Champions the Measure in the Senate, Mr.
     Reed in the House--Washington Convention--Representative Orth and
     Senator Saunders on the Woman Suffrage Platform--Hearings Before
     Select Committees of Senate and House--Reception Given by Mrs.
     Spofford at the Riggs House--Philadelphia Convention--Mrs. Hannah
     Whitehall Smith's Dinner--Congratulations from the Central
     Committee of Great Britain--Majority and Minority Reports in the
     Senate--Nebraska Campaign--Conventions in Omaha--Joint Resolution
     Introduced by Hon. John D. White of Kentucky, Referred to the
     Select Committee--Washington Convention, January 24, 25, 26,
     1883--Majority Report in the House.

Although 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.[81] 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

                                                  DECEMBER 14.

     Mr. HOAR: 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.

     Mr. VEST: Mr. President, I am constrained to object to the
     passage of this resolution, and I do it with considerable
     reluctance. At present we have thirty standing committees of the
     Senate; four joint and seven special committees, in addition to
     the one now proposed.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair will inform the senator
     from Missouri that a majority of the Senate has to decide whether
     the resolution shall be considered.

     Mr. VEST: I understood the Chair to state that it was before the
     Senate.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: It is before the Senate if there be
     no objection. The Chair thought the senator made objection to its
     consideration.

     Mr. HOAR: It went over under the rule yesterday and comes up now.

     Mr. EDMUNDS: It is the regular order now.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Certainly. The Chair thought the
     senator from Missouri objected to its consideration.

     Mr. VEST: No, sir.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The resolution is before the Senate
     and open to debate.

     Mr. VEST: 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 _pedis possessio_ 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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.


                                                  DECEMBER 15.

     The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported
     from the Committee on Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th inst.

     Mr. VEST: 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.

     Mr. HOAR: Will the senator allow me to interrupt him for a
     moment?

     Mr. VEST: Of course.

     Mr. HOAR: 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.

     Mr. VEST: 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.

     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.

     Sir, there are some ladies--and I do not intend to term them
     anything but ladies--who are zealously engaged in this cause, and
     they have flooded this hall with petitions, and have called their
     women's rights conventions 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The hour of one o'clock has arrived,
     and the morning hour is closed.


                                                  DECEMBER 16.

     Mr. JONES 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.

     Mr. HOAR: Mr. President--

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Florida asks leave
     to call up a resolution submitted by him.

     Mr. HOAR: My resolution was before the Senate yesterday, and
     comes up in order. I hope we shall vote on it.

     Mr. JONES 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.

     Mr. HOAR: 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair thought the senator from
     Missouri had ended his remarks, or he would not have interposed
     when he did.

     Mr. HOAR: No, sir.

     Mr. JONES of Florida: My resolution involves no debate. It is
     merely a resolution of inquiry.

     Mr. HOAR: The other will be disposed of, I hope, in a few
     moments.

     Mr. JONES 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.

     Mr. HOAR: The other will be disposed of in a moment, and I hope
     we shall vote on it.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair lays before the Senate the
     resolution of the senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Hoar].

     The Senate resumed the consideration of the resolution reported
     from the Committee on Rules by Mr. Hoar on the 13th instant.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair would state to the senator
     from Missouri [Mr. Vest] that the Chair supposed yesterday that
     he had finished 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.

     Mr. VEST: 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.

     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.

     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 _personnel_ 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 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--those of us who are proud to
     believe that--

          A woman's noblest station is retreat;
          Her fairest virtues fly from public sight;
          Domestic worth--that shuns too strong a light.

     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:

          There shall I bathe my wearied soul
            In seas of endless rest,
          And not one wave of trouble roll
            Across my peaceful breast.

     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.]

     Mr. MORRILL: 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--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.

     Mr. HOAR: 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the adoption of
     the resolution reported by the senator from Massachusetts.

     Mr. HARRIS: Did not the senator from Missouri [Mr. Vest] offer an
     amendment?

     Mr. GARLAND: As I understand, he moved to refer the subject to
     the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Does the Chair understand that the
     senator from Missouri has offered an amendment?

     Mr. VEST: Yes, sir; I move to refer the matter to the Committee
     on Revolutionary Claims.

     Mr. CONGER: Let the resolution be reported.

     The acting secretary read the resolution.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.

     Mr. FARLEY called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered
     and taken.

     Mr. BLAIR [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.

     Mr. WINDOM: 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."

     Mr. INGALLS: I am paired with the senator from Mississippi [Mr.
     Lamar].

     The result was announced--yeas 22, nays 31. So the motion was not
     agreed to.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question recurs on the adoption
     of the resolution.

     Mr. BAYARD: Is it in order for me to move the reference of the
     subject to the Committee on the Judiciary?

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: It is in order to move to refer the
     resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary, the Chair
     understands.

     Mr. BAYARD: 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--

     Mr. HOAR: Mr. President--

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Will the senator from Delaware yield
     to the senator from Massachusetts?

     Mr. BAYARD: I will, if he thinks it necessary to interrupt me.

     Mr. HOAR: 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?

     Mr. BAYARD: 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, _to wit_, 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.

     Mr. HOAR: 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?

     Mr. BAYARD: 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,--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.

     Therefore it is that I think this subject should not be
     considered separately; it should not have a special
     committee--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
     consideration,--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.

     Mr. LOGAN rose.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour has expired.

     Mr. LOGAN: I want to say just one word.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: It requires unanimous consent.

     Mr. LOGAN: 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.

     Mr. HARRIS: I ask unanimous consent that the senator from
     Illinois may proceed.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: There being no objection unanimous
     consent will be presumed to have been given for the senator from
     Illinois to make his explanation.

     Mr. LOGAN: 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 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.

     Mr. MORRILL: 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The Chair will entertain a motion on
     that subject.

     Mr. MORRILL: 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Vermont--

     Mr. VOORHEES: Mr. President, I feel constrained to call for the
     regular order.


                                                  DECEMBER 19, 1881.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Are there further "concurrent or
     other resolutions"?

     Mr. HOAR: I call up the resolution in regard to woman suffrage,
     reported by me from the Committee on Rules.

     Mr. JONES of Florida: I ask for information how long the morning
     hour is to extend?

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.

     Mr. HOAR: I hope we may have a vote on the resolution this
     morning.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.

     Mr. HOAR: 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: Is the Senate ready for the question
     on the motion of the senator from Delaware?

     Mr. BAYARD and Mr. FARLEY called for the yeas and nays, and they
     were ordered.

     Mr. BECK: 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.

     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!

     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.

     Mr. MORGAN: Mr. President--

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour has expired, and
     the unfinished business is before the Senate.


                                                  DECEMBER 20, 1881.

     Mr. HOAR: I now call up the resolution for appointing a special
     committee on woman suffrage.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour having expired, the
     senator from Massachusetts calls up the resolution which was
     under consideration yesterday.

     Mr. INGALLS: What is the regular order?

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.

     Mr. HOAR: 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.

     Mr. MORGAN: I have no objection to proceeding to the
     consideration of the resolution, but I desire to address the
     Senate upon it.

     Mr. HOAR: I think I must ask now as a favor of the senator from
     Alabama that he let the resolution be disposed of promptly.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.

     Mr. FARLEY: I object to the consideration of the resolution.

     Mr. HOAR: I move to take it up.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.]

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.

     Mr. MORGAN: 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 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.

     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?

     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
     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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 community, wherever it may
     be throughout the territories of the United States, to determine
     for itself what it may prefer to have.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     I cannot be convinced against these facts that this new movement
     in favor of female suffrage means anything more than to add
     another patch 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.

     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.

     Mr. BAYARD: I move the that Senate proceed to the consideration
     of executive business. [The motion was agreed to.]


                                                  JANUARY 9, 1882.

     Mr. HOAR: I now ask for the consideration of the resolution
     relating to a select committee on woman suffrage.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.

     The principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

     Mr. BUTLER (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].

     The roll-call was concluded.

     Mr. TELLER: On this question I am paired with the senator from
     Alabama [Mr. Morgan]. If the senator from Alabama were present, I
     should vote "nay."

     Mr. MCPHERSON (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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from New Jersey
     withdraws his vote.

     The result was announced--yeas 27, nays 31. So the motion was not
     agreed to.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question recurs on the adoption
     of the resolution.

     Mr. EDMUNDS: Let it be read for information. The secretary read
     the resolution.

     Mr. EDMUNDS: "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.

     Mr. HOAR: I have no objection to that modification.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The senator from Massachusetts
     accepts the suggestion of the senator from Vermont, and the word
     "may" will be substituted for "shall."

     Mr. HILL 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The morning hour has expired, and it
     requires unanimous consent for the senator from Georgia to
     proceed with his remarks.


                                                  JANUARY 21, 1882.

     Mr. HOAR: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration
     of the resolution.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: If there is no objection, unanimous
     consent will be assumed.

     Mr. FARLEY and others: I object.

     Mr. HOAR: I move that the Senate proceed with the consideration
     of the resolution.

     Mr. SHERMAN: Let it be proceeded with informally, subject to the
     call for other business.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: 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.

     The motion was agreed to; there being on a division--ayes 32,
     noes 20.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The resolution is before the Senate
     and the senator from Georgia [Mr. Hill] has the floor.

     Mr. HILL 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.

     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?

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: The question is on the adoption of
     the resolution.

     Mr. VEST called for the yeas and nays, and they were ordered, and
     the principal legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

     Mr. JONES 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."

     Mr. TELLER, (when his name was called): On this question I am
     paired with the senator from Alabama [Mr. Morgan]; otherwise I
     should vote "yea."

     The roll-call having been concluded, the result was
     announced--yeas 35, nays 23; so the resolution was agreed
     to.[82]


                   IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, December 20, 1881.

     Mr. WHITE of Kentucky: I ask consent to offer for consideration
     at this time the resolution which I send to the clerk's desk.

     The clerk read as follows:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     Mr. MILLS of Texas: I object.

     Mr. KELLEY of Pennsylvania: A similar resolution has already been
     referred to the Committee on Rules.

     The SPEAKER (Mr. Keifer of Ohio): Objection being made to its
     consideration at this time, the resolution will be referred to
     the Committee on Rules.

     The resolution was referred accordingly.


                   IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, February 25, 1882.

     Mr. REED 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.

     The clerk read as follows:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     The SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the report of the
     Committee on Rules.

     Mr. HOLMAN of Indiana: I ask that the latter portion of the
     resolution be again read. It was not heard in this part of the
     house.

     The resolution was again read.

     Mr. TOWNSHEND of Illinois: I rise to make a parliamentary
     inquiry.

     The SPEAKER: The gentleman will state it.

     Mr. TOWNSHEND: My inquiry is whether that resolution should not
     go to the House calendar.

     The SPEAKER: 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.

     Mr. MCMILLIN of Tennessee: I make the point of order that it must
     lie over for one day.

     The SPEAKER: It is the report of a committee privileged under the
     rules.

     Mr. MCMILLIN: The committee are privileged to report, but under
     the rule the report has to lie over a day.

     The SPEAKER: 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.

     Mr. MCMILLIN: 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.

     The SPEAKER: 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.

     Mr. SPRINGER: 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--

     The SPEAKER: The Chair has passed on that question, and no appeal
     has been taken from his decision.

     Mr. SPRINGER: 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.

     The SPEAKER: Not one of the standing committees, but a select
     committee.

     Mr. SPRINGER: That rule provides there shall be a certain number
     of committees, the names of which are therein given.

     Mr. REED: 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.

     Mr. MCMILLIN: Will the gentleman permit me to ask him a question?

     Mr. REED: Certainly.

     Mr. MCMILLIN: Would you not, as a parliamentarian, concede that
     this does change the existing rules of the House?

     Mr. REED: 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.]

     Mr. MCMILLIN: Then you have no opinion beyond his decision?

     The SPEAKER: 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.

     Mr. SPRINGER: It provides for a new committee.

     The SPEAKER: 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.

     Mr. SPRINGER: The rule provides that no standing rule or order of
     the House shall be rescinded or changed without one day's notice.

     The SPEAKER: The Chair would decide that this does not propose
     any change or rescinding of any standing rule of the House.

     Mr. SPRINGER: Does the Chair hold that the making of a new rule
     is not a change of the existing rules?

     The SPEAKER: The Chair does not decide anything of the kind.

     Mr. SPRINGER: What does the Chair decide?

     The SPEAKER: The Chair does not undertake to decide any such
     question, for it is not now presented.

     Mr. SPRINGER: Is this not a new rule?

     The SPEAKER: It is not.

     Mr. SPRINGER: It is not?

     The SPEAKER: It is a provision for a select committee.

     Mr. SPRINGER: Can you have a committee without a rule of the
     House providing for it?

     The SPEAKER: The question is on the adoption of the resolution
     reported from the Committee on Rules.

     Mr. ATKINS: On that question I call for the yeas and nays.

     The yeas and nays were ordered.

     The question was taken and there were--yeas 115, nays 84, not
     voting 93; so the resolution was carried.[83]

     Mr. REED 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.

     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.

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, forty delegates were
present from fourteen different States.[84] 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.

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.

Rev. Frederick A. Hinckley of Providence, R. I., spoke upon "Our
Demand in the Light of Evolution." He said:

     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--like causes
     produce like results--and this is seen in the progress of
     government and of woman. From the time when physical force ruled,
     up to the present, when _ostensibly_ 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--slave, subject, inferior, dependent; and no step in this
     advance has been 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.

Mrs. Blake in reporting from her State said:

     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.

     Mrs. COLBY 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!"

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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

Miss Couzins made an admirable speech on the following resolution:

          _Resolved_, That Senator Morgan's bill to deprive the
          _women_ of Utah of the right of suffrage because of the
          social institutions and religious faith originated and
          maintained by the _men_ 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.

     Miss COUZINS 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.

     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 _ipse dixit_ of man's religious doctrine. Their
     emancipation must necessarily be slow.

     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.

     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 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.

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.

     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.

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.

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 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:

     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--the ballot--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.

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":

     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.

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 a valuable
acquisition to our Association. Mrs. Gage gave an able address on
"The Moral Force of Woman Suffrage."

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,[85] 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

In describing the occasion for the _Boston Transcript_, Mrs.
Shattuck said:

     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--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 and
     were surprised to find so much in the demand, and to see such
     ability as was manifested by the women before them."

The committee having expressed a wish to hear others on the
subject, appointed the next morning at 10 o'clock.[86] Mrs.
Stanton, being introduced by the chairman, said:

     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,

          Lapham, Anthony and Blair,
          Jackson, George, Ferry and Fair.

     which will enable us to remember them always. This I discovered
     in writing your names in this volume, which allow me to present
     you.

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 _Boston Transcript_, said:

     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 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.

     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.

     At the close of the hearing Mrs. Robinson presented each member
     of the committee with her little volume, "Massachusetts in the
     Woman Suffrage Movement."

January 23 the House Committee on Rules[87] 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.

Immediately after this most of the speakers went[88] to
Philadelphia where Rachel Foster had made arrangements for a
two-days convention. Rev. Charles G. Ames gave the address of
welcome.

     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--he looking down
     at her, she gazing up at him--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 now he believes women entitled
     to stand on an equal plane with men, socially and politically.

The President, Mrs. Stanton, responded. Hannah Whitehall Smith of
Germantown, prominent in the temperance movement, spoke of the
hardship of farmers' wives, and asked:

     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.

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:

     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
     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[89] 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--a day to be remembered by all
     of us.

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--but this was the first
favorable majority report we had ever had in either house:

                                   IN THE SENATE, MONDAY, June 5, 1882.

     Mr. LAPHAM: 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.

     Mr. GEORGE: 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.

     The PRESIDENT _pro tempore_: It is moved that 1,000 extra copies
     of the report be printed for the use of the Senate.

     Mr. ANTHONY: The motion should go by the statute to the Committee
     on Printing.

     Mr. LAPHAM: I will present it in the form of a resolution for
     reference to the Committee on Printing.

     The resolution was referred to the Committee on Printing, as
     follows:

          _Resolved_, 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.

In the Senate of the United States, June 5, 1882, Mr. Lapham, from
the Committee on Woman Suffrage, submitted the following report:

     _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: _

     The gravity and importance of the proposed amendment must be
     obvious to all who have given the subject the consideration it
     demands.

     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.

     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:

          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 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.

     The meeting also adopted a series of resolutions, one of which
     was in the following words:

          _Resolved_, That it is the duty of the women of this country
          to secure to themselves their sacred right to the elective
          franchise.

     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.

     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--

          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.

     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:

          _Resolved_, 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 _without distinction of sex_.

     During the same year a similar report was made in the legislature
     of Wisconsin. From the report on the subject we quote the
     following:

          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 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.

     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:

          First of all, the experience of Wyoming has shown that the
          only actual trial of woman suffrage hitherto made--a trial
          made in a new country where the conditions were not
          exceptionably favorable--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--such a demand as a sense of the responsibility
          of the voter would create--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 _moral_ 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--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.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     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.

     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:

          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 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.

     To all who are more serious in their opposition to the movement,
     we would remind them of the words of a few distinguished  men:--

          I go for all sharing the privileges of the government who
          assist in bearing its burdens, by no means excluding
          women.--[ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

          I believe that the vices in our large cities will never be
          conquered until the ballot is put into the hands of
          women.--[Bishop SIMPSON.

          I do not think our politics will be what it ought to be till
          women are legislators and voters.--[Rev. JAMES FREEMAN
          CLARKE.

          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.--[GEORGE WILLIAM
          CURTIS.

          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.--[Bishop
          GILBERT HAVEN.

          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.--[Governor LONG
          of Massachusetts.

          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.--[HERBERT SPENCER.

          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.--[PLATO.

     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.

     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
     all citizens to give that consent through the medium of the
     ballot-box--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.

     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. _It is the denial of
     the right of which they complain._ 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 _right
     to vote_, 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.

     Entertaining these views, your committee report back the proposed
     resolution without amendment for the consideration of the Senate,
     and recommend its passage.

                                             E. G. LAPHAM,
                                             T. M. FERRY,
                                             H. W. BLAIR.

     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.

                                             H. B. ANTHONY.

June 5, 1882, Mr. George, from the Committee on Woman Suffrage,
submitted the following views of the minority:

     The undersigned are unable to concur in the report of the
     majority recommending the adoption of the joint resolution
     proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States,
     for reasons which they will now proceed to state.

     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--the
     family circle--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--the harmony and stability of marriage, and the
     division of the labors and cares of that union--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.

     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 States with
     greater jealousy than their absolute control over marriage and
     the relation between the sexes.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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--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 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

                                             J. Z. GEORGE,
                                             HOWELL E. JACKSON,
                                             JAMES G. FAIR.

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:


                  CENTRAL COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR      }
                       WOMAN SUFFRAGE, 64 Berners Street, LONDON, W. }

     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:

          _Resolved_, 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 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.

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[90] 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[91] held its convention September
12, 13, 14. The National[92] continued three days, September 27,
28, 29.

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:

     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 to the political philosophy of
     Edmund Burke than any lack of conviction of the absolute equality
     of men and women in natural rights.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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--suffrage?" On behalf of the people of a
     State whose legislature has granted everything else to
     women--whose devotion to free speech, untrammeled discussion and
     an independent press has been conspicuous in its constitutional
     and legislative history--I welcome them to this city and State,
     and bespeak for them a patient, candid, respectful, appreciative
     hearing.

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.[93]
She then read a letter from the president of the convention:

                                  TOULOUSE, France, September 1, 1882.

     _To the National Woman Suffrage Association in Convention
     assembled:_

     DEAR FRIENDS: 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.

     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 assert her rights, and to demand the
     recognition of the feminine element in all the vital interests of
     life.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     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,

                         Cordially yours,       ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.

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:

                                   BERLIN, September 9, 1882.

     Miss ANTHONY: _Esteemed Friend_: At this great distance I can
     only sympathize with the earnest effort to be made this fall to
     secure political 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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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?

     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,[94] I am, respectfully yours,

                                             A. A. SARGENT.

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:

                                   TOULOUSE, France, September 3, 1882.

     _To the Voters of my Generation in Nebraska:_

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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,[95] 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--"My Country!"

     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--I their subject!

     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.

     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
     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--love of
     country dead. _My_ country!--I have no country.

     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."

                                   Respectfully,      HARRIOT STANTON.


                    MANCHESTER NATIONAL SOCIETY FOR WOMAN SUFFRAGE, }
                         MANCHESTER, England, September 5, 1882.    }

     DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.

                         Yours faithfully,         LYDIA E. BECKER.


                                        LONDON, September 1, 1882.

     DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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
     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.

     With cordial sympathy in all your efforts, I am, faithfully
     yours,

                                             CAROLYN ASHURST BIGGS.


     _To the National Woman Suffrage Association, in Convention
     assembled, at Omaha, Nebraska, September 26, 27, 28:_

     DEAR FRIENDS: 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.

     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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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,

                         Very truly yours,     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE.[96]

_The Republican_ in describing the closing scenes of the
convention, said:

     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--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 Phoebe 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--" 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":

          "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.

Miss Couzins was followed by Mrs. Saxon, Mrs. Neyman and Miss
Hindman. The resolutions,[97] 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:

     There was another to whom the Association owed much for the work
     done which has made possible the brilliant success of the
     convention--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.

Mrs. Brooks came forward amid applause, and said:

     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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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!

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:

     "All is not lost: the unconquerable will is ours."

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 _Washington Chronicle_, from which we give the
following extracts:

     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 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.

     The convention proper opened on Tuesday morning with the
     appointment of various committees,[98] and reports[99] from the
     different States filled up most of the time during the day. May
     Wright Sewall said:

          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.

     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."

     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:

                                   WASHINGTON, D. C., Jan. 23, 1883.

          MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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 some of them undisposed of. It will
          therefore be impossible for me to attend the convention.

          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,

                                             BENJ. F. BUTLER.

     Mrs. Blake presented a series of resolutions, which were laid on
     the table for consideration:

          WHEREAS, 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

          WHEREAS, 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,

          _Resolved_, That we call upon this congress to pass, without
          delay, the sixteenth amendment to the federal constitution
          now pending in the Senate.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          WHEREAS, 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,

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          WHEREAS, During the war hundreds of women throughout our
          land entered the service of the nation as hospital nurses;
          and

          WHEREAS, Many of these women were disabled by wounds and by
          disease, while many were reduced to permanent invalidism by
          the hardships they endured; therefore,

          _Resolved_, That these women should be placed on the pension
          list and rewarded for their services.

     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 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.

          Mrs. SEWALL 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.

          Miss ANTHONY 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: "_The condition of the
          public business prevents us from acceding to your request_."

          Mrs. HARRIETTE R. SHATTUCK 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: "_It is right!_" 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.

     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:

                              INDIANAPOLIS, Ind., January 21, 1883.

          DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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 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,

                         Yours, etc.,     ZERELDA G. WALLACE.

     After several other speakers,[100] 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:

          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 _pari passu_ 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--a type which
          Tennyson describes in his Princess:

               Man shall be more of woman, she of man;
               He gain in sweetness and in moral height,
               Nor lose the thews that wrestle with the world;
               She, mental breadth, nor fail in childward care,
               Nor lose the childlike in the larger mind;
               Till at the last they set them each to each,
               Like perfect music unto noble words.
               Then comes the statelier Eden back to man;
               Then springs the crowning race of human kind.

     At the evening session the time was divided between Lillie
     Devereux Blake and Phoebe W. Couzins. Mrs. Blake spoke on the
     question, "Is it a Crime to be a Woman?"

          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 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 _be a woman_. 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?

          Miss COUZINS 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.

     Being asked to make a few closing remarks, Mrs. May Wright Sewall
     said:

          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 _handsome young man_. 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 _near_ 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.

          Miss ANTHONY 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
          "_numerous_ 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 _Sunday
          Chronicle_ 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.

     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.

     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--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.

     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.

     The following were among the letters read at this convention:

              10 DUCHESS STREET, PORTLAND PLACE, LONDON, Eng., Jan. 12.

          DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.

          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. 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.

          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
          _exercise_ 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.

          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--art, literature,
          amusements, passing events, etc., etc.--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,

                                             ELIZABETH CADY STANTON.


                                      LONDON, January 10, 1883.

          DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.

                                             CAROLINE A. BIGGS.


                         51 RUE DE VARENNE, PARIS, January 15, 1883.

          MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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, 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.

                         Very truly yours,           THEODORE STANTON.


                         51 RUE DE VARENNE, PARIS, January 15, 1883.

          DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.

               Most sincerely yours,        MARGUERITTE BERRY STANTON.


                    134 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, S. E., January 25, 1883.

          DEAR SUSAN ANTHONY: 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 _have_ saved the best reports
          of the convention, and it shall have a good notice in the
          _Independent_ 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.

                         Ever your friend,          MARY CLEMMER.

          May God bless and keep you, I ever pray.[101]


                    HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, THURSDAY, March 1, 1883.

     Mr. WHITE, 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.

     Mr. SPRINGER: As a member of that committee I have not seen the
     report, and do not know whether it meets with my
     concurrence.[102]

     Mr. WHITE: I ask by unanimous consent that the minority may have
     leave to submit their views, to be printed with the majority
     report.

     The SPEAKER: The Chair hears no objection.

     MR. WHITE, from the Select Committee on Woman Suffrage, submitted
     the following:

          _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:_

          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:

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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:

          JOINT RESOLUTION _proposing an amendment to the Constitution
          of the United States_:

          _Resolved_ 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:

          SECTION 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.

          SEC. 2. The congress shall have power, by appropriate
          legislation, to enforce the provisions of this article.

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[103] 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[81] 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.

[82] _Yeas_--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--35.

_Nays_--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--23.

_Absent_--Call, George, Gorman, Groome, Grover, Hale, Harris,
Ingalls, Johnston, Lamar, Mahone, Miller of N. Y., Morgan,
Pendleton, Pugh, Teller, Van Wyck, Voorhees--18.

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.

[83] _Yeas_--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--115.

_Nays_--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--84.

[84] _Connecticut_, Isabella Beecher Hooker, Frances Ellen Burr.
_Colorado_, Mrs. Elizabeth G. Campbell, _District of Columbia_,
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. _Indiana_, Helen M. Gongar, May Wright
Sewall, Laura Kregelo, Alexiana S. Maxwell. _Maine_, Sophronia C.
Snow. _Massachusetts_, Mrs. Harriet H. Robinson, Harriette R.
Shattuck, Laura E. Brooks, Mary R. Brown, Emma F. Clary.
_Nebraska_, Clara B. Colby. _New Jersey_, Mrs. Stanton, Mrs.
Chandler. _New York_, Mrs. Caroline Gilkey Rogers, Mrs. Blake, Mrs.
Gage, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Helen M. Loder. _Pennsylvania_, Mrs.
McClellan Brown, Rachel G. Foster, Emma C. Rhodes. _Rhode Island_,
Rev. Frederick A Hinckley, Mrs. Burgess. _Wisconsin_, Miss Eliza
Wilson and Mrs. Painter.

[85] 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.

[86] 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.

[87] Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Robeson, and Mr. Reed were present.

[88] 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.

[89] 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.

[90] 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.

The speakers at the National convention were Virginia L. Minor,
Phoebe 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.

[91] For full reports of the American convention see the _Woman's
Journal_, edited by Lucy Stone and published in Boston.

[92] For reports of the National see _Our Herald_, edited by Helen
M. Gougar and published in Lafayette, Ind. The daily papers of
Omaha had full reports, the most fair by the _Republican_, edited
by Mr. Brooks.

[93] Their many courtesies are well summed up by Miss Foster in a
letter to _Our Herald_:--DEAR HERALD: 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.

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.

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 & 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 & 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.

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 Phoebe Couzins, on "The Woman Without a Country."

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 _Herald_ posted from week
to week upon campaign committee work.

                         Yours for success,      RACHEL G. FOSTER.

Headquarters of Suffrage Campaign Committee, Paxton House, Omaha,
October 2, 1882.

[94] A private letter was received from Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent,
enclosing a check for $50.

[95] 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.

[96] 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.

[97] WHEREAS, 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,

_Resolved_, 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.

_Resolved_, 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.

_Resolved_, 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.

_Resolved_, 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.

_Resolved_, 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.

_Resolved_, 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.

[98] 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.

[99] Mrs. Spofford, the treasurer, reported that $5,000 were spent
in Nebraska in the endeavor to carry the amendment in that State.

[100] Short speeches were made by Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Lockwood, Mrs.
McKinney, Mrs. Loder and others.

[101] 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.

[102] 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.

[103] 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.




CHAPTER XXXI.

MASSACHUSETTS.

BY HARRIET H. ROBINSON.

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


From 1860 to 1866 there is no record to be found of any public
meeting on the subject of woman's rights, in Massachusetts.[104]
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--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--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 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.[105]

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 _men_ should be made voters
and they, or their sex, still kept in bondage under the law.

In 1866, May 31, the first meeting of the American Equal Rights
Association was held at the Meionaon in Boston.[106] 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,[107] 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.[108] 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.

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.[109] 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 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 _Woman's
Journal_. 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.[110] 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: "_What! you_
here?" "Yes," said he, "I _am_ here! I _believe_ 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.[111] A meeting was held in
Horticultural Hall, Boston, January 28, 1870, to organize the
Massachusetts Woman Suffrage Association.[112]

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.[113]
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.

The Centennial Tea Party was held in Boston, December 15, 1873, in
response to the following call:

     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.[114]

Three thousand people were in attendance, and it was altogether an
enthusiastic occasion and one long to be remembered.

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--the only two Salem women who went to
the 1850 convention at Worcester--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--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."

The Concord convention was held about a month after the great
centennial celebration of April 19, 1875--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 a conspicuous place there--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.

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:

     FELLOW CITIZENS (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--taxation
     without representation, against which the _men_ 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.

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--not only by the leading magnates, but also by the petty
officials of the town. Some of them have from the first shown a
great deal of ingenuity in inventing ways to intimidate and mislead
the women voters.

At the annual convention of the Massachusetts Association, in May,
1880, the following resolution was passed:

     WHEREAS, We believe in keeping the land-marks and traditions of
     our movement; and

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, That we will hold a woman suffrage jubilee in
     Worcester, October 23 and 24 next, to commemorate the anniversary
     of our first convention.

A committee[115] 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--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[116] at all the sessions was
excellent, and the spirit of the convention was very reverent and
hopeful.

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 name.
Representatives of leading newspapers from all parts of the State
were present, and the reports were written in a just and friendly
spirit.


[Illustration: Harriet H. Robinson]


The Massachusetts School Suffrage Association was formed in 1880,
Abby W. May, president.[117] 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.

The National Woman Suffrage Association[118] 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[119] in Boston and some of the chief cities of the
State, sent delegates to the annual Washington Convention[120] and
published valuable leaflets.[121] 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.

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[122] was granted on February 28, 1884, before the Committee
on Federal Relations. They reported leave to withdraw.

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.

The _Woman's Journal_ 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 _Agitator_, 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 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 _Woman's Journal_ 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.

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 _The Revolution_ of August 5, 1869, Parker Pillsbury said:

     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 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.

It did not occur to these women that by thus remonstrating they
were doing just what they were protesting against. What _is_ 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:

     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.

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.

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
prayer. The question of a separate nomination for State officers
was carefully considered.[123] 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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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 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
_coup d'état_ of the Worcester convention of 1870, which
really had more votes than it was fairly entitled to. After
that,--"forewarned, forearmed," said the enemies of the enterprise,
and woman suffrage resolutions have received less votes in
Republican conventions.

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 _principle_ of women's
right to suffrage, but at the same time declared itself against its
being _enforced_, 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.

In 1871 a resolution endorsing woman suffrage was passed in the
Republican convention. In June, 1872, the national convention at
Philadelphia, passed the following:

     _Resolved_, 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.

The Massachusetts Republican State Convention, following this lead,
again passed a woman suffrage resolution:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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 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.[124] 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.

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
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."[125]

The question of forming a woman suffrage political party had, since
1870, been often discussed.[126] 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.

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 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.[127]

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?

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"[128] was thereupon printed
to offer to the voters on election day. The next question was, who
would distribute these ballots 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.[129]

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 _women_, could not vote for the men they
wanted to represent them.[130]

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 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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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:

     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.

In the original constitution (1780) women were excluded from voting
except for certain State officers.[131] 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.

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.[132] 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 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."

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.

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.

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 on the subject, a movement was
made towards making women "eligible to serve as members of
school-committees."

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.[133]

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
_not_ 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 _prevent_ 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:

     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.

By the "anxious and aimless" it was supposed the governor meant the
widowed, single or otherwise unrepresented portion of 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:

     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.

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!

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:

     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.

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.[134] In 1870 a joint special
committee on woman suffrage 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.

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.[135] 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:

     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.

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.[136]

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 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.[137]

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,

     "The ploughman homeward plods his weary way,"

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 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, _willfully_
withheld the desired information, saying he "did not know," though
he afterwards said that he _did_ 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:

                                   MALDEN, Dec. 2, 1879.

     HARRIET HANSON: 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.

                                   THEODORE N. FOGUE, _Collector_.

Mrs. Hanson paid no attention to the summons, and that was the end
of it.

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.

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 followed the good example, and
in 1874, Boston, for the first time, chose six women to serve in
this capacity.[138] 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.[139]

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 _men_, they could _not_ be justices of the
peace; and the appointment was not confirmed.

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.[140]
Before 1855 a woman could not hold her own property, either earned
or acquired by inheritance. If unmarried, she was obliged 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.

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,--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.[141] 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.]

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 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.

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
_his_ wife and borne _his_ children. What more could be desired of
her, he argued, but a corner somewhere in which, respectably
dressed as his _relict_, she could sit down and mourn for him, for
the rest of her life.[142]

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 _must_
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 Board of Education and of the
State Board of Health, Lunacy and Charity.[143]

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.

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.

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 "_No!_"; 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, 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:

     When the women show that they want to vote, I am willing to give
     them all the rights they want.

Give! I thought. Where did you get the right to _give_
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?

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 _great number of girls_ 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 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.[144] 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.[145] 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, 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.

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.

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[146] longing for a better opportunity than the new colony
could give to educate her afterward ungrateful son.

The number of young men educated by the individual efforts of women
cannot be estimated. T. W. Higginson, in the _Woman's Journal_,
says:

     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.

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!

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 _fetich_ 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 _mother_ or _sister_ of somebody. Women were
almost as abject in this particular as the Thracian woman of old,
who said:

    "I am not of the noble Grecian race,
    I'm poor Abrotonon, and born in Thrace;
    Let the Greek women scorn me, if they please,
    I was the mother of Themistocles."

There are women still left who believe their husbands, sons, or
male friends can study, read and _vote_ 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!

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.

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.[147] 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, 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.

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.[148] There are now
205 regular practitioners in the State.

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. They do not study theology because they cannot be
ordained to preach in any of the leading churches.

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:

     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.

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.[149] 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.

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.[150] 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.

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:

    "That broad-browed delicate girl will carve at Rome
    Faces in marble, classic as her own."

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.

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.

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.

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:

                "The play's the thing,
    Wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king."

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 so well the conflicting
emotions which torment the minds of the opponents of the woman
suffrage movement, that I venture to quote them:

    "Good sooth," quoth the old Don, "tell ye me so?
    I muse whither at length these Girls will go.
    It half revives my chil, frost-bitten blood
    To see a woman once do aught that's good.
    And, chode by Chaucer's Boots and Homer's Furrs,
    Let men look to't least Women wear the Spurrs."

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.[151]

In 1841, when Lydia Maria Child edited the _Anti-Slavery Standard_,
Margaret Fuller the _Dial_, and Harriot F. Curtis and Harriet
Farley the _Lowell Offering_, there were perhaps in New England no
other well-known women journalists or editors. Cornelia Walter of
the _Evening Transcript_ 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 _Boston Post_, 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 _Boston Daily
Advertiser_. Lilian Whiting is on the staff of the _Traveller_, 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. Really, the sex seems to have taken
possession of what Carlyle called the "fourth estate"--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.

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:

     I would at this point correct my teaching in "The Law of Love,"
     to the effect that _home_ is peculiarly the sphere of woman, and
     civil government that of man. I now regard the home as the joint
     sphere of man _and_ woman, and the sphere of civil government
     more of an open question between the two.

The New England Women's Club, parent[152] 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.[153]

There has never been, from time immemorial, much difference of
opinion concerning woman's right to do a good share in the
_drudgery_ of the world. But in the remunerative employments,
before 1850, she was but sparsely represented. In 1840, when
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 _paid_ 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-_saver_ 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.

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.

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."

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 _Atlantic Monthly_ of February,
1859, and Samuel Bowles' "The Woman Question and Sex in Politics,"
published at a later date in the _Springfield Republican_.
"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,[154] have done incalculable service.

Of women in the civil service, there are: 58 clerks, 266 employés
and 387 officials--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.

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?

The Summer School of Philosophy at Concord was founded in
1879.[155] 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.

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[156] 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:

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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. LELIA JOSEPHINE ROBINSON.

The opinion given by the Supreme Judicial Court, so far as it
relates to the main point at issue, is as follows:

     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 _amici curiæ_ 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.

     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. _Miuor vs. Happersett, 51
     Wall. 162. Bradwell vs. Illinois, 16 Wall. 130._ 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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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."
     _Lockwood's Case, 9 Ct. of Claims, 346, 356._ 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.

     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.

     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. _Bradwell's Case, 55 Ill., 525. Goodell's Case, 39
     Wis., 232._ 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.

     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.

     Petition dismissed.             MARCUS MORTON, _Chief-Justice_,

     [Signed:]   CHARLES DEVENS,       WILLIAM E. ENDICOTT,
                 WILLIAM ALLEN,        OTIS P. LORD,
                 CHARLES ALLEN,        WALBRIDGE A. FIELD.

The three preceding decisions of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts against the rights of the women of the commonwealth
were as follows:

The first decision was in the case of Sarah E. Wall of Worcester,
who had refused to pay her taxes under the following protest:

     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 _male_ is stricken from the voting clauses of the
     constitution of Massachusetts.

     Worcester _Daily Spy_, October 5, 1858.            SARAH E. WALL.

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."

     _Wheeler vs. Wall, 6 Allen, 558_: 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.--[Opinion by the chief-justice, George Tyler
     Bigelow.

The second decision on the will of Francis Jackson is copied
_verbatim_ from _Allen's Reports_:

     _Jackson vs. Phillips and others, 14 Allen, 539_: 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.

     _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:_

     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 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."

     OPINION.--Gray, J. IV. 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.

Decision third was on the right of women to hold judicial offices.
To quote again from _Allen's Reports_:

     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. _Ordered_, That the opinion of the Supreme Judicial
     Court be requested as to the following questions: _First_--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? _Second_--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?

     OPINION.--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.

     [Signed:]    REUBEN A. CHAPMAN,    HORACE GRAY, JR.,
                  JOHN WELLS,           JAMES D. COLT,
                  SETH AMES,            MARCUS MORTON.

     _Boston_, June 29, 1871.

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.

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:

     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.

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:

     ALBERT F. BACON and others, executors and others _vs._ CHANDLER
     R. RANSOM, executor, and others.

     Suffolk. March 18, 19, 1885. W. ALLEN, COLBURN AND HOLMES, _Js._,
     absent.

     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." _Held_, that
     the bequest was valid, and did not create a trust.

     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:

     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.

     It was held by this court that these bequests were not a charity
     (see _Jackson vs. Phillips, 14 Allen, 539_).

     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:

     "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."

     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 _in perpetuam_ 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.

     The defendants demurred to the bill for want of equity. The case
     was heard by C. Allen, _J._, on the bill and demurrer, and a
     decree was entered sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the
     bill. The plaintiffs appealed to the full court.

     R. M. MORSE, Jr., and S. J. ELDER, for the plaintiffs.

     B. F. BUTLER and F. L. WASHBURN, for the defendants.

     Judge CHARLES DEVENS. 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 _Jackson vs.
     Phillips, 14 Allen, 539_, 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.

     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 _in perpetuam_
     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.

     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 (_Whipple vs. Adams, 1 Met., 444; Warner
     vs. Bates, 98 Mass., 274; Spooner vs. Lovejoy, 108 Mass., 529_).

     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 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.

     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.

     _Bill dismissed._    [Signed:]   MARCUS MORTON, _Chief-Justice_,

         WALBRIDGE ABNER FIELD,     CHARLES DEVENS,
         WILLIAM ALLEN,             CHARLES ALLEN,
         WALDO COBURN,              OLIVER WENDELL HOLMES, Jr.

       *       *       *       *       *

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[157] 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.

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.--[EDITORS.


FOOTNOTES:

[104] For details of early history see vol. I., chap. viii. See
also "Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement," Roberts Bros.,
Boston.

[105] 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.--[Warrington in the _Springfield Republican_.

[106] See Vol. II., page 178.

[107] 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.

[108] 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."

[109] _President_, Julia Ward Howe; _Vice-presidents_, 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. _Corresponding
Secretary_, Sara Clark, Boston. _Recording Secretary_, Charles K.
Whipple, Boston. _Treasurer_, E. D. Draper, Boston. _Executive
Committee_: 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.

[110] Ednah D. Cheney, Rev. C. A. Bartol, Rev. F. E. Abbot, Rev.
Phoebe Hanaford and Hon. George F. Hoar.

[111] For report of American Association see Vol. II., page 756.

[112] 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.

The first board of officers of the Massachusetts Woman Suffrage
Association was: _President_, Julia Ward Howe. _Vice-presidents_:
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; Phoebe A. Hanaford,
Reading; Seth Hunt, Northampton: Maria S. Porter, Melrose.
_Executive Committee_: 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.
_Corresponding Secretary_, Nina Moore, Hyde Park. _Recording
Secretary_, Charles C. Whipple, Boston. _Treasurer_, E. D. Draper,
Hopedale.

[113] 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.

[114] 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.

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' _Boston Journal_, of December 2, 1773, was written by
Mrs. Ames, a tailoress.

[115] _Committee of Arrangements_--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.

[116] 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.

[117] Board of officers for 1885: _President_, Miss Abby W. May;
_Vice-president_, Mrs. Edna Dean Cheney; _Secretary_, Miss Brigham;
_Treasurer_, Miss S. F. King; _Assistant-secretary_, Miss Von
Arnim; _Directors_, 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; _Lecture Committee_, Miss Lucia M. Peabody, Mrs. Fifield
and Mrs. L. H. King.

[118] 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. _President_, Harriette
R. Shattuck; _Vice-presidents_, 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. _Treasurer_, Sara A. Underwood; _Auditor_,
Lavina A. Hatch; _Secretaries_, Hannah M. Todd, Elizabeth B.
Atwell, Harriet H. Robinson; _Standing Committee_, H. R. Shattuck,
Dr. S. Merritt, H. H. Robinson, Lydia E. Hutchings, Mary R. Brown,
E. B. Attwill, Lucretia H. Jones.

[119] South Framingham, South Boston, Winchester, Rockland,
Wakefield, Uxbridge, Millbury, Bedford, Westboro', Salem, Lynn,
Lowell, Rowley, Concord, Woburn, Malden, Cambridge, Beverly Farms.

[120] 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.

[121] The authors and compilers of these leaflets are Harriette R.
Shattuck, Sara A. Underwood, Hannah M. Todd and Mary R. Brown.

[122] 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.

[123] 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.

[124] 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.]

[125] The National Association of Massachusetts at its executive
session, August 23, passed the following:

     _Resolved_, 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.


[126] 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.

[127] 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.

[128] 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.

[129] Election day dawned and it rained hard, but the women braved
the storm. There they stood from 9 o'clock A.M. till a quarter of 5
P.M. 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.

[130] 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.

[131] 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.

[132] 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.

[133] 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 Vol. I., page 208] and the memory of her labors as well
as those of many another silent worker, would have gone into the
"great darkness."

[134] The committee was addressed by Wendell Phillips, Julia Ward
Howe, Lucy Stone, Rev. James Freeman Clarke and Hon. George F.
Hoar.

[135] 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!

[136] 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.

[137] At the first annual election for school committees in cities
and towns in 1879-80, about 5,000 women became registered voters.

[138] Lucretia P. Hale, Abby W. May, Lucia M. Peabody, Mary J. S.
Blake, Kate G. Wells, Lucretia Crocker.

[139] This act, so brief and so _expressive_, is worthy to be
remembered. It simply reads: "_Be it enacted, etc., as follows_:

SEC. 1. No person shall be deemed ineligible to serve upon a school
committee by reason of sex.

SEC. 2. This act shall take effect upon its passage. (_Approved
June 30, 1874._)

By force of habit, the legislature said not a word in the law about
_women_. There are now (1885) 102 women members of school-boards in
Massachusetts.

[140] See "Women under the law of Massachusetts," Henry H. Sprague.
Boston: W. B. Clarke & Carruth.

[141] 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 _Phillip's Evidence_. 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
_broomstick_," adding, however, "but if he use an unreasonable
weapon, such as an iron bar, and death ensue, it would be
murder."--[Chamberlin, p. 818.

[142] 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.

[143] 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.

[144] Mrs. Ellen M. Richards was the first woman who entered.

[145] 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.

[146] 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."

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.

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.

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
_Harvard Register_ 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.--[H. H. R.

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.--[EDS.

[147] 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.

[148] 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.

[149] 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.

[150] 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.

[151] 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."

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,--"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."

[152] 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.

[153] 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 _Woman's Journal_ for
1883 will be found a sketch of this club.

[154] "Taxation of Women in Massachusetts"; "Woman Suffrage
a Right, not a Privilege," and "The Forgotten Woman in
Massachusetts."

[155] 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.

[156] 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."

[157] 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."




CHAPTER XXXII.

CONNECTICUT.

     Prudence Crandall--Eloquent Reformers--Petitions for
     Suffrage--The Committee's Report--Frances Ellen Burr--Isabella
     Beecher Hooker's Reminiscences--Anna Dickinson in the Republican
     Campaign--State Society Formed, October 28, 29,
     1869--Enthusiastic Convention in Hartford--Governor Marshall
     Jewell--He Recommends More Liberal Laws for Women--Society Formed
     in New Haven, 1871--Governor Hubbard's Inaugural, 1877--Samuel
     Bowles of the _Springfield Republican_--Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford,
     Chaplain, 1870--John Hooker, esq., Champions the Suffrage
     Movement.


While 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."

The example of one glorious woman like Prudence Crandall,[158] 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 taken. In
_The Revolution_ 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:

     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--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.

     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.

     Lord Camden, one of England's ablest jurists, long ago declared,
     "My position is this--taxation and representation are
     inseparable. The position is founded in a law of nature--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--then
     we submit that a _primâ facie_ 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 to which the theorist himself happens to belong,
     is to renounce even the appearance of principle.

     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--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--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?

     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--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--rich, perhaps, and persons whom she never saw. Does
     not this suggest reasons why woman should wish to represent
     herself?

     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--"yes" or "no."

     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.]

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.

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 _Hartford
Times_ (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 _The
Revolution_, the earliest words of good cheer came from Frances
Ellen Burr.[159]

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 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:

     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[160] 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--I know
     not what else to call it--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.

     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.

     It was she who brought me to the knowledge of Mrs. John Stuart
     Mill, and her remarkable paper on "The Enfranchisement of Women,"
     in _The Westminster Review_. 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.

     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."

     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.[161] The resolutions which formed
     the basis of the discussions were prepared and presented by Mr.
     Hooker:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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 to the public welfare, and, in place of mere
          complaisance and flattery, the higher and truer respect of
          men.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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 THEM 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."

The _Hartford Courant_, in its description of the convention, said:

     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 _almost_ 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--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--e'en though
     it be a cross that raiseth me--and then the benediction, and the
     assembly dispersed, touched, it may be, into a moment's sympathy.
     * * *

     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--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--well, like Gough's obstinate deacon, I
     won't die till they do."

     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 _The Revolution_. 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.[162]

In _The Revolution_ 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:[163]

     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 the injustice of excluding
     girls from the scientific schools and polytechnic institutions in
     the State. He says:

          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.

     On the rights of married women, he says:

          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.

     On the subject of divorce the governor says:

          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.

          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.

          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.

     In 1877 Governor Hubbard called the attention of the legislature
     to the wrongs of married women, in the following words:

          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. 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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

     Calling attention to this stirring appeal, the _Hartford Times_,
     Democratic, used the following language:

          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.[164]

     The following editorial from the _Springfield Republican_, gives
     a good digest of the new law passed upon Governor Hubbard's
     recommendation:

          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.

          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.

          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. 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.

          Thus we have a new and clear statute framed in accordance
          with a simple principle of reform, for which the
          _Republican_ has long done battle--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--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.

On June 6, 1870, at a second hearing[165] 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.

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 _Evening Post_ of January 17, 1871, Mr.
Hooker said:

     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 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.

     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.

     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?"[166]

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:

     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 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.

     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--no
     other grievance--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.

     _The Hartford Post_, 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:

          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.

     _The Hartford Times_ said:

          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.

Many encouraging letters were written the sisters during their many
trials, of which the following is a fair specimen:

                                   Near BOSTON, January 14, 1874.

     MY DEAR MADAM: 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.

     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 _owners_ 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--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.

                         Very truly yours, AMOS A. LAWRENCE.

     _Miss Abby H. Smith, Glastonbury, Conn._

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:

     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.

     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."

     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.

     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
     (_Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall., 67_; _Strauder vs. West
     Virginia, 100 U. S. Reps., 306_). 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."

     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 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.

     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."

     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--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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     In this opinion Carpenter and Loomis, Js., concurred; Pardee, J.,
     dissented.

In 1884, the State society held a spirited and successful
convention.[167] 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.

We are also indebted to Frances Ellen Burr for many facts, as the
following letter will show:

                                   HARTFORD, September 17, 1885.

     MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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 _The Revolution_. 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.

     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--born
     with me--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:

          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--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:--scorns the idea of woman _asking_ rights
          of man, but says she must boldly assert her own rights, and
          _take_ 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.

     My first speech in public, I find by my old journal--which serves
     me better than I thought it would--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.

     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[168] to
     the call for that convention were quite influential persons.

     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:

          _The Petition of Julia E. Smith and Abby H. Smith, of
          Glastonbury, to the Senate of the State of Connecticut:_

          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.

          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--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."

          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.

                                                 JULIA and ABBY SMITH.

          _Glastonbury, Conn., January 29, 1878._

     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,
     addressing the Glastonbury town meeting in the little red-brick
     town-house of that place--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 _Times_ of this city, but the editor not having room for
     it sent it to the _Courant_, 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--Hannah
     Hickok--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--nor men either, for that matter, but Julia Smith not only
     did this, but translated it five times,--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.


[Illustration: Phebe A. Hanaford]


     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 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--a light like that which "never
     shone on sea or land"--had gone out forever.

          "She died in beauty like the dew
            Of flowers dissolved away;
          She died in beauty like a star
            Lost on the brow of day."

     The Hartford Equal Rights Club[169] 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
     _Hartford Times_, 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;[170] 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--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.

     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.


FOOTNOTES:

[158] The life of William Lloyd Garrison, Vol. 1.: The Century
Company, New York.

[159] 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.

[160] 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.--[E. C. S.

[161] 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.

[162] _President_, Rev. N. J. Burton, Hartford. _Vice-presidents_,
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.
_Secretary_, Miss Frances Ellen Burr. _Executive Committee_, Mrs.
Isabella B. Hooker, Mrs. Lucy Elmes, Derby; Mrs. J. G. Parsons and
Miss Emily Manning, M. D., Hartford. _Treasurer_, John Hooker.

[163] 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.

[164] 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 _Springfield Republican_,
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.

                                   "SPRINGFIELD, Mass., March 28, 1877.

     "MY DEAR MRS. HOOKER:--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--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, _first_ to the right of the matter;
     _second_, to the agitation of the whole question which has
     disseminated the perception of that right; _third_, to you and
     your husband in particular; and _fourth_, 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--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."

                         "Very faithfully yours,        SAMUEL BOWLES.

     "This letter I enclosed to Governor Hubbard and received the
     following reply:

                                        "EASTER, April 1, 1877.

     "MY GOOD FRIEND:--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 _London Times_ and master of all the wealth it brings. Add
     to this, that the Good Physician should heal him of his 'chronic
     invalidism' and then--well what's the use of dreaming? Thank
     _yourself_, 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 ----, '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,

                              "Yours very truly,       R. D. HUBBARD."

[165] 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.

[166] See Appendix for Mr. Hooker's article, "Is the Family the
Basis of the State?"

[167] 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, _President_: F. Ellen Burr, _Secretary_; Mary Hall,
_Assistant-secretary_; John Hooker, _Treasurer_. _Executive
Committee_; 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.

[168] 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: _President_, the Rev. N. J.
Burton, Hartford; _Secretary_, Frances Ellen Burr; _Executive
Committee_, 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. _Treasurer_, 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.

[169] 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."

[170] See Mrs. Collins's Reminiscences, chapter V., Vol. I.




CHAPTER XXXIII.

RHODE ISLAND.

     Senator Anthony in _North American Review_--Convention in
     Providence--Work of State Association--Report of Elizabeth B.
     Chace--Miss Ida Lewis--Letter of Frederick A. Hinckley--Last
     Words from Senator Anthony.


Rhode Island, 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.

In the November number of the _North American Review_ 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--the result of many causes--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
_Providence Journal_, which he owned and controlled, was invariably
respectful and complimentary towards the movement.

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 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.

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:

     In October 1868, while in Boston attending the convention that
     formed the New England society, Paulina Wright Davis[171]
     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 _Providence Journal_, 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.[172] 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[173] and legislative
     hearings were as regular as the changing seasons, now in
     Providence, and now in Newport, following the migratory
     government.

Mrs. Davis was president of the association for several successive
years in which her labors were indefatigable. Finally failing
health compelled her to resign her position as president of the
association.[174] 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[175] 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.

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:

     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.

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 _Providence Press_ of April 25, 1873, says:

     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.

     Yesterday, for the first time in the history of this city, women
     were candidates for political honors--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 o'clock A. M. he had
     the field to himself. At that hour, however, Mrs. Doyle's friends
     appeared with the "_regular_" 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.

The _Providence Journal_ makes the following comment:

     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.

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:

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, 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 of
     the poorest and most unfortunate classes, were not sufficiently
     regarded, under this system of class legislation.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, That this preamble and these resolutions be offered
     for publication to the daily papers of this city.

                                      ELIZABETH B. CHACE, _President_.

     SUSAN B. P. MARTIN, _Secretary_.

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:

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

In the _Providence Journal_ appeared the following:

     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:

          _To His Excellency Henry Lippitt, Governor of the State:_

          SIR: 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.

                                                    SARAH E. H. DOYLE,

          _Providence, R. I._

     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:

          _To Henry Lippitt, Governor of Rhode Island:_

          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.

          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.

          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.

          _Valley Falls, R. I._               ELIZABETH B. CHACE.


          GOVERNOR LIPPITT: _Dear Sir_: 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.

                                                       ABBY D. WEAVER.

          _Providence, R. I._


          GOVERNOR LIPPITT: 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.

          Yours respectfully,

          _Westerly, R. I._                      ELIZA C. WEEDEN.

Early in the year 1880 the State association issued the following
address:

     _To the friends of Woman Suffrage throughout the State of Rhode
     Island:_

     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 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:

          _Resolved_, That the following amendment to the constitution
          of the State is hereby proposed: Article ----. Women
          otherwise qualified are entitled to vote in the election of
          school committees and in all legally organized
          school-district meetings.

     This resolution was adopted in the House by 48 to 11, but
     rejected in the Senate by 20 to 13.[176] 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--one of petitioning--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:

     _First_--To petition congress in behalf of the following
     amendment to our national constitution, viz.:

          ARTICLE XVI. Section 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. Section
          2--Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
          appropriate legislation.

     _Second_--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.

     _Third_--To petition the General Assembly for the necessary
     legislation to secure school suffrage to women.[177]

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.

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.

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.

The New York _Evening Post_ 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:

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

Writing from Valley Falls September 9, 1885, Elizabeth B. Chace,
president of the Rhode Island Association, in summing up the steps
of progress, says:

     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[178] 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, 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.

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:

                                   PROVIDENCE, R. I., Sept. 14, 1885.

     DEAR FRIENDS: 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--the smallest in
     the Union--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 _men_ 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.

     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, 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?

     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.

     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.

                    Always sincerely yours,      FREDERIC A. HINCKLEY.

Below is the last utterance of Senator Anthony on this question. In
writing to Susan B. Anthony, he said:


              UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, March 4, 1884.

     MY DEAR COUSIN: 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.

                         Faithfully yours,              H. B. ANTHONY.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[171] 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.--[E. C. S.

[172] _The Revolution_ 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: _President_, Paulina Wright
Davis. _Vice-presidents_, 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. _Recording Secretary_,
Martha W. Chase. _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Rhoda Fairbanks.
_Treasurer_, Mrs. Susan B. Harris. _Executive Committee_, Mrs.
James Bucklin, Catharine W. Hunt, Mrs. Lewis Doyle, Anna Aldrich,
Mrs. S. B. G. Martin, Dr. Perry, Mrs. Churchill, Arnold B. Chace.

[173] 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 _The Revolution_, September 2, 1869.

[174] 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.

[175] 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.

[176] IN THE HOUSE. _For the Amendment._--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--48.

IN THE SENATE. _For the Amendment._--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--13.

[177] [Signed:] _President_, Elizabeth B. Chace; _Secretaries_,
Fanny P. Palmer, Elizabeth C. Hinckley; _Treasurer_, Susan B. P.
Martin; _Executive Committee_, 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.

[178] 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.




CHAPTER XXXIV.


MAINE.

     Women on School Committees--Elvira C. Thorndyke--Suffrage
     Society, 1868--Rockland--The Snow Sisters--Portland Meeting,
     1870--John Neal--Judge Goddard--Colby University Open to Girls,
     August 12, 1871--Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash Admitted to the Bar,
     October 26, 1872--Tax-payers Protest--Ann F. Greeley,
     1872--March, 1872, Bill for Woman Suffrage Lost in the House,
     Passed in the Senate by Seven Votes--Miss Frank Charles, Register
     of Deeds--Judge Reddington--Mr. Randall's Motion--Moral Eminence
     of Maine--Convention in Granite Hall, Augusta, January, 1873,
     Hon. Joshua Nye, President--Delia A. Curtis--Opinions of the
     Supreme Court in Regard to Women Holding Offices--Governor
     Dingley's Message, 1875--Convention, Representatives Hall,
     Portland, Judge Kingsbury, President, February 12, 1876.

The 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
_Portland Press_, gives the initiative steps:

                                        HIRAM, March 15, 1868.

     MR. EDITOR: 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 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--"_O, 'cause._" 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.

     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?

                         Very respectfully yours,

                                               LLEWELLYN A. WADSWORTH.

The editor of the _Press_ adds to the above his own endorsement, in
these words:

     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. * * * 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.

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:

     DEAR REVOLUTION: 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.

                                   ELVIRA C. THORNDYKE, _Cor. Sec'y_.

The Hon. John Neal, who was foremost in all good work in Maine, in
a letter to _The Revolution_, describes the first meeting called in
Portland, in May, 1870, to consider the subject of suffrage for
woman. He says:

     DEAR REVOLUTION: 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:

          ELEVATION OF WOMAN.--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

                                                  JOHN NEAL.

     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 _two_ 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--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."

     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.

     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--to say
     nothing of widows and spinsters--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."

     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--and proved it by managing some of the largest and
     best in the world.

     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--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--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.

     But enough. The meeting stands adjourned for a week. Probably no
     organization will be attempted, lest it might serve to check free
     discussion.

                                                                 J. N.

     _May 5, 1870._

Mr. W. W. McCann wrote to the _Woman's Journal_ of this suffrage
meeting in Portland, in 1870:

     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.

     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.

     To-day, the _Eastern Argus_, 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.

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:

     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--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.

October 26, 1872, another advance step was heralded abroad:

     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 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."

On May 10, 1873, the trustees of the Industrial School for Girls
issued the following appeal to the people of the State:

     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.

     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.[179]

Some of the women tax-payers[180] in Ellsworth, Maine, sent the
following protest to the assessors of that city:

     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.


                                        AUGUSTA, March 1, 1872.

     EDITORS WOMAN'S JOURNAL: I have never seen a letter in the
     _Woman's Journal_ 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--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, _without any discussion whatever_. 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--for morality in politics.

     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: "_Yes_ 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 _regal_ in the background,
     where she must stand for the present, in Maine.

     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.

                         [Signed:]      PATIENCE COMMONSENSE.

The _Portland Press_, in a summary of progress in Maine for 1873,
says:

     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 _quasi_ 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. & 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.

     It is further to be noted that the legislature voted as follows
     on the question of giving the ballot to women: Senate--14 yeas,
     14 nays; House--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--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 & Co., woolen manufacturers of Dexter, who divide ten per
     cent. of their profits with their operatives.

Clara H. Nash, the lady who, in partnership with her husband, has
recently entered upon the practice of law in Maine, says:

     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.

In the _Woman's Journal_ of January 1, 1873, we find the following
call:

     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.[181]

The _Portland Press_, in a leading editorial on the "Moral Eminence
of Maine," says:

     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.

     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.

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 prevailed. The morning session was
devoted to business and the election of officers.[182] 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.

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.

In 1874 we find notices of other onward steps:

     EDITORS JOURNAL: 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.

                                   Fraternally,               M. J. M.

     _Cairo, Me., April, 1874._

In Searsport a woman was elected one of the two
school-superintendents of the town. The following advertisement
appears in the local newspaper:

     SEARSPORT SCHOOL NOTICE.--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 P. M.

                                   DELIA A. CURTIS,
                                   JOHN NICHOLS,
                                          _S. S. Com. of Searsport._

     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.

                                             DELIA A. CURTIS.


     DEAR JOURNAL: 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[183] to serve as members of the school committee.

                                                           L. J. Y. W.
     _Houlton, Maine._

In the autumn of 1874 the governor and council requested the
opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court on the following questions:

     _First_--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?

     _Second_--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?

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:

     To the questions proposed we have the honor to answer as follows:

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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--to the history of the past--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.

     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.

     To the _first_ question proposed, we answer in the negative.

     To the _second_, 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.

                         JOHN APPLETON,       JOHN A. PETERS,
                         JONAS CUTTING,       WM. WIRT VIRGIN,
                                   CHARLES DANFORTH.

The dissenting opinion was as follows:

     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.

     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.

     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--did not
     affirmatively intend--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.

     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.

                                             C. W. WALTON,
                                             WM. G. BARROWS.

The right of women to hold office was affirmed in the message of
Governor Dingley, January, 1875:

     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.

The legislature passed the bill recommended by the governor.

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.

     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.

     The meeting was called to order by Judge Kingsbury of Portland,
     president of the association.[184] Prayer was offered by Miss
     Angell of Canton, 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.

A writer in the _Woman's Journal_ about this time said:

     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.

     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 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!"

                                                    DIRIGO.

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.

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.

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[185] 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.

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.

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 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.

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,[186] 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.[187]

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.

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.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[179] Signed: _President_, Benj. Kingsbury, Portland; _Secretary_,
E. R. French, S. Chesterville; _Treasurer_, William Deering
Portland; _ex officio_, 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.

[180] 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.

[181] 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.

[182] _President_, Benjamin Kingsbury of Portland; _Secretary_,
Miss Addie Quimby of Augusta; _Treasurer_, 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.

[183] Miss Louisa Coffin, Dalton; Miss Annie Lincoln, Mapleton;
Miss Ada DeLaite, Littleton.

[184] The following officers were elected: _President_, Hon.
Benjamin Kingsbury of Portland; _Chairman Executive Committee_,
Hon. Joshua Nye; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mr. C. A. Quinby,
Augusta; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. W. D. Eaton, Dexter;
_Treasurer_, Mrs. W. K. Lancey, Pittsfield.

[185] Those invited were Wendell Philips, Harriet K. Hunt, Caroline
H. Dall and Susan B. Anthony.

[186] 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.

[187] See page 104.




CHAPTER XXXV.

NEW HAMPSHIRE.

     Nathaniel P. Rogers--First Organized Action, 1868--Concord
     Convention--William Lloyd Garrison's Letter--Rev. S. L. Blake
     Opposed--Rev. Mr. Sanborn in Favor--_Concord Monitor_--Armenia S.
     White--A Bill to Protect the Rights of Married Men--Minority and
     Majority Reports--Women too Ignorant to Vote--Republican State
     Convention--Women on School Committees--Voting at School-District
     Meetings--Mrs. White's Address--Mrs. Ricker on Prison
     Reform--Judicial Decision in Regard to Married Women,
     1882--Letter from Senator Blair.


A State 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.

To the early influence of Nathaniel P. Rogers and his revolutionary
journal, _The Herald of Freedom_, 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.

In 1868, simultaneously with other New England States, she felt the
time had come to organize for action on the question of 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,[188] 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[189] 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:

                                   BOSTON, December 21, 1868.

     DEAR MRS. WHITE: 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.

     The two conventions recently held in furtherance of the movement
     for universal and impartial suffrage--one in Boston, the other in
     Providence--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.

     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, 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.


[Illustration: Armenia S. White]


     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.

     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,--no matter what
     rank in literature, art, science, or medical knowledge and skill
     they may reach,--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 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.

     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.

                    Very faithfully yours,         WM. LLOYD GARRISON.

     Mrs. A. S. WHITE.

At the close of this convention a State association was formed with
Mrs. Armenia S. White president.[190] 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[191] have rendered valuable aid in keeping
up the agitation.

The opposition of a clergyman produced a sensation in Concord.

     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--a charge
     that always leaps to the lips of men of prurient
     imagination--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."

Brainard Cogswell, in his journal, the _Concord Monitor_, of July
2, 1870, published the following letter:

     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.

     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.

The president of the New Hampshire association, in writing from
Concord to the _Woman's Journal_, January 30, 1871, says:

     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.

Lucy Stone, in the _Woman's Journal_ of June 14, 1871, says:

     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:

          Marriages shall not hereafter render the husband liable for
          the debts contracted by his wife prior to their marriage:
          _Second section_--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.

     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.

     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?

The following statistics have been used by speakers in the
opposition, to show that women are too ignorant to vote:

     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:

          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 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.

     When the London _Saturday Review_ 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.

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:

     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.

The following letter in the _Woman's Journal_ shows that something
of the spirit of the Connecticut Smith-sisters has been found in
New Hampshire:

     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 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.

                                                   MARY L. HARRINGTON.

     _Claremont, N. H., January 17, 1874._

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[192]
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:

     Mr. BATCHELDER 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.

     Mr. GALEN FOSTER of Canterbury called upon Mr. Blodgett to give
     his opinion as to the power of the legislature upon the question.

     Mr. BLODGETT 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.

     Mr. FOSTER 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 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.

     Mr. SINCLAIR 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?

     Mr. WHICHER 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.

     Mr. MOSHER 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.

     Mr. HOBBS of Ossippee said: If women are capable of holding
     office they are also capable of saying who shall hold it.
     [Applause.]

     Mr. PATTEN of Manchester favored the bill and hoped the motion of
     Mr. Whicher would be voted down.

     The SPEAKER [Mr. WOOLSON 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.]

     Mr. PATTERSON of Hanover said he would congratulate the gentleman
     from Bethlehem on being orthodox on this question.

     Mr. SINCLAIR congratulated his friend from Hanover on his display
     of courage in waiting until the ice was broken all round before
     making a forward step.

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:

     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.

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 _Woman's Journal_:

     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 _Investigator_, from which we gather these facts, says:

          The balloting extended over three meetings and the number of
          women who participated was almost exactly doubled on the
          second and third evenings--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.

     Of the first evening's election the telegraphic dispatch to the
     _Boston Globe_ was headed, "Crowds of Women Voting in New
     Hampshire":

          CONCORD, N. H., March 22.--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.

In the opening convention of November 5, 1879, Mrs. White, the
president, made the following address:

     _Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends of the N. H. Woman Suffrage
     Association_: 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 matter. Let us
     exchange congratulations on this occasion, that so much has been
     gained toward the final triumph of our cause.

     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 _cream_ 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.

     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."

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

Resolutions of respect to the memory of Mrs. Abby P. Ela, William
Lloyd Garrison and Angelina Grimké Weld were adopted by a rising
vote.

In the _National Citizen_ of December 14, 1879, we find the
following:

     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 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.

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:

     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."

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:

     _Dear Friends assembled in the Washington Convention:_

     Last week our new town-house was dedicated. The women accompanied
     their husbands. One man spoke in favor of woman suffrage--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,

                         Yours sincerely,           MARY A. P. FILLEY.

     _North Haverill, January 5, 1884._

In closing this chapter some mention should be made of the
invaluable services of Senator Blair,[193] 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.

               UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 5, 1884.

     MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.

     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 of law.
     But you have no occasion for expression of theoretical views from
     me.

     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.

     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--the labor of
     her own sex first--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 _would_ 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--state them _seriatim_, as the lawyers say--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 _help_ 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 _us_ 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.

     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--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.

          Very respectfully, your obedient servant,    HENRY W. BLAIR.


FOOTNOTES:

[188] _Concord_, 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;
_Lancaster_, Rev. J. M. L. Babcock; _Rochester_, Mrs. Abby P. Ela;
_Bradford_, Mrs. L. A. T. Lane, Miss M. J. Tappan; _Laconia_, Rev.
J. L. Gorman, William M. Blair; _Manchester_, Dr. M. O. A. Hunt;
_Plymouth_, Hon. D. R. Burnham; _Portsmouth_, Hon. A. W. Haven;
_Canterbury_, Mr. and Mrs. D. M. Clough; _Lebanon_, A. M. Shaw;
_Keene_, Col. and Mrs. Wilson; _Grafton_, Mr. and Mrs. Peter
Kimball; _Northfield_, Mrs. D. E. Hill; _Franklin_, Rev. Wm. T.
Savage; _Canaan_, William W. George; _Littleton_, R. D. Runneville.

[189] They had their influence in the church as well as the State,
as the following item in _The Revolution_, 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."

[190] _President_, Mrs. Armenia S. White. _Vice-Presidents_, 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. _Executive Committee_, 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. _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. E.C. Lovering,
Concord. _Corresponding Secretary_, Dr. J. Gallinger. _Treasurer_,
Jas. H. Chase.

[191] 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.

[192] 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.

[193] Reëlected to the Senate, June, 1885.




CHAPTER XXXVI.

VERMONT.

     Clarina Howard Nichols--Council of Censors--Amending the
     Constitution--St. Andrew's Letter--Mr. Reed's Report--Convention
     Called--H. B. Blackwell on the _Vermont Watchman_--Mary A.
     Livermore in the _Woman's Journal_--Sarah A. Gibbs' Reply to Rev.
     Mr. Holmes--School Suffrage.


After 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[194] to Vermont in early calling attention to the unjust
laws for woman. From 1843 to 1853 she edited the _Windham County
Democrat_, 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.

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," for many of the
interesting incidents and substantial facts as to the initiative
steps taken in this campaign. He said:

     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.

     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 "_ten righteous_" men elected to the convention, but
     that number was enough to save the cities of the _plain_, and we
     have full faith that as small a number can save the cities of the
     _mountains_.

     The press of the State is divided on the subject. We have two
     dailies--one, the _Rutland Herald_, the oldest paper in the
     State, in favor of the movement, and the _Free Press_ 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 already is the first territory, to give political
     equality to woman, and to show the world the model of a true
     republic.

                                                           ST. ANDREW.

     _Burlington, Vt., May 1, 1870._

Mr. Reed of Washington county submitted the report in favor of the
woman suffrage amendment, from which we give the following:

     One-half of the people of our State are denied the right of
     suffrage. Yet woman has all the qualifications--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.

     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--always safer than indirect influence.

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:

     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 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.

               C. W. WILLARD,             JAMES HUTCHINSON, JR.,
               GEORGE H. BIGELOW,         CHARLES REED,
               NEWMAN WEEKS,              JONATHAN ROSS,
                               JAMES S. PECK.
                _Ex. Com. Vermont Woman Suffrage Association_.[195]

     _Montpelier_, January 10, 1870.

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.

However, these gentlemen invited ladies from other States, and a
series of meetings[196] was inaugurated through the chief towns and
cities of Vermont. The speakers[197] were heartily welcomed at some
points and rudely received at others. The usual "free-love" cry was
started by some of the opposition papers--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 _Vermont Watchman_:

     The _Vermont Watchman_ 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 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 _Watchman_, 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 _Watchman_ now calls upon us to
     retract the stigma. We prefer to prove that our censure is
     deserved, and proceed to do so.

     The first quotation of the _Watchman_ is from an editorial in the
     _Woman's Journal_, entitled "Political Organization." The object
     of which was to show the propriety of doing what the _Watchman_
     refuses to do--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--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 _Watchman_
     cites this article as an admission that some of the friends of
     suffrage advocate free-love. Not at all. The editor of the
     _Watchman_ 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 _Watchman_ quotes a single sentence of the
     following statement:

          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.

     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 _Watchman_ 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 a
     noble and life-long partnership of equals into a mercenary and
     servile relation between superior and dependant.

     The _Watchman_ 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 _Watchman_ 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 _New York
     Independent_ and infidelity upon John Stuart Mill, he forgets
     that his readers have minds of their own.

     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 _Watchman_ call Chief-Justice
     Chase and the Supreme Court free-lovers? We have very little hope
     that the _Watchman_ 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
     _Watchman_ 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.

                                                  H. B. B.

The following editorial in the _Woman's Journal_, 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:

     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"--and
     from this it has been argued that the Green Mountain 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--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
     _Montpelier Argus_, the _Watchman_ and the _Burlington Free
     Press_--an unworthy trio of papers that appear to control the
     majority--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.

     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--all these facts are proofs
     that the sentiment of Vermont women is not represented by the
     constitutional convention now in session at Montpelier.--[M. A.
     L.

August 12, 1871, our Burlington correspondent says:

     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 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--

          "Lord, how the _Senior_ knocked about
            That Freshman class of _one_."

     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 _Times_; 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.

     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."

                                             ST. ANDREW.

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:

                                   BENSON, Vt., June 20, 1871.

     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 question,"
     dragging it out to daylight again, that we might see how easily
     he could bury it fifty fathoms deep--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:

          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.

     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?

     "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--the youngest of
     nine children--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:

          "I will be master of what is my own;
          She is my goods, my chattels--
          My horse, my ox, my ass, my anything"?

     "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?

     "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 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?

     "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
     _that one_ should die, is it fair, or just, or fitting, that the
     widow--"the relict"--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.

     "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--one of those "irreligious and immoral" advocates
     of woman suffrage--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.

     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 "_crème de la crème_." 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.

                                             SARAH A. GIBBS.

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:

     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--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,[198] 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.

     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.

     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!

                                             ST. ANDREW.

     _Burlington, Vt._

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:

          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.

An item in the _Woman's Journal_, from Vergennes, March 22, 1881,
says:

     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.

                                   SPRINGFIELD, February 7, 1884.

     _Miss Lydia Putnam, Brattleboro', Vt.:_

     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.

                         Very respectfully,              JUSTUS DARTT.

Notwithstanding the above reply from the state-superintendent of
the public schools of Vermont, the Associated Press reports of
every year[199] since 1881 make mention of women being elected to
school offices in the various towns and counties of the State.


FOOTNOTES:

[194] 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 171.

[195] Officers of the Vermont Woman Suffrage Association:
_President_, Hon. Charles Reed, Montpelier. _Vice-presidents_, 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. _Recording
Secretary_, Henry Clark, Rutland. _Corresponding Secretary_, Albert
Clarke, St. Albans. _Treasurer_, Albert D. Hager, Proctorsville.
_Executive Committee_, 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.

[196] Following the convention at Montpelier, meetings were held at
St. Albans, Northfield, Barre, Burlington, St. Johnsbury,
Brattleboro', Rutland, Fairhaven, Castleton, Springfield and
Bellows Falls.

[197] 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.

[198] 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.

[199] 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: _Addison_, Miss A. L. Huntley; _Bennington_,
Mrs. R. R. Wiley; _Caledonia_, Miss Nellie Russell, Mrs. A. F.
Stevens, Mrs. E. Bradley, Miss S. E. Rogers; _Chittenden_, Mrs. S.
M. Benedict, Mrs. L. M. Bates, Mrs. J. C. Draper; _Essex_, Mrs.
Henry Fuller, Hettie W. Matthews, Jennie K. Stanley, Mrs. S. M.
Day; _Franklin_, none; _Grand Isle_, Miss I. Montgomery; _La
Moille_, Carrie P. Carroll, Miss C. A. Parker; _Orange_, Miss F. H.
Graves, Miss A. A. Clement, Miss V. L. Farnham, Miss F. Martin;
_Orleans_, none; _Rutland_, Mrs. I. C. Adams, Miss H. M.
Bromley, Miss M. A. Mills, Lillian Tarbell, Mrs. H. M. Crowley;
_Washington_, none; _Windham_, Mrs. J. M. Powers, Mrs. J. E.
Phelps; _Windsor_, Mrs. E. G. White, Miss C. A. Lamb, Mrs. H. F.
VanCor, Clara E. Perkins, Mrs. E. M. Lovejoy, Mrs. L. M. Hall.




CHAPTER XXXVII.

NEW YORK--1860-1885.

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


The New York chapter in Volume I. closes with an account of some
retrogressive legislation on the rights of married women,[200]
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 "Trials and Decisions" 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.

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.

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:

     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 _The Revolution_, 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.

     Mrs. ELIZABETH B. PHELPS,
                 _Vice-President for the State of New York_.
     MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Advisory Counsel_.

The opening session of the convention was held in the spacious
parlors of Congress Hall the audience composed chiefly of
fashionable ladies[201] 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.[202] Many able speakers[203] were
present. The formation of this society was the result of a very
general agitation in different localities on several vital
questions in the preceding year:

_First_--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[204] were
called at various points, in 1868. While women of wealth were
organizing to resist taxation, the working women[205] 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.

_Second_--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 _The Revolution_ 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 _Tribune_, 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.

In connection with this question, the necessity of "women as
police," was for some time a topic of discussion. They had 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,[206] new to the temptations and dangers of city life. In
_The Revolution_ of March 26, 1868, we find the following:

     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.

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[207] 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 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,[208] 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,[209] Clinton and
Schenectady, enter these institutions, the added funds and
enthusiasm they would thus receive would soon bring them renewed
life and vigor.

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.

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.

                                   NEW YORK, June 3, 1869.

     EDITORS OF THE REVOLUTION: 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 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.

                    Very respectfully,       MRS. MARSHALL O. ROBERTS.


     IMPORTANT MEETING OF NEW YORK LADIES.--WOMAN'S EDUCATION.--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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, That every young woman should be trained to some
          business by which she can earn an independent livelihood in
          case of poverty.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

Among the influences that brought new thought to the question of
woman suffrage was the establishment of _The Revolution_ 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.[210]

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--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:

     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--a condition largely due
     to the presence of a lady. In the final examination she was
     second to none.

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:

     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
     minds. So far as I know, I was the first woman who had ever taken
     instruction of a private tutor.

     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--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--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.

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 _National Citizen_:

     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 _Graphic_ 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.

In _The Revolution_ of May 14, 1868, we find the following:

     SOROSIS.--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:

          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--to make
          them less dependent and less burdensome--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--not going
          down to it, but bringing it up to her. We have proposed to
          enter our protest against all idle 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.

     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.

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,[211] this club now numbers 320.

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 _Times_. A correspondent
says:

     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--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 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 _Times_, 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.[212]

From the Woman's Journal, Oct. 1, 1870:

     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 Phoebe 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, That our sympathy and condolence be extended to
          the relatives of the deceased.

     Major Lucien Eaton, into whose office she had entered to seek
     opportunities of perfecting herself in the knowledge of her
     profession, said  that--

          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, 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.

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.

In May, 1870, the New York City Society was formed, with efficient
officers,[213] 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, _Die Neue Zeit_, 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.

Petitions were rolled up by both the German and American societies
to the legislature, praying for the right of suffrage, and on
April 3, 1871, the petitioners[214] 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.

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.

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.[215] 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.

The following items show the varied capacity of women for many
employments:

     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.--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.----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 _real_
     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 the means of laboring women than the $6 to $10 of the
     Stewart Hotel.----The first penny lunch-room in New York was
     established by a woman, who made it a source of revenue.----The
     inventor of the submarine telescope, a woman, has received
     $10,000 for her invention.----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.----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.----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.

     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:

          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.

     Miss Anna Ballard, a reporter on the staff of the New York _Sun_,
     was elected a member of the Press Club, in 1877, by a vote of 24
     to 10. Within the last ten years women contributors to the press
     have become numerous. The book-reviewer of the _Herald_ is a
     woman; one of the book-reviewers of the _Tribune_, one of its
     most valued correspondents and several of its regular
     contributors are women; the agricultural and market reporter of
     the New York _Times_ is a woman; the New York _Sun's_ 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.

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[216] were all unusually happy. Mrs. Blake's[217] address
was applauded to a 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.

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.[218] 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
_Evening Journal_ 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[219] 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 meetings[220] were held at
Robinson Hall during the winter, and at Apollo Hall in May, and in
different localities about New York.

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.[221] 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.

In October, 1873, Mrs. Devereux Blake made an effort to open the
doors of Columbia College to women. A class of four young
ladies[222] 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 _youth_ 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[223] 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 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.

A Woman's Congress was organized at New York, October 15, 16, 17,
1873, in the Union League Theater. Representative women[224] were
there from all parts of the country. Its object was similar to the
social science organizations--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.

Dr. Clemence Lozier,[225] 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.

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 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:

     _Resolved_, 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: _First_--That the women of
     the country are entitled to equal rights and privileges with the
     men; _Second_--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; _Third_--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.

The report of the State assessors[226] 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."

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, 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.

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--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[227] made honorable mention of the occasion.

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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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[228] in the Union League Theatre, the evening of
April 19, to protest against their disfranchisement. The journals
contained fair reports, with the exception of _The Tribune_, 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:

     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.

     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 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.

     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!

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:

     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 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 _shall_ 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.

     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 _just_ powers from
     the consent of the governed." Shall it not be done?

                                   MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE,
                                   LILLIE DEVEREUX BLAKE,
                                   CLEMENCE S. LOZIER, M. D.,
                                       _N. Y. State Woman Suffrage Com._


[Illustration: Lillie Devereux Blake]


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[229] 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.

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.

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:

     AN ACT _to Authorize the Election of Women to School Offices._

     The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
     Assembly, do enact as follows:

     SECTION 1. 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.

     SEC. 2. This act shall take effect immediately.

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:

                              STATE OF NEW YORK, EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, }
                                               ALBANY, May 8, 1877. }

     _To the Senate:_

     I return without approval Senate bill No. 61, entitled "An act to
     authorize the election of women to school offices."

     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.

     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.

     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.

                                             L. ROBINSON.

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:

     _To the Voters and Legislators of New York:_

     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:

          _First_--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 whom are of foreign birth. _Second_--They are held
          amenable to laws they have had no share in making and in
          which they are forbidden a voice--laws which touch all their
          most vital interests of education, industry, children,
          property, life and liberty. _Third_--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.
          _Fourth_--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--like Briareus with his hundred
          hands--touching and crushing them with its burdens.
          _Fifth_--They are under the power of an autocrat whose
          salary they must pay, but who, in opposition to the will of
          the people--as recently shown in the passage of the School
          bill by the legislature--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. _Sixth_--Under pretence of regulating
          public morals, women of the _femme de pave_ 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. _Seventh_--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. _Eighth_--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. _Ninth_--They give the husband
          control of the common property--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. _Tenth_--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."
          _Eleventh_--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.
          _Twelfth_--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--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.

     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:

          (1) Woman is held _politically_ to have no existence; (2)
          _civilly_, 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.

     By order of the New York State Woman Suffrage Society.

     May, 1877.            MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Secretary_.

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. King[230] 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.

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 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.[231] 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.

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 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.

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.[232]
These meetings were all alike crowded and enthusiastic, and the
speakers[233] felt richly paid for their efforts. A thorough
canvass of the State was also made, and a protest[234] extensively
circulated, condemning the governor for his veto of the
school-bill.

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.[235] 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.

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,[236] 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.

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.

In January, 1880, Governor Alonzo B. Cornell, in his first message
to the legislature, among other recommendations, embodied the
following:

     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.

With such words from the chief executive it was an easy matter to
find friends for a measure making women eligible as school
officers. Early in the session the following bill was introduced by
Hon. Lorraine B. Sessions of Cattaraugus:

     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.

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.[237] 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 are held for elections, and
there are, by the statutes, three classes of voters described by
law.

     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.

     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.

     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.

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.[238]

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[239] 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.

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,[240] 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:

     AN ACT _to Prohibit Disfranchisement_.

     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).

     _Whereas_, the common law entitles women to vote under the same
     qualifications as men; and

     _Whereas_, said common law has never been abrogated in this
     State; and

     _Whereas_, a practice nevertheless obtains of treating as
     disfranchised all persons to whom suffrage is not secured by
     express words of the constitution; and

     _Whereas_, 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

     _Whereas_, this practice, despite the want of authority therefor,
     has by continuance acquired the force of law; and

     _Whereas_, 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

     _Whereas_, the legislature has corrected this practice in
     repeated instances, its power to do so being in such instances
     fully recognized and exercised; therefore

     The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and
     Assembly, do enact as follows:

     SECTION 1. 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.

     SEC. 2. All acts and parts of acts inconsistent with this act,
     are hereby repealed.

     SEC. 3. This act shall take effect immediately.

Various memorials were sent to the legislature in behalf of this
bill, and a hearing was granted to its advocates.[241] The
Assembly 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.

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.

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.

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:

     LOWVILLE, Lewis County, Oct. 16, 1880.--The business meeting was
     held on the evening of the 12th, and was attended by twenty
     ladies. On the following day at 1 P.M., the election was held.
     The ladies had an independent ticket opposing the incumbent clerk
     and trustee. Seven voted. Four were challenged. They swore their
     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.

     From Penn Yan a woman writes:--About seventy ladies voted here,
     but none who did not either own or lease real estate. The
     argument so often used against woman suffrage--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.

     A woman in Nunda writes:--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.

     From Poland a woman writes:--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.

     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.

     PORT JERVIS. Oct. 13.--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.

     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.

     SING SING, Oct. 13.--Five women voted at the school meeting last
     night.

     MOUNT MORRIS, Oct. 13.--One hundred and twenty women voted at the
     school election here last evening.

     GLEN'S FALLS, Oct. 13.--I am informed that women did vote here
     and in the neighborhood last evening.

     PERRY, Oct. 13.--A large woman vote was cast here. Two women were
     elected members of the school-board.

     PEEKSKILL, Oct. 13.--Five women voted in one district.

     SHELTER ISLAND, Oct. 13.--Women voted at our school meeting.

     COFFIN SUMMIT, Oct. 15.--Six women voted at the school meeting
     here. A lady was nominated for trustee and received many votes,
     but was defeated.

     STAMFORD, Oct. 15.--Four ladies voted at the school meeting.

     PORT RICHMOND, Oct. 15.--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.

     BALDWINVILLE, Oct. 15.--Thirty-three ladies voted at the school
     election.

     LOCKPORT, Oct. 15.--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.

     LAWTON STATION, Oct. 15.--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.

     KNOWLESVILLE, Oct. 15.--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.

     FLUSHING, Oct. 15.--Forty women voted at the school meeting here,
     and in the adjoining district.

     SYRACUSE, Oct. 14, 1881.--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.

A correspondent describing what the voters had to encounter, said:

     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 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.

     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.

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
received by the delegates in the two conventions. Soon afterwards a
delegation of ladies[242] 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."

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.

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--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.[243]

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 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.

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,--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, _all with votes_ in their hands, opposed,
Governor Cornell was found wanting in courage and conscience to
sign this bill for women who had no votes.[244] 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.

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.

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[245] in the new Union League Theater.
Parke Godwin of the _Evening Post_ 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:

     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
     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.

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.

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:[246] 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:


                  STATE OF NEW YORK. OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL,}
                                               ALBANY, May 10, 1882.}

     _To the Assembly:_

     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 can
     be granted to any class of persons not named in the constitution.
     I reply:

     _First_--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 (_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_). At the common law women
     had no right to vote and no political status (2, 4) (_Maine's
     Ancient Law, 140; Cooley's Const. Lim., 599; Blackstone's Comm.,
     171_).

     _Second_--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.

     _Third_--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.

                         LESLIE W. RUSSELL, _Attorney-General_.[247]

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.[248]

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.

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.

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.

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[249] 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.

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.

On March 11, 12, the annual meeting of the State society was held
in the City Hall, Albany, with a good representation[250] from the
National Convention at Washington, added to our own State
speakers.[251] On the last evening there was an overflow meeting
held in Geological Hall, presided over by Mrs. Matilda Joslyn Gage.

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.[252]
A few days later the same committee gave a special 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.

While the right of suffrage is still denied, gains in personal and
property rights have been granted:

     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 _feme sole_.

     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[253] for inveigling or enticing any unmarried woman,
     under the age of twenty-five years, into a house of ill-fame or
     assignation.

     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.

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:

     TROY, March 23, 1882.--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.

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:

     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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

In 1880, Governor Cornell appointed Miss Carpenter on the State
Board of Charities.

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:

     _To his Honor, the Judge, the Intelligent Jury, the Lawyers and
     all who are engaged in the case of Jones vs. Oliver_:

     GENTLEMEN:--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.

     _New York, 1881._

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 making,
after her husband and other engineers had for weeks puzzled their
brains over the difficulties.

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:

     "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.

In Lansingburgh the women tax-payers offered their ballots and were
repulsed, as follows:

     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.

In regard to recent efforts to secure legislation favorable to
women, Mr. Wilcox writes:

     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, 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.

     But while working at this document, I was fortunate enough to
     make a still greater discovery--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.

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 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 _viva voce_ 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.

Thus stands the question of woman suffrage in the Empire State
to-day, where women are in the majority.[254] 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[200] 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.

[201] 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.--[E. C. S.

[202] The following were elected officers of the association.
_President_, Martha C. Wright, Auburn. _Vice-Presidents_, 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. _Secretary_, Matilda
Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville. _Executive Committee_, Lucy A. Brand,
Emeline A. Morgan, Mrs. H. Stewart, Samuel J. May, Rhoda Price, all
of Syracuse. _Advisory Counsel_, 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.

[203] 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 Vol. II., page 402, for
Mrs. Burleigh's letter on this Saratoga convention.

[204] 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.

[205] The Working Women's Association was organized in New York,
September 17, 1868, with Mrs. Anna Tobitt, _President_;
Miss Augusta Lewis, Miss Susan Johns, Miss Mary Peers.
_Vice-Presidents_; Miss Elizabeth C. Browne, _Secretary_, and Miss
Julia Browne, _Treasurer_. The three vice-presidents were young
ladies of about twenty. Miss Lewis worked upon a newly invented
type-setting machine.

[206] "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? _Prima facie_, 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.--[P. P. in _The
Revolution_.

[207] 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.--_Ithaca dispatch to New York Times._

[208] 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.

[209] 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.

[210] See Volume II., page 264.

[211] 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.

[212] She now reports the cattle-market for four New York papers
including the _Tribune_ and _Times_.

[213] _President_, Charlotte B. Wilbour; _Vice-Presidents_, Dr.
Clemence S. Lozier, Mrs. Devereux Blake; _Secretary_, Frances V.
Hallock; _Treasurer_, Miss Jeannie McAdam.

[214] 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.

[215] See Vol. II., page 628.

[216] Isabella Beecher Hooker, Susan B. Anthony, Rev. Olympia
Brown, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Helen M. Slocum,
Lillie Devereux Blake.

[217] 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 _Harper's Magazine_ and published a novel called
"Southwold," from that date contributed largely to leading
newspapers and magazines. She was Washington correspondent of the
_Evening Post_ in the winter of 1861, published "Rockford" in 1862,
and wrote many stories for _Frank Leslie's Weekly_, the
_Philadelphia Press_ 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.

[218] 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."

[219] She was escorted to the capitol by Phoebe 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.

[220] Addressed by Mrs. Wilbour, Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Lozier, Mrs.
Hallock, Hamilton Wilcox and Dr. Hallock.

[221] For Judge Hunt's decision, see Volume II., page 677.

[222] 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."

[223] 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.

[224] 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.

[225] 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.

[226] Several ladies appeared last week before the New York
Supervisors' Committee to protest against excessive taxation. The
New York _World_ 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.

[227] The Albany _Evening Journal_ 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.

[228] 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.

[229] Helen M. Slocum, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Mrs. Devereux Blake.

[230] 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 _Tribune_, explains her
fitness for her mission, while it incidentally throws some light on
the secrets of the tea-company business:

"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--smart, like herself--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."

[231] Mrs. Lozier presided. Addresses were made by Matilda Fletcher
of Iowa, Mrs. Helen Slocum and Mrs. Devereux Blake.

[232] In Poughkeepsie, Yonkers, Harlem, Williamsburgh, Brighton,
and in several districts in the city of New York.

[233] Matilda Joslyn Gage, Helen M. Loder, Mrs. Clara Neyman, Mrs.
Slocum, Mrs. Miller and Mrs. Blake.

[234] _To the Women of the State of New York:_

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.

[Signed:] Matilda Joslyn Gage, _President N. Y. State Woman
Suffrage Association_. Jennie M. Lozier, M. D., _Secretary_. Lillie
Devereux Blake, _Vice-President National Association_. Clemence S.
Lozier, M. D., _President N. Y. City Association_. 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.

[235] Chester A. Arthur, chairman of the Republican campaign
committee, presented the motion.

[236] 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.

[237] 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 _Journal_
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.--[M. J. G.

[238] 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.

[239] Mary Seymour Howell, _President_; Miss Kate Stoneman,
_Secretary_. Miss Stoneman cast the first vote at the school
election in Albany.

[240] See appendix.

[241] Mrs. Blake, Mrs. Slocum, Mrs. Saxon, of Louisiana.

[242] Miss Helen Potter, Miss Susan A. King, Miss Helen M. Slocum,
Miss Harriet K. Dolson and Mrs. Devereux Blake.

[243] 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.

[244] The press generally commented unfavorably. The _Herald_ 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."

[245] Mrs. Emma Gates Conkling, Mrs. Clara Neyman, Dr. Clemence
Lozier and Mrs. Blake.

[246] Major Haggerty, ex-Governor Thomas G. Alvord and Hon. James
D. McMellan in its favor; Hon. Erastus Brooks and General Sharpe
against.

[247] Mr. Hamilton Wilcox at once prepared an able paper, refuting
the attorney-general's assertion. It was widely circulated
throughout the State.

[248] 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.

[249] _To the Women of the State of New York_:

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.

[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.

_To the Republican and Independent Voters of the State of New
York_:

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.

[Signed:] Clemence S. Lozier, M. D., Bronson Murray, Susan A. King,
Hamilton Wilcox, Lillie Devereux Blake, Albert O. Wilcox.

[250] Abigail Scott Duniway, editor _New Northwest_, Oregon;
Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, editor "Woman's Kingdom," Chicago
_Inter-Ocean_; Helen M. Gougar, editor _Our Herald_, Indiana.

[251] 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.

[252] Mrs. Gage, Mrs. Howell, Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Duniway and Mrs.
Gougar.

[253] Imprisonment for not more than five years, or a fine of not
more than $1,000, or both.

[254] 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.




CHAPTER XXXVIII.

PENNSYLVANIA.

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


In 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,[255] prepared by Carrie S. Burnham[256]
of Pennsylvania. A careful perusal of this paper will show the
relative position of man and woman to be that of sovereign and
subject.

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, 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.

The law securing to married women the right to property,[257]
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.[258]

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 _Pennsylvania
Gazette_ for January 7, 1768, is the following advertisement:

     TO BE SEEN.--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.

In the same paper of the following week occurs this yet more
extraordinary announcement:

     TO BE SOLD.--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.

In one century of growth a woman's sewing machine was better
protected than the woman herself under the old common law:

     AN ACT _to exempt Sewing Machines belonging to Seamstresses in
     this Commonwealth from levy and sale on execution or distress for
     rent_:

     SECTION 1. 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.

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:

     A WOMAN ORDER IN PITTSBURGH.--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.--_Exchange, June, 1869._

     Now let the mothers, wives and daughters of Pittsburgh obtain the
     passage, by the city council, of an ordinance causing the arrest
     of every _man_ 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.

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:

     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.

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--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."

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 _Sunday Dispatch_, by Anne E. McDowell,
fully show:

     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--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 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--for a principal is little
     more--the controllers say _no_. 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.

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,[259] 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.

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:

     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 _mixed
     classes_ 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
     _both sexes_. The judgment that has been arrived at is based upon
     the following considerations:

     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--so necessary to render instruction complete and
     effective--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.

     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--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.

     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[260] do earnestly and solemnly 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.

     _November 15, 1869._

At meetings held at the University and Jefferson Medical Colleges,
by the students, on Wednesday evening, the following preambles and
resolutions were adopted:

     WHEREAS, 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

     WHEREAS, 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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, That pending the action of the managers on this
     question, we as a class and individually absent ourselves from
     the clinical lectures. And

     WHEREAS, 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,

     _Resolved_, That while we do not by any means concede that the
     published accounts of the affair are correct, we deplore the fact
     that _any_ 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.

     _Resolved_, That these preambles and resolutions be published in
     some respectable journal of this city.[261]

On these remonstrances of the faculty and students, _The Press_,
John W. Forney, editor, had many able editorials condemning the
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. _The Press_, November 22, 1869,
said:

     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?

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:

                                   PHILADELPHIA, NOV. 15, 1869.

     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.

     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 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--out of regard to the feelings of men
     as patients, if for no other considerations--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--whether medical or surgical--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--often sensitive and shrinking, albeit poor--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.

     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--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.

     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 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.

                                            ANN PRESTON, M. D., _Dean_.

     EMELINE H. CLEVELAND, M. D., _Secretary_.

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:

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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--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 power, the board of trustees.[262] 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:

          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.

     After discussing at length the legal aspects of the case, the
     summing up is as follows:

          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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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--the
     Pennsylvania of Philadelphia--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--the Dental Department of the University of
     Pennsylvania--would, if the faculty were not overruled by the
     governing powers.

     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.

     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 _Bajan_ and _Úberlana und Meer_, 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 _Trauen-Verein_, 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.
     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.

     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.

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.

In 1870, the Society of Friends founded Swarthmore College[263] 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.

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 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.

In 1866, a suffrage association was formed in Philadelphia at a
meeting of the American Equal Rights Society,[264] 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.

We are indebted to John K. Wildman of Philadelphia for the
following:

     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[265] 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 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:

          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.

     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[266]
     to serve for the ensuing year.

     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.

     Miss Matilda Hindman, of Philadelphia, pays the following tribute
     to her parents:

          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--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.

          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.

          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.

     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.

     The first annual report of the association was prepared by Eliza
     Sproat Turner. She said:

          We do not complain that man is slow to realize the injustice
          of his present attitude towards woman--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.

     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 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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.[267]
     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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 _Woman's Journal_. 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.

The following report was sent us by Mrs. Mary Byrnes:

     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 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.

     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--subject to
     the police regulations of the different States--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.

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 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:

     _To the Editor of the Post:_

     SIR: 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.

     "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."

                                   WM. MORRIS DAVIS, _Controller_.

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:

     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.

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 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.

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:

     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 _The
     Globe_ of that date:

          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--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.

Mrs. Virginia Barnhurst writes:

     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--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--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 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."


[Illustration: Rachel G. Foster]


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:

     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 ----, article
     ---- 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.

                                             JOHN H. CAMPBELL,
                                             LEWIS C. CASSIDY,
                                             LEVI ROOKE.

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.[268] 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.

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 of two
women was hotly contested. The _Evening Telegraph_ of February 6,
1874, gives the following:

     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:

     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.

                                    CHARLES M. CARPENTER, _President_.

     JAMES M. STEWART, } _Clerks_.
     DAVID J. SMITH,   }


     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:


                                   PHILADELPHIA, February 2, 1874.

     DEAR SIR: 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.

                         Respectfully yours,         HARRIET W. PAIST.


     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 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.

     The question on the resolution was pressed, and resulted in its
     adoption by a vote of 20 to 12.[269] 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:

     _To the Citizens of the Thirteenth Ward.:_

     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.

     _February 3, 1874._                        HARRIET W. PAIST.

     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 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.

The ladies were elected, and Mrs. Paist served her term. Mrs.
Woelpper died immediately after the election.

Anna McDowell, in the _Sunday Republic_ 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:

     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 _prima facie_ evidence of abberation of mind," and we
     believe this to be true.

Had these sisters[270] been brothers they would have been
recognized as partners and had their legal proportion of the
accumulations 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.

Among the literary women of the State are Sarah C. Hallowell, on
the editorial staff of the _Public Ledger_; the daughters of John
W. Forney, for many years in charge of the woman's department of
_Forney's Progress_; Anne McDowell, editor of the woman's
department in _The Sunday Republic_; Mrs. E. A. Wade; "Bessie
Bramble" of Pittsburg has for many years ably edited a woman's
department in the _Sunday Leader_; Matilda Hindman, an excellent
column in the _Pittsburg Commercial Gazette_. 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"[271] 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.

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
_Philadelphia Press_ has the following:

     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.

     A _Press_ 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.

     "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--that is, thirteen eggs.

     "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."

     "And you are not lonesome out here?"

     "Oh! no. I never was lonesome an hour in my life--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--colored,
     French, Italian, and I know not what nationalities."

     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 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.

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 _Republic_ of December 12, Anne E.
M'Dowell said:

     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 _Times_, 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--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.

     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 _no crime that a man can commit which
     justifies his wife in leaving him_ or applying for that monstrous
     thing, a divorce. It is her duty to submit herself to him
     _always_, 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--never. Never think of that accursed
     thing--divorce. Divorce breaks up families--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; 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--what is usually
     called leaping at conclusions--that is astonishing."

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.

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.

     STATE HOSPITAL FOR THE INSANE, NORRISTOWN, Pa., Sept. 28, 1885.

     MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.

                         Very respectfully yours,      ALICE BENNETT.


                              PLYMOUTH MEETING, Pa., Oct. 2, 1885.

     MISS SUSAN B. ANTHONY: _Esteemed Friend_:--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 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.

     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 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.

                         Respectfully,               HIRAM CORSON.

     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.

                                                                 H. C.

January 24, 1882, Miss Rachel Foster made all the arrangements for
a national convention, to be held in St. George's Hall,
Philadelphia.[272] 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.

At its next session (1883) the legislature passed a resolution
recommending congress to submit a sixteenth amendment, securing to
women the right to vote:

     HARRISBURG, Pa., March 21, 1883.--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[273] to 76 noes, the result being greeted with both
     applause and hisses.

The Philadelphia _Evening Bulletin_ of November 8, 1882, mentions
an attempt to open the University of Pennsylvania to women:

     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 _pros_ and
     _cons_ are maintained. There are those who advocate the admission
     of girls to the University as a proper thing _per se_. 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.

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.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[255] See Appendix.

[256] 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."

[257] By an oversight this law was not mentioned in Vol. I. in its
proper place.

[258] George W. Childs married Judge Bovier's grand-daughter.

[259] Transcriber's Note: Footnote text is missing in original.

[260] _University of Pennsylvania_--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. _Jefferson Medical
College_--Joseph Pancoast, S. D. Gross, Samuel Henry Dickson,
Ellerslie Wallace, B. Howard Rand, John B. Biddle, James Aitken
Meigs. _Pennsylvania Hospital_--J. Forsyth Meigs, James H.
Hutchinson, J. M. Da Costa, Addinell Hewson, William Hunt, D. Hayes
Agnew. _Philadelphia Hospital_--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. _Medical Staff of Episcopal
Hospital_--John H. Packard., John Ashhurst, jr., Samuel Ashhurst,
Alfred M. Slocum, Edward A. Smith, William Thomson, William S.
Forbes. _Wills Hospital for the Blind and Lame_--Thomas George
Morton, A. D. Hall, Harrison Allen, George C. Harlan, R. J. Levis.
_St. Joseph's Hospital_--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. _St. Mary's
Hospital_--C. Percy La Roche, J. Cummiskey, A. H. Fish, J.
H. Grove, W. W. Keen, W. L. Wells, L. S. Bolles. _German
Hospital_--Albert Fricke, Emil Fischer, Joseph F. Koerper, Julius
Schrotz, Julius Kamerer, Karl Beeken, Theodore A. Demme,
_Children's Hospital_--Thomas Hewson Bache, D. Murray Cheston, H.
Lenox Hodge, F. W. Lewis, Hilborn West. _Charity Hospital_--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. _Howard Hospital_--Thomas S. Harper,
Laurence Turnbull, T. H. Andrews, Horace Williams, Joseph Klapp,
William B. Atkinson, S. C. Brincklee. _Physicians-at-Large of the
City of Philadelphia_--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.

[261] 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.

[262] 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.

[263] PHILADELPHIA, Nov. 10, 1870.--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.

[264] 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: _President_, Robert Purvis;
_Vice-presidents_, Lucretia Mott, William Whipper, Dinah
Mendenhall; _Recording Secretary_, Mary B. Lightfoot;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Frances B. Jackson; _Treasurer_, John K.
Wildman; _Executive Committee_, 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.

[265] J. K. Wildman, Miss A. Ramborger, Clementina L. John, Ellen
M. Child, and Passmore Williamson.

[266] _President_, Mary Grew; _Vice-Presidents_, Edward M. Davis,
Mrs. C. A. Farrington, Mary K. Williamson; _Recording Secretary_,
Annie Heacock; _Corresponding Secretary_, Eliza Sproat Turner;
_Treasurer_, Gulielma M. S. P. Jones; _Executive Committee_, John
K. Wildman, Ellen M. Child, Annie Shoemaker, Charlotte L. Pierce,
and Dr. Henry T. Child.

[267] 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.

[268] 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 _yes_ 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.

[269] _Ayes_--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--20. _Nays_--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--12. So the resolution was carried
by 20 yeas to 12 nays.

[270] 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.--[E. C. S.

[271] The Executive Board of the New Century Club for 1879-1880,
was: _President_, Mrs. Eliza S. Turner; _Vice-Presidents_, Mrs.
Emily W. Taylor, Mrs. S. C. F. Hallowell; Mrs. Henry C. Townsend,
Mrs. Aubrey H. Smith; _Corresponding Secretary_, Miss Louise
Stockton; _Recording Secretary_, Miss Anna C. Bliss; _Treasurer_,
Mrs. Charlotte L. Pierce; _Directors_, 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.

[272] See Chapter 30 for an account of this Philadelphia
convention.

[273] The _yeas_ 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--78.




CHAPTER XXXIX.

NEW JERSEY.

     Women Voted in the Early Days--Deprived of the Right by
     Legislative Enactment in 1807--Women Demand the Restoration of
     Their Rights in 1868--At the Polls in Vineland and Roseville
     Park--Lucy Stone Agitates the Question--State Suffrage Society
     Organized in 1867--Conventions--A Memorial to the
     Legislature--Mary F. Davis--Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford--Political
     Science Club--Mrs. Cornelia C. Hussey--Orange Club, 1870--July 4,
     1874, Mrs. Devereux Blake Gives the Oration--Dr. Elizabeth
     Blackwell's Letter--The Laws of New Jersey in Regard to Property
     and Divorce--Constitutional Commission, 1873--Trial of Rev. Isaac
     M. See--Women Preaching in His Pulpit--The Case Appealed--Mrs.
     Jones, Jailoress--Legislative Hearings.


New Jersey 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,[274] 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 _The Revolution_ of November 19, 1868,
written by Elizabeth A. Kingsbury:

                                   VINELAND, N. J., Nov. 5, 1868.

     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
     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 A. M., 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,[275] 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.

     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--bless his dear
     soul--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 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--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.

     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.

While the Vineland women expressed their opinion by voting, other
true friends of woman's enfranchisement were moved to do the same.
_The Revolution_ of November 12, 1868, gave the following:

     The Newark _Daily Advertiser_ 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.

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 _The Revolution_ of March 25, 1868, suggested
by the following:

     At the recent election in Vineland, New Jersey, a unanimous vote
     in favor of "no rum" was polled. The Vineland _Weekly_ 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. She acquiesced in the
     decision very readily, saying she only wished to test a
     principle, and retired very quietly from the hall."

While thus mentioning the women with uncounted votes, it may be
well to embalm here a historical fact, published in April, 1868:

     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.

                                   N. M. WALLINGTON, Washington, D. C.

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:

     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.

Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford sends us the following reports of the
progress of the movement in this State:


     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.[276] 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[277]
     are some of the best men and women in the State. Several
     distinguished names from other States are among the speakers[278]
     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:

          _To the Honorable the Senate and General Assembly of the
          State of New Jersey:_

          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 * * * 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 * * *
          shall enjoy the right of an elector."

          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.

          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."

          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 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.


[Illustration: Cornelia Collins Hussey]


     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[279] for that
     profession was successfully vindicated by Lucretia Mott and Phebe
     A. Hanaford. Mrs. Portia Gage writes, December 12, 1873:

          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 _tatterdemalion_ 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.

     In 1879, the Woman's Political Science Club[280] 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[281] made it
     comparatively easy for her to advocate an unpopular 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:


                                        LONDON, July 27, 1873.

          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--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.

     Speaking of the general activity of the women of Orange, Mrs.
     Hussey says:

          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 _Sun_ attended the
          meeting, so that the views of the club of Orange gained
          quite a wide celebrity.

     Of Mrs. Hussey's remarks, the Newark _Journal_ said:

          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 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--to withhold our patronage as a matter of
          public policy."

          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
          _Journal_: "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.

          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.

          "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--a college which,
          while fattening on enormous dole received from women, offers
          them nothing in return?

     In relation to the law giving the mothers of New Jersey some
     legal claim to their children, Mrs. Hussey writes:

          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
          _privilege_ 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 the right which nature gave them, but which
          men had taken away by mistaken legislation.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     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:

          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.--[Chap. 386.

     February 26, 1874, a law for the better protection of the
     property of married women was passed:

          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 _feme
          sole_; 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 _feme
          sole_, 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.

     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 _World_, January
     1, 1877:

          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 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:

          "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--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 A.M., 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.[282] 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          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.

          Dr. See--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 (_sotto voce_)--"And the
          Lord will bless you for it."

          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." * * * *

          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.

          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).

          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--I won't mention his name--one of the most
          distinguished men of the country preach a very able
          sermon--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.

     The General Assembly adopted the following report on this case:

          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.

          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:

          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.

          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.

     From the following description by Mrs. Devereux Blake, we have
     conclusive evidence of woman's capacity to govern under most
     trying circumstances:

          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.

          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."

          "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 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."

          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 12-1/2 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?" * * * *

          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 _Stranges R._, 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--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.--_New York
          Record, 1876._

     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?

          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.

     At the sixteenth national convention, held in Washington, March,
     1884, the State was well represented;[283] Mrs. Hanaford gave an
     address on "New Jersey as a Leader." In her letter to the
     convention, Mrs. Hussey wrote:

          An old gentleman, Aaron Burr Harrison, a resident of East
          Orange, has just passed on to his long home, full of
          years--eighty-eight--and with a good record. He told me
          about his sister's voting in New jersey, when he was a
          child--probably about 1807. The last time I took a petition
          for woman suffrage to him, he signed it willingly, and his
          daughter also.

     February 12, 1884, a special committee of the New Jersey Assembly
     granted a hearing[284] 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 _Commonwealth_, a
     paper in hearty sympathy:

          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.

FOOTNOTES:

[274] See Vol. I., page 447.

[275] 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.--[E. C. S.

[276] 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.

[277] _President_, Lucy Stone, Roseville; _Vice-Presidents_,
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; _Corresponding Secretaries_, Phebe A.
Pierson, Miss P. Fowler; _Recording Secretary_, C. A. Paul;
_Treasurer_, S. G. Silvester; _Executive Committee_, 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.

[278] 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.

[279] 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.--[E. C. S.

[280] VINELAND, July 15, 1879.--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.--[C.
L. LADD, _Secretary_.

[281] 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, _The
New Jersey Gazette_. 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.

[282] 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.--[M. J.
G.

[283] Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Miss Ellen Miles and Mrs. Jackson of
Jersey City.

[284] Mrs. Theresa Walling Seagrove of Keyport, Rev. Phebe A.
Hanaford of Jersey City and Henry B. Blackwell of Boston were the
speakers.




CHAPTER XL.

OHIO.

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


Early 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[285] 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:

     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[286] was formed, auxiliary to the National Society,
     of which Lucretia Mott was president. April 7, 1869, Mrs. Ryder
     called the attention of the meeting 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.

     At a meeting held April 21, 1869, delegates[287] 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.[288] Mrs. Longley presided; the audiences were large and
     enthusiastic;[289] the press of the city gave extended reports.
     Murat Halstead, editor of the Cincinnati _Commercial_, sent the
     following reply to his invitation:

                                   CINCINNATI, July 28, 1869.

          Mrs. M. V. LONGLEY: _Dear Madam_--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.

                                             M. HALSTEAD.

     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:

          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,--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,--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--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--a great deal more--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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

It is rather remarkable that in a State which so early established
two colleges admitting women--Oberlin in 1834, and Antioch in
1853--any intelligent women should have been found at so late a
date as April 15, 1870, to protest against the right of
self-government for themselves, yet such is the case, as the
following protest shows:

     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
     _we_ 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.

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:

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

Hon. J. M. Ashley, of Toledo, in a speech on the floor of congress,
June 1, 1868, said:

     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.

     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 _non compos_ 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.

The _Revolution_ of March 19, 1868, said:

     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,[290] 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.

The following statistics from Thomas Wentworth Higginson settle
many popular objections to a collegiate education for women:

     GRADUATES OF ANTIOCH COLLEGE.--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[291] 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--who has been connected with that institution
     from its foundation--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.

     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 "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.

In the following editorial in the _Woman's Journal_ Mr. Higginson
pursues the opposition still more closely, and answers their
frivolous objections:

     I am surprised to find that Professor W.S. Tyler of Amherst
     College, in his paper on "The Higher Education of Woman," in
     _Scribner's Monthly_ 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:

          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, _has diminished, so that it
          now averages only two or three to a class_. 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.--_Scribner, February,
          page 457._

     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, 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.

     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--to say nothing of minor
     institutions--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.

     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--women generally--the truest, purest and best of
     the sex--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?

     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."

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 _English Woman's Review_ of
January, 1885:

     DEAR EDITOR: 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--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."

     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.

     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.

     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."

     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."

     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 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."

     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."

     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."

     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."

     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.

     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.

     Some of the trustees thought it desirable to imitate Yale,[292]
     and others felt that _they_ 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.

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 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:

     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.

     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--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.

     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 would have had as
     judges, jurors and advocates; citizens crowned with all the
     rights, privileges and immunities justly theirs by law and
     constitution.

Of the work in Geauga county, Mrs. Sophia Ober Allen, of South
Newbury writes:

     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[293] 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--thirty-one women and nineteen men. In 1876 they
     adopted a series of stirring resolutions with a patriotic
     declaration of principles.

     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,[294] 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.[295]
     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.[296]

Mrs. Sarah Langdon Williams sends us the following report from the
Toledo society:

     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.[297] 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.

     A letter published in _The Revolution_ of June 10, 1869,
     indicates the practical work of our association:

          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,[298] 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.

          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; 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--all was quiet. I passed to the county-court,
          and looked over the docket--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!--

          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.

          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--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--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--that as here,
          so also in the political institutions of our country--this
          principle of equal rights, both to man and woman, will at
          last prevail.

     In 1871 the _Sunday Journal_ 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 _Sunday Journal_ 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 _The Ballot-Box_ 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,[299] when it was
     transferred to Matilda Joslyn Gage, and published at Syracuse, N.
     Y.

     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--Mr. Waite and Mr. Scribner--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 _Minor vs. Happersett_,
     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."

     When, in February, 1873, an irascible judge of the Court of
     Common Pleas refused to ratify the appointment of a woman--Miss
     Mary Sibley--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.

     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
     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.

     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.

     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. _The
     Ballot-Box_ of May, 1876, contains the correspondence:

                                   TOLEDO, Ohio, April 8, 1876.

          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 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.

                                               GUIDO MARX, _Chairman_.

          D. R. LOCKE, JAMES H. EMORY, _Secretaries_.

     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:


                                   TOLEDO, Ohio, April 15, 1876.

          _Hon. Guido Marx, Messrs. D. R. Locke and James H. Emory_:

          GENTLEMEN: 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--representation.

          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,

                         SARAH R. L. WILLIAMS, _President T. W. S. A._

     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
     _Blade_ and _Commercial_, which we reproduce below:

          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--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 of which cannot but prove prejudicial to the
          interests of their association. The opposite course would
          undoubtedly have won friends.--_Blade._

          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 _all_
          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.--_Commercial._

     The _Blade_ 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 _Commercial_, 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 _The Ballot-Box_ of the same date:

          WHY WE CANNOT CELEBRATE THE CENTENNIAL.--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.

          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--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.

          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.

     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 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,[300] 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.

There is a flourishing association at Cleveland called the Western
Reserve Club;[301] 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.

     The Painesville Equal Rights Society,[302] 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,[303] 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.

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:

     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 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:

          Women have greater need than men of the knowledge of the
          science of life, and can make more profitable use of it.
          _First_: 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.
          _Second_: 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. _Third_: 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.

     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[304] 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 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:

          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.

          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--a
          life-long opponent of the broader culture of women--left the
          meeting with the purpose of arresting all action. In this,
          however, he failed; the vote was confirmed.

          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.

          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.

          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--a majority
          which will be difficult to obtain after the record which the
          women have already made as students in the institution.

                         Yours truly,                    J. D. BUCK.

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:

     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.

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. & F. Cronise, until Miss Nettie's marriage
with N. B. Lutes, with whom she has since been associated under the
firm name of Lutes & 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.

In 1885, Miss Mary P. Spargo of Cleveland, was admitted to the bar.


FOOTNOTES:

[285] 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.

[286] The officers of Cincinnati Equal Rights Society were:
_President_, Mrs. H. A. Leavitt; _Vice-President_, Mr. J.
B. Quinby; _Corresponding-Secretary_, Mrs. A. L. Ryder;
_Recording-Secretary_, Mrs. L. H. Blangy; _Treasurer_, Mrs. Mary
Moulton; _Executive Committee_, Mrs. J. B. Quinby, Mr. ---- 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.

[287] 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.

[288] The officers of the State Society were: _President_, Mrs. H.
Tracy Cutler, M. D., Cleveland; _Vice-President_, Mrs. M. V.
Longley; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. H. M. Downey, Xenia;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Miriam M. Cole, Sidney;
_Treasurer_, Mrs. L. H. Crall, Cincinnati; _Warden_, Mr. J. B.
Quinby, Cincinnati; _Business Committee_, 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.

[289] 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.

[290] 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: _President_, Mrs. C. A. Seaman, M. D.;
_Vice-president_, Mrs. S. F. Lester; _Secretary_, Mrs. M. B.
Ambler; _Treasurer_, Mrs. S. D. McMillan.

[291]

 A = Individual.
 B = Year of Graduation.
 C = Married or Single.
 D = Number of Children.
 E = Health.

 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | A|  B |   C   |   D   |    E     |Remarks                             |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 1|1857|Married|   3   |Not living|Died, 1874.                         |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 2|  " |   "   |   1   |   Good   |Taught eleven years; now in Indiana.|
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 3|  " |   "   |   2   |    "     |Has taught ever since graduating;   |
 |  |    |       |       |          |now in Ohio.                        |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 4|1858|   "   |   2   |Very good |Taught five years; now in Ohio.     |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 5|  " |   "   |   6   |   Good   |Has taught school; slight bronchial |
 |  |    |       |       |          |trouble.                            |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 6|1859|   "   |   3   |    "     |                                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 7|  " |   "   |   3   |Uncertain |Has taught school.                  |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 8|  " |   "   |       |   Good   |Taught thirteen years, till married,|
 |  |    |       |       |          |in 1872.                            |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 | 9|  " |   "   |2 or 3 |          |No recent intelligence; health good |
 |  |    |       |       |          |so far as known.                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |10|1860|Single |       |    "     |Taught some years; now in England.  |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |11|  " |Married|   2   |          |Taught three years.                 |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |12|  " |Single |       |    "     |Has taught school.                  |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |13|  " |   "   |       |Very good |Physician in Missouri.              |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |14|  " |Married|   1   |   " "    |Has taught school.                  |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |15|  " |Single |       |   " "    |Constantly a teacher, except two    |
 |  |    |       |       |          |years in Europe.                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |16|  " |Married|       |   " "    |Minister in Connecticut; lately     |
 |  |    |       |       |          |married.                            |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |17|1861|   "   |       |   Good   |Taught three years; journalist in   |
 |  |    |       |       |          |Ohio.                               |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |18|  " |   "   |   1   |          |Has taught school.                  |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |19|1862|   "   |   1   |Not living|Died of hereditary consumption.     |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |20|  " |   "   |   1   |   " "    |                                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |21|  " |   "   |   1   |   Good   |                                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |22|  " |   "   |   2   |Very good |Resides in Ohio.                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |23|  " |   "   |   2   |   " "    |Resides in Vermont.                 |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |24|  " |   "   |   2   |   " "    |Resides in New York.                |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |25|  " |   "   |       |   Good   |Lately married.                     |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |26|  " |   "   |   3   |    "     |Has taught school.                  |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |27|1863|   "   |   2   |Very good |Taught four years, till married.    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |28|1864|   "   |   3   |   " "    |Taught one year.                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |29|1866|   "   |       | Not good |Troubled with scrofula, dating back |
 |  |    |       |       |          |earlier than her school days;       |
 |  |    |       |       |          |practices medicine in Missouri.     |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |30|1868|Single |       |   Good   |Very good & Has just returned from  |
 |  |    |       |       |          |three years in Europe, where she    |
 |  |    |       |       |          |took long pedestrian journeys.      |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |31|  " |Married|   1   |    "     |Has taught school and is teaching   |
 |  |    |       |       |          |now.                                |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |32|  " |   "   |   2   |    "     |Taught three years.                 |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |33|1869|Single |       |          |Taught constantly and is teaching   |
 |  |    |       |       |          |now.                                |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |34|1870|Married|       |Not living|Died, 1871.                         |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |35|  " |   "   |   1   |   Good   |Has taught school in Missouri.      |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |36|  " |   "   |   1   |    "     |Taught one year.                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |37|1871|Single |       | Unknown  |Came to college in delicate health, |
 |  |    |       |       |          |which improved while there; the     |
 |  |    |       |       |          |youngest woman ever graduated at    |
 |  |    |       |       |          |Antioch.                            |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |38|1872|   "   |       |Not living|Died, 1873, of hereditary           |
 |  |    |       |       |          |consumption.                        |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |39|  " |   "   |       |   Fair   |Teaching in Massachusetts.          |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |40|1873|   "   |       |   Good   |                                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+
 |41|  " |   "   |       |    "     |                                    |
 +--+----+-------+-------+----------+------------------------------------+


[292] 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 _Sun_ of October 2, 1885: "NEW HAVEN,
Conn., Oct. 1.--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.

[293] 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--Equal Rights for all--Taxation
without Representation is Tyranny. Our Foes--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.

[294] _President_, Ruth F. Munn; _Vice-Presidents_, Joel Walker, D.
M. Allen; _Recording Secretary_, Ellen Munn; _Corresponding
Secretary_, Julia P. Greene; _Treasurer_, Mary Hodges; _Executive
Committee_, William Munn, Sophia L. O. Allen, Amanda M. Greene,
Apollos D. Greene, Ransom Knox.

[295] 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.

[296] 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.

[297] 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 _The Ballot-Box_, and served for three years
as secretary and treasurer of the association.

[298] 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.

[299] Mrs. Williams further adds that _The Ballot-Box_ 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.

[300] The officers of the Toledo Society are, 1885, _President_,
Mrs. Mary J. Cravens; _Vice-president_, Sarah R. L. Williams;
_Recording Secretary_ Mrs. E. R. Collins; _Corresponding
Secretary_, Mrs. Sarah S. Bissell; _Treasurer_, Mrs. Mary J.
Barker; _Executive Committee_, Mrs. Rosa L. Segur, Mrs. Julia P.
Cole, Mrs. Caroline T. Morgan, Miss Anna C. Mott, Mrs. E. M.
Hawley.

[301] _President_, Mrs. Judge Caldwell; _Secretary_, Mrs. Bushnell;
_Treasurer_, Mrs. Ammon.

[302] The officers of the Painesville Society, 1885, are,
_President_, Mrs. Frances Jennings Casement; _Vice-Presidents_,
Mrs. Eliza P. Chesney, Mrs. Lydia Wilcox, Mrs. Cornelia Swezey;
_Recording Secretary_, Mrs. Martha Paine; _Corresponding
Secretary_, Mrs. Lou J. Bates; _Treasurer_, Mrs. Adelia J. Bates;
_Trustees_, Mrs. J. B. Burrows, Mrs. A. G. Smith, Mrs. C. C.
Beardslee.

[303] The officers of the Ohio State Association for 1885
are, _President_, Mrs. Frances M. Casement, Painesville;
_Vice-Presidents_, Mrs. N. Coe Stewart, Cleveland; Mrs. C. C.
Swezey, Painesville; Hon. Richard Mott, Toledo; Mrs. U. R. Walker,
Cincinnati; Mrs. Dr. Warren, Elyria; _Recording Secretary_, Miss
Mary P. Spargo, Cleveland; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Rosa L.
Segur, Toledo; _Treasurer_, Mrs. Elizabeth Coit, Columbus;
_Executive Committee_, 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.

[304] 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; _Resident Physician_, Dr. Sarah J. Bebout; _Visiting
Physicians_, Drs. Ellen M. Kirk, M. May Howells.




CHAPTER XLI.

MICHIGAN.

     Women's Literary Clubs and Libraries--Mrs. Lucinda H.
     Stone--Classes of Girls in Europe--Ernestine L. Rose--Legislative
     Action, _1849-1885_--State Woman Suffrage Society, 1870--Annual
     Conventions--Northwestern Association--Wendell Phillips'
     Letter--Nannette Gardner Votes--Catharine A. F. Stebbins
     Refused--Legislative Action--Amendments Submitted--An Active
     Canvass of the State by Women--Election Day--The Amendment Lost,
     40,000 Men Voted in Favor--University at Ann Arbor Opened to
     Girls, 1869--Kalamazoo Institute--J. A. B. Stone, Miss Madeline
     Stockwell and Miss Sarah Burger Applied for Admission to the
     University in 1857--Episcopal Church Bill--Local
     Societies--Quincy--Lansing--St. Johns--Manistee--Grand
     Rapids--Sojourner Truth--Laura C. Haviland--Sybil Lawrence.


Traveling 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,[305]
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 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.

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:

     The agitation on the question of woman suffrage began in this
     State in 1846, with the advent of Ernestine L. Rose,[306] who
     spoke twice in the legislative hall in Detroit--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.

     _The Revolution_ of April 30, 1868, gives an account of the
     manner the women of Sturgis voted on the question of prohibition:

          "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."

          We find the above in the Sturgis _Journal_, by the way, one
          of the best in tone and 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 _The Revolution_ 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.

     In _The Revolution_ of September 3, 1868, we find the following
     from the Sturgis _Star_:

          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 _all taxable
          persons_ residing in the district of the age of twenty-one
          years, and who have resided therein three months next
          preceding the time of voting."

          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:

          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.

          This call is signed by about twenty of the best women of the
          borough. Last week we called attention in _The Revolution_
          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.

     The Michigan State Suffrage Society--always an independent
     association--was organized at the close of the first convention
     held in Hamblin's Opera-house, Battle Creek,[307] 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.

     The Northwestern Association held its first annual convention in
     the Young Men's Hall, Detroit, November 28, 29, 1870, with large
     and appreciative audiences.[308] Legislative action on the
     question of woman suffrage began in Michigan in 1849, when:

          The special report favorable to Senate document No. 10, for
          universal suffrage, was signed by Dwight Webb, Edward H.
          Thompson and Rix Robinson.--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.--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.--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.--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.

          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:

          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--at least not sufficient to warrant us in
          recommending so important a change in our form of government
          at the present session of the legislature--and ask to be
          discharged from the further consideration of the subject.

                         [Signed:]       A. HEWITT, _Acting Chairman._

          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:

          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.

                         [Signed:]       E. W. MEDDAUGH, _Chairman._

          October 14.--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--7 for and 7
          against.

          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[309] was presented in the House:


          _To the Senate and House of Representatives of the State of
          Michigan, in Special Session Convened: _

          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.

          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.

          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--thus aiming
          to elevate the entire people to the highest practicable
          plane of intelligence and true civilization.

          By order, and in the name of the Michigan Woman Suffrage
          Association.

                          LUCINDA H. STONE, _Corresponding Secretary._

          Mrs. A. H. WALKER, _President._

          On March 14, the joint committee made the following report:

          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.

          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.

          SAMUEL H. BLACKMAN, _Chairman of Committee on State Affairs._
          JAMES BURNES, _Chairman of Committee on Elections._

          Report accepted, and joint resolution placed on the general
          order.

          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,[310] proposing an amendment to section I of article
          VII. of the constitution, in relation to the qualification
          of electors:

          _Resolved, By the Senate and House of Representatives of the
          State of Michigan_, 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:

          SECTION 1. 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:

          _First_--Every citizen of the United States; _Second_--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; _Third_--Every inhabitant residing in this State
          on the twenty-fourth day of June, one thousand eight hundred
          and seventy-five.

          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,--Yes"; and upon ballots
          given against the adoption thereof, in like manner, the
          words, "Woman Suffrage,--No." If at said election a majority
          of the votes given upon said proposition shall contain the
          words, "Woman Suffrage,--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
          the State as it now stands, or substituted for section I, of
          article VII., in said amended constitution, if the latter is
          adopted.

     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.

     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,[311] 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:

          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.

          THOMAS WENTWORTH HIGGINSON 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.

          A. BRONSON ALCOTT wrote: * * * Where women lead--the best
          women--is it unsafe for men to follow? Woman's influence
          cannot be confined to her household; 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--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.

          EDNA D. CHENEY wrote: * * * 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.

          JOHN GREENLEAF WHITTIER wrote: * * * 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.

          ASA MAHAN, 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.[312]

     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:

          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--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 be ubiquitous enough to
          discharge all these multifarious duties. We therefore
          suggest that there be appointed during this meeting,
          _First_, a Committee on Finance. _Second_, a Committee on
          Printed Documents. _Third_, a Committee on Lecturers.
          _Fourth_, 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.

     Representatives from the different counties gave their names[313]
     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 _Golden Age_, said:

          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, 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.

     Those who were engaged in the canvass[314] 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.[315]

     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.

     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:

          The new phase of the woman movement--that claiming the right
          to vote under the fourteenth amendment--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. *
          * * The statement of the argument, and the array of cases
          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.

     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.

     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.[316] 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.

     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--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 _Post_ gave the following
     account:

          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
          _sotto voce_ 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
          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.

     At Battle Creek, Mrs. Mary Wilson voted at the election of 1871.
     When she registered, she was accompanied by her lawyer.

     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:

          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."

     The city board now felt called upon to pass a vote of censure
     upon Mr. Hill's action. The record runs thus:

          Canvasser BAXTER: _Resolved_, 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.

          Canvasser FULDA moved to lay the resolution on the
          table--lost. Adopted as follows: _Yeas_--Langley, Flower,
          House, Lichtenberg, Phelps, Parsons, Christian, Allison,
          Buehle, Dullea, Daly, Barbier, Baxter--13. _Nays_--Wooley
          and Fulda--2.

          CHAS A. BORGMAN, _Secretary_.
                                            PHILO PARSONS, _Chairman_.

     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:

          _Hon. D. C. Holbrook, City Counselor_: DEAR SIR:--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. Very
          respectfully,

                                        S. B. WOOLLEY,
                                        ALBERT BOTSFORD,
                                          _Inspectors of First Ward_.

          Woman cannot be enrolled or registered. Let her try it
          on.[317]

          _Oct. 24, 1873._      D. C. HOLBROOK, _City Counselor_.

     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.[318]

     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.

     Before the University at Ann Arbor was opened to girls in 1869,
     there had been several attempts to establish seminaries for girls
     alone.[319] 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.

     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. 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.

     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--the first woman graduate from
     the literary department--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.

     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 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:

          When it was my blessed privilege to attend a women's rights
          convention at Cleveland, Ohio, in 1853,--and it was a grand
          meeting--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.

     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[320] 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
     _more time to consider_. 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:

          _To the Regents of the University of Michigan:_

          The undersigned, inhabitants of ----, in the county of ----,
          and State of Michigan, respectfully request that young women
          may be admitted as students in the University, for the
          following among other reasons: _First_--It is incumbent on
          the State to give equal educational advantages to both
          sexes. _Second_--All can be educated in the State University
          with but little more expense than is necessary to educate
          young men alone. _Third_--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. _Fourth_--It will admit
          young ladies at once to the benefits of the highest
          educational privileges of the State.

     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.

     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.

     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:

          WHEREAS, 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,

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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:

     "I shall never be satisfied until a _black woman_ 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.

     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 _Post and Tribune_ 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.

     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.

     Of the work in Quincy Mrs. Sarah Turner says:

          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 Phoebe 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.

          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.

          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.

     From Manistee Mrs. Fannie Holden Fowler writes:

          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 _Times and Standard_. 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 _Times
          and Standard_, 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,[321]
          adopting the constitution of the National and electing
          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

     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,[322] and
     responded to by Mrs. Stebbins of Detroit.[323]

     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 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 _Religio-Philosophical Journal_, 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."

     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 _Inter-Ocean_: "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:

          "DEAR FRIENDS: 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.

                                                 SOJOURNER TRUTH.

          "_Grand Rapids, Mich._, Dec. 26, 1880."

     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."

     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.

          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,[324] 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.

          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.

     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.


FOOTNOTES:

[305] 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.--[E. C. S.

[306] 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 95.

[307] The speakers at the Battle Creek convention were Miriam M.
Cole, editor of _The Woman's Advocate_, Dayton, Ohio; Mary A.
Livermore, editor _Woman's Journal_, 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:
_President_, Professor Moses Coit Tyler, Ann Arbor;
_Vice-President_, Lucinda H. Stone; _Recording Secretary_, Mary T.
Lathrop; _Corresponding Secretary_, Euphemia Cochran, Detroit;
_Treasurer_, Colin Campbell, Detroit; _Executive Committee_, 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.

[308] 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, Phoebe Couzins, Anna E. Dickinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton,
Miriam M. Cole and Rev. Robert Collyer. The officers elected were:
_President_, Mrs. A. M. Hazlett, Michigan; _Recording Secretary_,
Mrs. Rebecca W. Mott, Chicago; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs.
Harriet S. Brooks, Chicago; _Treasurer_, Hon. Fernandol Jones,
Chicago; _Vice-Presidents_, J. B. Bloss, Michigan; Mrs. Myra
Bradwell, Illinois; Mrs. E. R. Collins, Ohio; Mrs. Dr. Ferguson,
Indiana; Miss Phoebe Couzins, Missouri; _Executive Committee_, C.
B. Waite, Chicago; Colin Campbell, Detroit; Mrs. Francis Minor,
Missouri; Madame Anneke, Wisconsin; Mrs. Charles Leonard and Mrs.
E. J. Loomis, Chicago.

[309] _President_, Mrs. A. H. Walker; _Corresponding Secretary_,
Lucinda H. Stone; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. S. E. Emory;
_Treasurer_, Mrs. E. Metcalf; _Executive Committee_, 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.

[310] The following named representatives voted _yea_: 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--67. The
following named Senators voted _yea_: 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--26.

[311] Officers of the Michigan State Woman Suffrage Association:
_President_, Hon. Jonas H. McGowan, Coldwater; _Vice-Presidents_,
Rev. Richmond Fiske Jr., Grand Haven, Mrs. John J. Bagley, Detroit;
_Recording Secretary_, Mrs. N. Geddes, Lenawee; _Secretary and
Treasurer_, George H. Stickney, Grand Haven; _Executive Committee_,
Chairman, Hon. William M. Ferry, Grand Haven; First District--Giles
B. Stebbins, Z. R. Brockway, Wayne; Second District--Hon. Charles
E. Mickley, Lenawee, Mrs. M. A. Hazlett, Hillsdale; Third
District--Hon. W. H. Withington, Jackson, Morgan Bates, Calhoun;
Fourth District--James H. Stone, Kalamazoo, Miss Sarah Clute, St.
Joseph; Fifth District--Hon. B. A. Harlan, Mrs. M. C. Bliss, Kent;
Sixth District--Hon. I. H, Bartholomew, Ingham, Mrs. A. Jenney,
Genesee; Seventh District--Hon. J. C. Lamb, Lapeer, J. P. Hoyt,
Tuscola; Eighth District--Hon. C. V. DeLand, Saginaw, Hon. J. D.
Lewis, Bay; Ninth District--Hon. E. L. Gray, Newaygo, Mrs. J. G.
Ramsdell, Grand Traverse; _Vice-Presidents by Congressional
Districts_, First District--Mrs. Eliza Leggett, Hon. W. N. Hudson,
Wayne; Second District--Hon. W. S. Wilcox, Lenawee, Hon. Talcott E.
Wing, Monroe; Third District--Mrs. Ann E. Graves, Calhoun, Mrs.
Mary Lathrop, Jackson; Fourth District--Hon. Levi Sparks, Berrien,
Rev. H. C. Peck, Kalamazoo; Fifth District--Hon. S. L. Withey, Hon.
James Miller, Kent; Sixth District--Hon. Randolph Strickland,
Clinton, C. F. Kimball, Oakland; Seventh District--Hon. Ira
Butterfield, Lapeer, John M. Potter, Macomb; Eighth District--Hon.
Ralph Ely, Gratiot, Mrs. S. M. Green, Bay; Ninth District--Elvin L.
Sprague, Grand Traverse, S. W. Fowler, Manistee.

[312] 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.

[313] The following persons were announced and requested to
communicate at once with the Executive Committee, George H.
Stickney, Secretary, Grand Haven, Mich.: _Allegan_, Mrs. E. S.
Nichols; _Barry_, Mrs. Goodyear; _Bay_, Mrs. S. M. Green, Mrs.
Judge Holmes; _Berrien_, Hon. Levi Sparks, O. E. Mead; _Branch_,
Mrs. Celia Woolley, Mrs. H. J. Boutelle; _Calhoun_, W. F. Neil,
Mrs. Judge Graves, Morgan Bates, Dr. G. P. Jocelyn; _Cass_, Mr.
Rice, William L. Jaques; _Chippewa_, Mrs. Charles G. Shepherd;
_Clinton_, Mrs. Lee, Mrs. Gole; _Eaton_, J. Chance, Hon. A. K.
Warren, Mrs. J. Musgrave, Mr. and Mrs. E. A. Foote; _Genesee_, Mrs.
D. Stewart; _Grand Traverse_, Hon. W. H. C. Mitchell, Hon. J. G.
Ramsdell; _Gratiot_, Hon. Ralph Ely; _Hillsdale_, Mrs. M. A.
Pendill, Mrs. Dr. Swift, Mrs. E. Samm; _Ingham_, Dr. I. H.
Bartholomew, Mrs. O. A. Jenison, A. R. Burr; _Ionia_, Mrs. A.
Williams, Mrs. Chaddock, Mr. J. B. Smith; _Isabella_, Mrs. Douglas
Nelson; _Jackson_, Mrs. Mary Lathrop, Fidus Livermore; _Kalamazoo_,
J. H. Stone, Col. F. W. Curtenius, Merritt Moore. Dr. N. Thomas;
_Kent_, Mrs. E. L. Briggs, E. G. D. Holden, E. P. Churchill;
_Lapeer_, Hon. J. C. Lamb, Mrs. J. B. Wilson; _Lenawee_, Mrs. Dr.
Fox, Mrs. F. A. Rowley, Hon. Charles E. Mickley; _Livingston_, E.
P. Gregory; _Macomb_, Mrs. Ambrose Campbell, Daniel B. Briggs;
_Manistee_, S. W. Fowler, Hon. B. M. Cutcheon, T. J. Ramsdell;
_Marquette_, Sidney Adams, Hiram A. Burt; _Mason_, Mr. Foster;
_Midland_, Dr. E. Jennings, Mrs. Sumner; _Missaukee_, S. W. Davis;
_Monroe_, Hon. J. J. Sumner; _Montcalm_, Mr. J. M. Fuller;
_Muskegon_, Lieutenant-Governor H. H. Holt, Mrs. O. B. Ingersoll,
Mrs. Barney; _Newaygo_, Hon. E. L. Gray, Mrs. Lucy Utley;
_Oakland_, Mrs. D. B. Fox, J. Holman, jr., Mrs. Alexander;
_Oceana_, John Halsted; _Osceola_, B. F. Gooch; _Ottawa_, Dwight
Cutler, Mrs. W. C. Sheldon; _Roscommon_, Messrs. Davis & Hall;
_Saginaw_, Mrs. Whiting, Mrs. Gamble, J. F. Driggs, W. P. Burdick;
_Shiawassee_, Mrs. Dr. Parkill, J. H. Hartwell, Hon. J. M. Goodell,
Dr. King; _St. Clair_, Hon. B. W. Jenks; _St. Joseph_, W. S. Moore,
Mrs. Mary Peck; _Tuscola_, Mrs. J. P. Hoyt; _Van Buren_, Mr. and
Mrs. C. D. Van Vechten, A. S. Dyckman, Hon. S. H. Blackman;
_Washtenaw_, Mrs. Israel Hall, Mrs. Seth Reed, D. Cramer, Mary E.
Foster; _Wayne_, Mrs. C. A. F. Stebbins, Colin Campbell, G. W.
Bates, Lucy L. Stout.

[314] Miss Eastman, Miss Hindman, Phoebe 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.

[315] 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.--[E. C. S.

[316] The inspectors voting were: _Yeas_--Adams, Baxter, Brooks,
Dullea, Henderson, Smith. _Nays_--Bragg, Balch, Barclay, Barry,
Bond, Christian, Hill, Hughes, Langley, Mahoney, O'Keefe,
Sutherland.

[317] 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.

[318] 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.

[319] 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.

[320] The names of the eleven young women Mrs. Stearns is unable to
recall.

[321] The officers of the Manistee Society are (1885): _President_,
Mrs. Lucy T. Stansell; _Corresponding Secretary_, Fannie Holden
Fowler; _Recording Secretary_, Miss Nellie Walker; _Treasurer_,
Mrs. Susan Seymour.

[322] The officers of the Grand Rapids Society are: _President_,
Mrs. Cordelia F. Briggs; _Vice-Presidents_, Loraine Immen, Emma
Wheeler; _Treasurer_, Mrs. Henry Spring; _Secretary_, Mrs. J. W.
Adams.

[323] Following is a complete list of all officers elected in 1885:
_President_, Mrs. Mary L. Doe of Carrollton; _Vice-President_, Mrs.
Loraine Immen of Grand Rapids; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. H. S.
Spring of Grand Rapids; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Fannie H.
Fowler of Manistee; _Treasurer_, Mrs. C. A. F. Stebbins of Detroit;
_Advisory Committee_, Mrs. E. L. Briggs of Grand Rapids, and Mrs.
S. E. V. Emery of Lansing; _Executive Committee_--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.

[324] 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.--[S. B.
A.




CHAPTER XLII.

INDIANA.

     The First Woman Suffrage Convention After the War, 1869--Amanda
     M. Way--Annual Meetings, 1870-85, in the Larger
     Cities--Indianapolis Equal Suffrage Society, 1878--A Course of
     Lectures--In May, 1880, National Convention in
     Indianapolis--Zerelda G. Wallace--Social Entertainment--Governor
     Albert G. Porter--Susan B. Anthony's Birthday--Schuyler
     Colfax--Legislative Hearings--Temperance Women of Indiana--Helen
     M. Gougar--General Assembly--Delegates to Political
     Conventions--Women Address Political Meetings--Important Changes
     in the Laws for Women, from 1860 to 1884--Colleges Open to
     Women--Demia
     Butler--Professors--Lawyers--Doctors--Ministers--Miss Catherine
     Merrill--Miss Elizabeth Eaglesfield--Rev. Prudence Le Clerc--Dr.
     Mary F. Thomas--Prominent Men and Women--George W. Julian--The
     Journals--Gertrude Garrison.


This was one of the first States to form a Woman Suffrage
Society[325] 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[326], and with the same
platform and officers renewed the work with added determination for
a final victory.

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:

     The first convention after the war, June 8, 9, 1869, was held in
     Masonic Hall, and continued two days. The Indianapolis _Journal_
     devoted several columns daily to the proceedings, closing with
     the following complimentary editorial:

          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.

     In the _Sentinel_ 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:

          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.

     The editor of the _Journal_ at that time was Colonel W. R.
     Holloway, the present very liberal manager of the _Times_. The
     editor of the _Sentinel_ was Joseph J. Bingham. The State was
     then Republican, and as the organ of that party the _Journal_
     probably had the larger number of readers.

     The State Woman Suffrage Association convened in Indianapolis,
     June 8, 1870, and held a two days' meeting. The _Journal_
     contains, as usual, a full report. The _Sentinel's_ 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 _one_, the
     ballot on the proposition standing 15 for and 14 against. As soon
     as the union was thus effected the following was adopted:

          _Resolved_, That this association is in favor of the union
          of the National and American Associations as soon as
          practicable.

     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[327] have
     been held in different towns throughout the State.[328] 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 _special business_; 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     In November, 1878, the ninth annual meeting of the American
     Association was held in Indianapolis, by invitation from the
     State Society.[329]

     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.

     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 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:

          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.

     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[330] 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.

     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
     _Sentinel_ 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.

     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.

     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:

                                   INDIANAPOLIS, Dec. 22, 1880.

          DEAR SIR: 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.

          Very respectfully yours,    ZERELDA G. WALLACE, _President_.

          MAY WRIGHT SEWALL, _Secretary_,

          By order of the Equal Suffrage Society of Indianapolis.

     The society has lately taken a new departure, giving lunches,
     parties and literary entertainments, to which invitations[331]
     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
     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.[332] 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
     _Times_ of February 18, 1882, will sufficiently indicate the
     spirit of the occasion:

          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[333] 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:

          _Susan B. Anthony, Tenafly, New Jersey_.

          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.

                                   MAY WRIGHT SEWALL, _Secretary_.

     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.

    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 house occupying the speaker's desk. Mr. William
    Cumback introduced Miss Way, who read the following memorial:

          _Mr. President and Gentlemen_--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.

          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.

     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.

     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 _consciences_, but
     to represent their _constituents_," whose will was directly
     opposed to the petition offered.

     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--51 to 22.

     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
     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.

     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.

     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,[334] proving the entire constitutionality
     of such an act. Five thousand were printed and gratuitously
     distributed throughout the State.

     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.

     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 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.

     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--ayes 62,
     nays 24; in the Senate, on April 8, it also passed--ayes 25, nays
     18; and so the first entrenchment was won.

     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.[335]

     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.[336] 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.

     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 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.

     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.[337] 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.

     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:

          _Resolved, First_--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.

     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 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.

     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?"

     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.

     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 _per se_.[338] 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[339] to
     watch the interests 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.

     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[340] 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.

     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:

          AN ACT _to enlarge the Legal Capacity of Married Women whose
          Husbands are Insane, and to enable them to Contract as if
          they were Unmarried._

          SECTION 1. 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 _sole_.

     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 _white male citizens_ shall be made;
     thus implying that a _white male citizen_ is an honorable and
     important person, whose existence is to be noted with due care;
     with a care that distinguishes him equally above the _white
     female_ and the _black male_ citizen, and in effect places these
     two unenumerated divisions of human beings into one class.

     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.


[Illustration: May Wright Sewall]


     The legislature of 1867 passed an act in regard to conveyance of
     lands by wives of persons of unsound mind, which read as follows:

          SECTION 1. 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.

     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.

     In 1873 the possible ability of women to serve the State
     officially was recognized by the passage of the following bill:

          SECTION 1. 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.

          SEC. 2. The foregoing shall not include women who shall
          labor under any disability which may prevent them from
          binding themselves by an official bond.

     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 _feme sole_.

     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.

     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 _femes
     soles_.

     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.[341]

     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 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:

          AN ACT _concerning Married Women--Approved March 25, 1879:_

          SEC. 1.--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 _sole_.

          SEC. 2.--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.

          SEC. 3.--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 _sole_; and her
          separate estate, real and personal, shall be liable therefor
          on execution or other judicial process.

          SEC. 4.--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.

          SEC. 5.--A married woman shall be bound by the covenants of
          the title in a deed of conveyance of her real property.

          SEC. 6.--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 _sole_; and the money recovered shall be her
          separate property, and her husband in such case shall not be
          liable for costs.

          SEC. 7.--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.

          SEC. 8.--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.

          SEC. 9.--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 _virtu_, 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.

          SEC. 10.--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.

     The legislature of 1881 enacted the following, which is really a
     sequence of the property-rights statute of 1879:

          A married woman may sue alone when: _First_--The action
          concerns her own property. _Second_--When the action is
          between herself and her husband. But in no case shall she
          be required to sue or defend by guardian or next friend,
          unless she be under twenty-one years.

          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.

     The legislature of 1881 also passed the following:

          AN ACT _to Authorize the Election of Women to School
          Offices_:

          SEC. 1.--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.

          SEC. 2.--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.

     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:

          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.

     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 II. 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.

     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.

     Of the twenty-six academies, colleges and universities, all are,
     with two notable exceptions--Hanover and Wabash--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.

     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--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.

     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,[342] 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;[343] 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 Cropsey is another living denial of the common
     assertion, that only half-cultured and ill-paid women want the
     ballot.

     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.

     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.

     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.[344] 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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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 _Ladies' Own Magazine_, 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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," 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.

     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 _Our Herald_, 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.

     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:

          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. * * * My
          interest in anti-slavery was awakened about the same time,
          and I regarded it as the _previous_ question, and as less
          abstract and far more important and absorbing than that of
          suffrage for women. For 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.

     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.[345] 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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.[346]

     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 _litteratéurs_ 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.[347]

     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.[348]

     If the press reflects the public, it also moulds it; and its
     conservative 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.

     The citations made in the earlier part of this chapter from the
     _Sentinel_ and the _Journal_ clearly show the spirit of their
     management in 1869. But it must not be inferred that the
     _Journal_ 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 _Journal_ has been a consistent, though somewhat
     mild, supporter of woman suffrage.

     On the contrary, the _Sentinel_ 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 _Sentinel_ 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.

     The _Saturday Herald_, 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 _Herald_. 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 _Herald_ until January 1, 1880, when the paper passed from
     Mr. Harding's into other hands. During her connection with the
     _Herald_, 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 _Saturday Herald_, and it remained under his management a
     sturdy advocate of woman's enfranchisement. The _Saturday
     Review_ 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[349] remaining on the staff as his assistant.

     The _Times_ 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 _Times_ 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:

          As the question is likely to become a prominent theme of
          discussion during the next few years, the _Times_ 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.

     In the daily _Evening News_, 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:

          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.

          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.

     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 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.

     The _Indiana Farmer_, 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 _Democrat_, and is the only
     woman in the State having editorial charge of a political party
     paper, _Our Herald_, 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.[350]

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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:

            "Everywhere
    Two heads in council, two beside the hearth,
    Two in the tangled business of the world,
    Two in the liberal offices of life,
    Two plummets dropped for one, to sound the abyss
    Of science, and the secrets of the mind."


FOOTNOTES:

[325] See Vol. I., page 306.

[326] 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.

[327] The officers of the State Association in 1883 were:
_President_, Dr. Mary F. Thomas: _Vice-Presidents_, 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;
_Secretary_, Mrs. M. E. M. Price; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs.
F. M. Adkinson; _Treasurer_, Miss Mary D. Naylor; _State Central
Committee_, Mrs. Mary E. Haggart, Mrs. Z. G. Wallace and May Wright
Sewall.

[328] Annual--1871, June 21, 22, Bloomington; 1872, June 5, 6,
Dublin; 1873, June 11, 12, Terre Haute; Semi-Annual, November 19,
Richmond. Annual--1874, May 28, 29, Fort Wayne; 1875, May 25, 26,
Liberty; Semi-Annual, November 23, 24, Winchester. Annual--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--1882, May, Columbus; 1883, June, Logansport; 1884,
Kokomo; 1885, November 22, 23, Warsaw.

[329] See Vol. II., page 851.

[330] 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.

[331] INVITATION.--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. _Committee_--May Wright Sewall, Mary C. Raridan, Mrs. H.G.
Carey, Mrs. Charles Kregelo, and Miss Lydia Halley. Please present
invitation at the door.

PROGRAMME.--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.

[332] 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 _Times_ and _Herald_, Mr.
Tarbell, superintendent of the city schools, and May Wright Sewall.

[333] See Indiana Appendix, note A.

[334] See Appendix to Indiana, note B.

[335] 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.

[336] 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.

[337] 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
_Sentinel_; Mrs. Haggart, Mrs. Gougar, Mrs. Josephine R. Nichols,
and other men and women of less prominence, but on that occasion of
hardly less interest.

[338] 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.

[339] Mrs. Sewall, Mrs. Merritt and Mrs. Mary E. Newman Carey.

[340] Republican, May Wright Sewall and Paulina T. Merritt;
Democratic, Mary E. Haggart and Florence M. Adkinson.

[341] For an account of this prison, see Appendix to Indiana
chapter, note C.

[342] See Appendix to Indiana chapter, note G.

[343] 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.

[344] See sketch of Dr. Thomas, Vol. I., page 324.

[345] For these bills and amendments, see Vol. II., pages 325, 333.

[346] See Appendix, Indiana chapter, notes E and F.

[347] 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.

[348] 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.

[349] 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.

[350] _Our Herald_ 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 _Our Herald_ to
Mrs. Harbert, who published it in Chicago as the _The New Era_.




CHAPTER XLIII.

ILLINOIS.

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


Illinois, 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.

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 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.:

     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.

     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.

     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
     _Transcript_ 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, in the same
     county. A few years later, lectures were delivered[351] on the
     subject of equal rights for women in different parts of the
     State.

     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 _Transcript_. 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 _Voice of the
     Fair_, a prophetic name, as really through the medium of these
     sanitary fairs were the voices of the _fair_ 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:

          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.

     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.

     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 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
     _feme-sole_. 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:

          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--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--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.

     On Saturday, October 3, 1868, a genuine sensation was produced by
     the appearance of the Chicago _Legal News_, 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:

          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
          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.

     In the same issue of the _News_ 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 _News_ 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 _Coats vs. Lyall_ and _Holt vs. Lyall_,
     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.

     In 1868, Sorosis, a woman's club, was organized in Chicago, with
     Mrs. Delia Waterman president, and soon after several periodicals
     were established; _The Chicago Sorosis_, with Mrs. Mary L.
     Walker, Cynthia Leonard and Agnes L. Knowlton, editors; _The
     Inland Monthly_, Mrs. Charlotte Clark, editor and publisher; and
     _The Agitator_, 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.

     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
     _Independent_ was based upon the following facts, given by
     request of some of the disfranchised women:

          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--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 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.

          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,[352] 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.

     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.[353] 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 _Legal News_ said:

          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.

     Pursuant to the foregoing "call," a notable convention was
     held.[354] The _Tribune_ 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.

     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--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.

          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 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--that of 75,000 good and pure
          women marching to the polls to vote the others down.
          [Applause.]

          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 _Tribune_, 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--drunkenness and licentiousness--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.

     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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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 XIV.,
          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.

     After a long and earnest discussion, the resolutions were voted
     down. Mrs. Stanton's speech setting forth six reasons against a
     "male aristocracy"[355] was pronounced able and eloquent, though
     directly in opposition to the general sentiment of the
     convention, which was mainly Republican. 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:

          MRS. PRESIDENT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: 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.

          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"--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--my engagements taking me all over the State at that
          time--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 cheeks, and
          begging for power, begging for the ballot to save their
          homes, and themselves, and their children. Do you tell this
          audience--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--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.

          The Rev. R. L. COLLIER 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.

          ANNA DICKINSON: 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.

          Mr. COLLIER: That is what I mean.

          Miss DICKINSON: 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--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--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.

          The Rev. R. L. COLLIER, 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.

          Miss DICKINSON: 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?

          Mr. COLLIER: I wish to say that law never yet cured crime;
          that men are not our only drunkards. Women are drunkards as
          well as men.

          Miss DICKINSON (excitedly): It is not so, in anything like
          the same proportion; a drunken woman is a rare sight.

          Mr. COLLIER: I wish to say that intemperance can never be
          cured by law.

          Miss DICKINSON: 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.

          Mr. COLLIER 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.

          Miss DICKINSON: 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.

     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[356] the Illinois State
     Suffrage Association was formed, a committee[357] appointed to
     visit Springfield and request the legislature to so "change the
     laws that the earnings of a married woman may be secured 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.

          AN ACT _in Relation to the Earnings of Married Women._

          SEC. 1.--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:
          _Provided_, This act shall not be construed to give to the
          wife any compensation for any labor performed for her minor
          children or husband.

     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.

     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.[358] 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.[359]

     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[360]
     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.

     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 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 _one
     woman_ had proved herself competent and well qualified to
     enlighten the constitutional convention upon the evils of woman
     suffrage."[361] 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.

     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.

     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--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 _en route_ to California, early in
     June, 1871. Of this reception, Miss Anthony, in a letter from Des
     Moines, Iowa, to _The Revolution_, 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.

     In November, 1871, Mrs. Catharine V. Waite, of Hyde Park, made a
     written application to the board of registration, asking them to
     place her 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,[362] denied the relator with costs.

     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.

     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.

     February 13, 14, 1872, the State Association held its annual
     meeting at Bloomington, with large and interested audiences.[363]
     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.

     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":

          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
          _Legal News_, had just been denied admission. Her case,
          stated in brief, 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.[364] 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:

          _Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois
          represented in the General Assembly_, 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.

          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.

          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.

     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:

          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--a
          recognition for which she never failed, when opportunity
          offered, to express her sense of profound obligation--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 _physique_, the apparent type of
          blooming health; but the seeds of disease were inherited and
          only awaited a combination of circumstances to assert 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          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.

     M. Fredrica Perry began the study of law in the office of Shipman
     & 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 &
     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 and sustaining that
     high standard of professional courtesy which should always exist
     among the members of our profession."----Ellen A. Martin, of
     Perry & 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.----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."----In 1880,
     Cora A. Benneson, Quincy, was graduated from the Michigan
     University law-school and admitted to the Michigan and Illinois
     bar.----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.----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
     _Legal News_ and in the preparation of Bradwell's Appellate Court
     Reports.

     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:

          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.

          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:

          _First_--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.

          _Second_--She must keep herself fully and carefully informed
          as to what townships 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.

          _Third_--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.

          _Fourth_--She must arrange, classify, file and preserve all
          books, papers, bonds, official correspondence and other
          documents belonging to her office.

          _Fifth_--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.

          _Sixth_--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.

          _Seventh_--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.

          _Eighth_--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 _some_ of the _many_ 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.

          For convenience we will group these duties in three classes:
          1. Those concerning finance. 2. Legal duties. 3. Duties to
          teachers and schools.

          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 _will_ "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.

          II. _Legal Duties._--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
          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.

          III. _Her Work with Teachers and Schools._--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.

          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.

          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 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.

          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.

     In _Zion's Herald_ 1873, on the origin of the Woman's College in
     Evanston, Miss Frances E. Willard writes:

          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--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?'--and I
          would add with emphasis, Without an education, what is
          woman?"

     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.

     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 since which time Miss Ellen M. Soule
     and Miss Jane Bancroft have successively served in the position
     of dean.

     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.

     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.

     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[365] at their beautiful homes, many have
     had the pleasure of seeing and talking with these bright girls,
     and the worthy presidents of the institutions.

     We believe to Illinois belongs the distinction of being the
     birthplace of the first woman admitted to the American Medical
     Association--Dr. Sarah Hackett Stevenson, born at Buffalo Grove,
     Ogle county. Dr. Stevenson was admitted to this time-honored
     association June, 1876. The Philadelphia _Evening Bulletin_ thus
     refers to the innovation:

          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, began yesterday in the
          election of Dr. Sarah Hackett Stevenson as a member in full
          standing from the State of Illinois.

     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.

     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,[366] 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:

          _To the Women of the United States of America, greeting:_

          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."

          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."

          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:

          _Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives
          of the United States of America_, 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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

                         ELIZABETH BOYNTON HARBERT,
                                  _Pres. Ill. Woman Suffrage Society._

     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[367] were scattered through the
     village.

     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:

          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
          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--keeping time to the
          chime of the music of the Union--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.

          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--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.

          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--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.

     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 women. Upon the roll of honor
     connected with this work we gratefully place the names of many
     brave, self-sacrificing women.[368]

     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.

     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 _Inter-Ocean_, 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 _Inter-Ocean_ was yielded to
     woman's interests, designated by the editors, "Woman's Kingdom,"
     and on January 6, 1877, the following announcement appeared:

          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 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.

     Notwithstanding this was the first special department of the
     kind, much of the best journalistic work of the State was being
     done by women,[369] 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:

          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.

     Hon. Frank Sanborn, in his annual report to the American Social
     Science Association, mentioned the formation of a branch
     society[370] in this State. He said:

          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, _The
          Illinois Social Science Journal_, full of interesting
          communications, and it has organized in its first seven
          months' existence eight smaller associations in other
          States.

     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 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.

     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:

          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.

          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 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.

          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.

          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.]

          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.]

     A letter to the Chicago _Times_ commenting upon the above address
     says:

          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 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.

     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.

     The _Woman's Journal_ of March 24, 1877, said:

          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.

          Mr. SHERMAN moved a suspension of the rules to admit of the
          presentation of the petition.

          Mr. MERRITT objected, but, by a decided vote, the rules were
          suspended, and the petition was received and read.

          Mr. SHERMAN 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.

          Mr. HERRINGTON 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.

          According to the Chicago _Tribune_, 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.

          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."

     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 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:

          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.

     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
     _National Citizen_:

          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 _quo warranto_ 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.

          The questions presented by the demurrer were: _First_--Is
          the defendant eligible to this office, she being neither a
          practicing nor a learned lawyer? _Second_--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. e._, 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--for
          woman--did not mean "occupation, profession, or employment,"
          and that "persons do not select an office, but are selected
          for the office."

          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 well those duties. And it is my sincere hope
          that at its next session the legislature will make this
          office accessible to females."

     One of the most influential local associations has been that of
     Chicago, or Cook county.[371] From 1870 to 1876 Mrs. Jane Graham
     Jones was its president, as well as the leading spirit in the
     State Society.[372] 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:

          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.

          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.[373]

     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 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.

                                                    WATSEKA, Ill.

          I send you petitions, the one circulated by me has 270
          names--the other by Clara L. Peters, 139.[374] 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.

                                        VIOLA HAWKS ARCHIBALD.[375]

     The following letter from Mary L. Davis, gives some idea of the
     toils of circulating petitions:

                         DAVIS, Stephenson Co., Ill., May 28, 1877.

          EDITOR _Ballot-Box_:--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--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.

          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 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.[376]

     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:


                                        CHICAGO, November 29, 1881.

          MY DEAR FRIEND: 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--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.

          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.

          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--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.

          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--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--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.

          In conclusion, let me confess that I read your first volume
          with a feeling of inexpressible shame and mortification for
          my sex.

                                   Yours faithfully,
                                                       A.J. GROVER.


[Illustration: Elizabeth Boynton Harbert]


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
_Inter-Ocean_--one of the most popular journals in the nation--she
has exerted a widespread influence over the lives of women,
bringing new hope and ambition into many prairie homes. As
editor-in-chief of the _New Era_, 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[351] 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.

[352] 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.--[S. B. A.

[353] 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.

[354] The officers were: _President_, Mrs. M. Livermore;
_Vice-Presidents_, 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; _Secretaries_, Mrs.
Jeanne Fowler Willing, of Rockford, Mrs. Elizabeth Babbitt, and
George Graham, Esq.; _Committee on Finance_, 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.

[355] For this speech see Vol. II., page 348.

[356] The officers of the convention were: _President_, Mary A.
Livermore; _Vice-Presidents_, the Rev. Robert Collyer, Professor
Haven; _Recording Secretary_, Jeanne Willing, of Rockford;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Myra Bradwell; _Executive Committee_,
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.

[357] 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.

[358] _Indiana_--Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Dr. Mary Wilhite, Emma
Mallory, and Amanda Way; _Missouri_--Rebecca N. Hazzard;
_Wisconsin_--Lelia Peckham; _Iowa_--Mary Newbury Adams, Matilda
Fletcher; _Minnesota_--Mrs. Bishop; _Kansas_--Mrs. Henry;
_Ohio_--Margaret V. Longley; _Michigan_--Professor Stone;
_Massachusetts_--Henry B. Blackwell, and Lucy Stone; _New
York_--Susan B. Anthony, most of whom took part in the discussions.

[359] Letters were also received from Paulina Wright Davis,
Frederick Douglass, Hon. Sharon Tyndale, Rev. D. H. N. Powers, Mrs.
Arabella Mansfield, Rev. Willis Lord.

[360] The speakers were Mrs. Livermore, Mrs. Stone, Hon. Sharon
Tyndale, Hon. E. Haines, and Judge Bradwell.

[361] 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.--[E. C. S.

[362] Our limited space prevents the publication of Judge Waite's
argument and Judge Jameson's decision.

[363] 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.

[364] For Mrs. Bradwell's case see Vol. II., page 601.

[365] 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.--[S.B.A.

[366] 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.--[S. B. A.

[367] "_Ducit Amor Patriæ_"; "1876."--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.

[368] 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.

[369] Prominent among these journalists were Margaret Buchanan
Sullivan and Mrs. Annie Kerr of the Chicago _Times_, Mrs. Hubbard
of the _Tribune_, Miss Farrand of the _Advance_, Virginia
Fitzgerald and Alice Hobbins of the _Inter-Ocean_, Mrs. Myra
Bradwell, editor of the _Legal News_, Mrs. Catharine V. Waite and
Mrs. DeGeer of the _Crusader_, Mrs. Louisa White of the Moline
_Dispatch_, Mrs. C. B. Bostwick of the Mattoon _Gazette_, Mrs. J.
Oberly of the Cairo _Bulletin_, Miss Mary West of the Galesburg
_Republican_, Mrs. Celia Wooley, Miss Eliza Bowman, Mrs. Clara Lyon
Peters of the Watseka _Times_, Jane Grey Swisshelm, Elizabeth Holt
Babbitt, and many others.

[370] The officers of the Illinois Social Science Association were:
_President_, Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Evanston; _Recording
Secretary_, Miss Sarah A. Richards, Chicago; _Corresponding
Secretary_, Mrs. W. E. Clifford, Evanston; _Treasurer_, Mrs. H. H.
Candee, Cairo; _Directors_, 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; _Vice-Presidents_, 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.

[371] _President_, Mrs. Fernando Jones; _Vice-Presidents_, Mrs.
Robert Collyer, Mrs. Richard Somers, Rev. C. D. Helmer;
_Corresponding-Secretary_, Mrs. C. B. Waite; _Recording-Secretary_,
Mrs. S. H. Pierce; _Treasurer_, Mrs. J. W. Loomis; _Executive
Committee_, 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.

[372] The officers of the Illinois State Association are now,
1885; _President_, Mrs. Elizabeth Boynton Harbert, Evanston;
_Vice-President-at-large_, Mrs. M. E. Holmes, Galva; _Secretary_,
Rev. Florence Kollock, Englewood; _Treasurer_, Dr. L. C. Bedell,
354 N. La Salle street, Chicago; _Executive Committee_, 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.

[373] 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.

[374] 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.

[375] 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.--[S. B. A.

[376] 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."--[S.B.A.




CHAPTER XLIV.

MISSOURI.

     Missouri the First State to Open Colleges of Law and Medicine to
     Woman--Liberal Legislation--Eight Causes for Divorce--Harriet
     Hosmer--Wayman Crow--Works of Art--Women in the War--Adeline
     Couzins--Virginia L. Minor--Petitions--Woman Suffrage
     Association, May 8, 1867--First Woman Suffrage Convention, Oct.
     6, 1869--Able Resolutions by Francis Minor--Action Asked for in
     the Methodist Church--Constitutional Convention--Mrs. Hazard's
     Report--National Suffrage Association, 1879--Virginia L. Minor
     Before the Committee on Constitutional Amendments--Mrs. Minor
     Tries to Vote--Her Case in the Supreme Court--Miss Phoebe Couzins
     Graduated from the Law School, 1871--Reception by Members of the
     Bar--Speeches--Dr. Walker--Judge Krum--Hon. Albert
     Todd--Ex-Governor E. O. Stanard--Ex-Senator Henderson--Judge
     Reber--George M. Stewart--Mrs. Minor--Miss Couzins--Mrs. Annie R.
     Irvine--"Oregon Woman's Union."


It 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[377]
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.

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 are eight causes
for divorce, so many doors of escape for unfortunate wives from the
bondage of a joyless union.

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:

     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.

In March, 1869, Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony again visited St.
Louis. In a letter to _The Revolution_ the former said:

     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. One of the best of her productions is
     an admirable bust of her noble benefactor:

                                   BOSTON, October 18, 1857.

          DEAR MR. CROW: 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--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--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--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,

          _Wayman Crow, Esq._                        H.G. HOSMER.

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.

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.

     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:

                                   ST. LOUIS, April 26, 1861.

          Mrs. J. E. D. COUZINS--_Dear Madam_: 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,

                         Yours very truly,              CHAS. A. POPE.


          HEADQUARTERS 2D BRIG., MO. VOL., ST. LOUIS, MO.,
                                                          Aug. 23, 1861.

          Mrs. J. E. D. COUZINS, _present--Madam_: 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 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.

                    Your obedient servant, F. SIGEL, _Brig.-Gen. Com._


          HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI, February 18th, 1862.

          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

          J. T. PRICE, _A. D. C._                   Maj.-Gen'l HALLECK.


          ROOMS WESTERN SANITARY COMMISSION, ST. LOUIS, Oct, 6th, 1862.

          MY DEAR MRS. COUZINS: 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.

                              Very respectfully,
                                                 JAS. E. YEATMAN.


                              OFFICE OF WESTERN SANITARY COMMISSION, }
                              SAINT LOUIS, MO., Oct. 8th, 1862.      }

          Mrs. Couzins has been detailed to service in the hospital
          steamer T.L. McGill, as volunteer nurse.

          N.B.--If the place of service is changed, a new certificate
          will be issued.

                    JAMES E. YEATMAN, President of Sanitary Commission.


                                                 CORINTH, Oct. 13, 1862.

          Pass Mrs. Couzins from Corinth to Columbus.

                            W. S. ROSECRANZ, _Maj.-Gen'l U. S. A._


                              HEADQUARTERS DEP'T OF THE TENNESSEE, }
                              BEFORE VICKSBURG, Feb'y 21st, 1863.  }

          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.

                                          U.S. GRANT, _Maj.-Gen. Com_.

          Capt. J. B. LEWIS,
               _A. Q. M. and Master of Transportation_, Memphis, Tenn.

     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 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:


          ROOMS WESTERN SANITARY COMMISSION, St. Louis, Oct. 7, 1863.

          FRANCIS MINOR, Esq.--_My Dear Sir_: 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,

                    Very respectfully yours,

                                        JAMES E. YEATMAN,
                              _President Western Sanitary Commission_.

     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.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     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.[378]

     We find the following letter from Mr. Minor in _The Revolution_
     of January 22, 1868:

          _Editors of The Revolution_: 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 _The Revolution_ 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:

          _To the Voters of Missouri:_

          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:

          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--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--a
          woman! Possessed of the same intelligence--formed in the
          same mold--having the same attributes, parts and
          passions--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--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.

                                                       A VOTER.


          _To the General Assembly of the State of Missouri: _

          GENTLEMEN: 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.

          And, as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever pray.

          On behalf of the Missouri Woman Suffrage Association.

          [Signed:] _President_, Mrs. Francis Minor; _Vice-President_,
          Mrs. Beverly Allen; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Wm. T.
          Hazard; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. Geo. D. Hall;
          _Treasurer_, Mrs. N. Stevens, St. Louis, Missouri.

          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.

          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.

                                                       F. M.

          _St. Louis_, January, 1868.

The following from _The Revolution_ shows that the women of St.
Louis were awake on the question of taxation:

     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.

                         ASSESSOR'S OFFICE, ST. LOUIS, January 30, 1869.

          _To Mrs. Couzins and Emma Finkelnburg, Committee of the
          Ladies' Suffrage Association:_

          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
          question is represented by over 2,000 tax-paying ladies, and
          assessed at the value of $14,490,199.

                                   Yours very respectfully,

                                        ROBT. J. ROMBAUER, _Assessor_.

     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
     _shall_ we say to them? They ask us if the American Revolution
     did not turn on this hinge, _No taxation without representation_.
     Who can answer?

     The advocates of suffrage in St. Louis made their attacks at once
     in both Church[379] 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.

     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 _The Revolution_, February 6,
     1869, said:

          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 Phoebe 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 _The
          Revolution_. 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.

     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, 1869. Many distinguished people were on the
     platform.[380] At this convention Mr. Francis Minor introduced a
     very able series of resolutions, on which Mrs. Minor made a
     remarkably logical address.[381] The following letter from Mr.
     Minor shows the careful research he gave to the consideration of
     this question:

                                   ST. LOUIS, December 30, 1869.

          DEAR REVOLUTION: 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.

          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 (_Federalist_, No. 83), "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. 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 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.

                                   Very respectfully,    FRANCIS MINOR.

     The St. Louis _Democrat_ spoke of the convention as follows:

          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.

     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.

     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.[382] However, the work went steadily on.
     Meetings were held regularly from week to week, with occasional
     grand conventions, tracts and petitions were circulated, and
     constant agitation in some way kept up.

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:

     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 _Independent_. 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.

     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--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.[383] This
     card received enough names to justify another step--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.

     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.

     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 every demonstration of respect.
     Addresses were made by Miss Phoebe Couzins and Dr. Ada Greunan.
     The petition was respectfully considered and a fair vote given
     for the submission of an amendment.

     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.

     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.

     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.[384] Miss Couzins was
     admitted to the bar in May, 1871.

     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.

     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.[385] I ought to say,
     perhaps, that our society lends all the help possible to other
     States. It gave $520 to Michigan in 1874, and $200 to Colorado in
     1877.

                                                       R. N. H.

     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.[386] 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:

          1. As a _citizen_ 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.

          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.

          3. The denial or abridgment of this privilege, if it exist
          at all, must be sought only in the fundamental charter of
          government--the Constitution of the United States. If not
          found there, no inferior power or jurisdiction can legally
          claim the right to exercise it.

          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."

          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.

     At a mass meeting held in St. Louis January 25, 1875, a
     committee[387] 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.

     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,[388] with
     Mrs. Minor president, which has continued to do most efficient
     service to the present. During the summer of 1879, Mrs. Minor
     refused to pay the tax assessed against her:

                                   ST. LOUIS, MO., August 26, 1879.

          Hon. DAVID POWERS, _President Board of Assessors_: 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.

                                   Respectfully,     VIRGINIA L. MINOR.

     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.

Of the initial steps taken for the elevation of women in the little
village of Oregon, Mrs. Annie R. Irvine writes:

     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[389] 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 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.[390] 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.

     Several years ago an open letter from here to "Woman's Kingdom,"
     in the Chicago _Inter-Ocean_ 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[391] 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 _sine qua non_ 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 place of
     honor.[392] 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.

     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 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.[393]

Missouri has always felt a becoming pride in the gifted daughter,
Miss Phoebe 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.[394] 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:

     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."

     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."

     George Partridge regrets, "hoping every encouragement will be
     given to those who aspire to high honors by their intellectual
     and moral attainments."

     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."

In addition to the many congratulations showered upon Miss Couzins,
she was the recipient of testimonials of a more enduring 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.

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.

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?


FOOTNOTES:

[377] 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 Phoebe Couzins, Mrs.
Beverly Allen, Miss Mary Beedy, Miss Arathusa Forbes, Mrs. Isaac
Sturgeon, Mrs. Hall, and many others.

[378] _President_, Mrs. Virginia L. Minor; _Vice-President_, Mrs.
Beverly Allen; _Secretaries_, Mrs. Rebecca N. Hazard, and Mrs.
George D. Hall; _Treasurer_, 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.

[379] 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 P.M., 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.

[380] 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: _President_, Mrs. Francis Minor:
_Vice-President_, Mrs. Beverly Allen: _Secretary_, Mrs. William T.
Hazard: _Treasurer_, Mrs. George B. Hall; Miss Mary Beady, Miss
Phoebe 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.

[381] For speech and resolutions, see Vol. II., page 408.

[382] 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.

[383] For this speech of B. Gratz Brown see Vol. II., page 136.

[384] For full account of Miss Barkaloo see New York chapter, page
404.

[385] Besides those already named, there are many other women
worthy of mention--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.

[386] For a full report of Mrs. Minor's trial, see History of Woman
Suffrage, Vol. II., page 715.

[387] The committee were: J. B. Merwin, Virginia L. Minor, John
Snyder, Lydia F. Dickinson, Maria E. F. Jackson.

[388] The officers were: _President_, Mrs. Virginia L. Minor;
_Vice-Presidents_, Mrs. Eliza J. Patrick, Mrs. Caroline J. Todd,
Miss Phoebe W. Couzins; _Executive Committee_, Mrs. E. P. Johnson,
Mrs. W. W. Polk; _Secretary_, Miss Eliza B. Buckley; _Treasurer_,
Miss Maggie Baumgartner.

[389] They were, Mrs. S. L. Goslin, Mis. A. E. Goslin, Mrs. M. M.
Soper, Annie E. Batcheller, Mary Curry, Annie R. Irvine.

[390] _President_, Emma G. Dobyns; _Vice-President_, Kate Evans
Thatcher; _Secretary_, Matilda C. Shutts; _Treasurer_, Lucy S.
Rancher; _Corresponding Secretary_, Annie R. Irvine.

[391] 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.

[392] 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.--[E.
C. S.

[393] 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.

[394] Among those present were the following ladies and gentlemen:
Dr. and Mrs. Walker, Phoebe 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.




CHAPTER XLV.

IOWA.

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


The 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 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.

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 _Lily_, 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.[395]

     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 _Lily_ 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, 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.

     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 _The Revolution_. 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.

     On April 17, 1869, the "Northern Woman Suffrage Association" was
     organized at Dubuque.[396] 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.

     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--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.

     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,[397] 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.

     This society has from time to time engaged the services of
     prominent lecturers,[398] 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
     _Register_, called out spirited replies from Mrs. Savery and Mrs.
     Bloomer in the same journal, which completely demolished the
     flimsy fancies of the gentleman.

     About 1874 Mrs. Maria Orwig edited a column in the _Record_, and
     Mary A. Work a column in the _Republican_. Since 1880, Mesdames
     Hunter, Orwig, Woods and Work have filled two columns in _The
     Prohibitionist_, 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 _Register_, proving herself a very ready and
     interesting writer. All of these ladies are efficient and
     untiring in whatever pertains to woman's interest.[399] The
     _Register_ says:

          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--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.

     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.

     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 _News_ 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.[400] Many prominent speakers lectured here in
     turn, and helped to keep up the interest.

     Council Bluffs also organized a society[401] in 1870, holding
     frequent meetings and sociables. There is here a large element in
     favor of the ballot 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.

     Marshalltown had a suffrage organization as early as July,
     1870.[402] 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 _Times_
     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.

     At Algona a society[403] 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
     _Mayflower_, at Peru, Indiana, and in 1865 a county paper in this
     State called the _Upper Des Moines_.

     Since 1875 Jackson county has had an efficient Equal Rights
     Society.[404] 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 _Sentinel_, 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
     the ticket. Women are book-keepers, merchants, clerks, teachers;
     and, in fact, almost every avenue is open to them.

     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."

     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.

     At a convention held at Mt. Pleasant, June 17, 18, 1870,
     different sections of the State being well represented, the Iowa
     Woman Suffrage Society[405] was formed. Belle Mansfield,
     president, Frank Hatton,[406] editor of the Mt. Pleasant
     _Journal_, secretary. W.R. Cole opened the convention with
     prayer. After many able addresses from various speakers,[407] 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 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.

     The first annual meeting of the State Society was held at Des
     Moines, October 19, 1871. Mrs. Bloomer presided[408] 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:

                                   IOWA CITY, October 11, 1871.

          Mrs. ANNIE SAVERY--_Dear Madam_: 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.

                                             C. R. POMEROY.


                                       INDIANOLA, Sept. 30, 1871.

          Mrs. ANNIE SAVERY--_Madam_: 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--one for the
          enfranchisement of woman.

                                             ALEXANDER BURNS.

     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:

                                   OWATOMA, Oct. 2, 1871.

          Hon. J. HARLAN--_Dear Senator_: 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--if not to keep the peace, at least to keep
          silence--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--two still await me. But I have not
          ventured any extra labor, nor dare I for some time to come.
          Please convey to 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.

     A series of resolutions was discussed, other letters read, and a
     large number of new converts joined the association. The _State
     Register_ spoke in a very complimentary manner of the
     deliberations of this convention:

          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.

          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.

          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.

     In January, 1872, I received a letter from a very prominent
     member of the legislature, from which the following is an
     extract:

          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. With
          kind regards,

                                             JOHN A. KASSON.

     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."

     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 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.[409]
     The general sentiment was well stated by the Iowa _State
     Register_:

          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.

     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."

     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.

     The Republican party, in convention assembled, at Des Moines,
     July 1, 1874, inserted the following, as the tenth plank of its
     platform:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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 _State Record_ said:

          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.

          In the Republican State platform of Iowa is the first real
          and purely woman's plank that ever entered into any
          political platform--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.

          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 _Record_
          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.

     At the annual meeting of 1875, held at Oskaloosa, the following
     letter from the governor of the State was received:

                         EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Des Moines, Iowa.

          Mrs. R. G. ORWIG, _Cor. Sec. I. W. S. S.--Dear Madam_: 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,

                                             C. C. CARPENTER.

     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.

     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.

     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:

          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.

     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.[410]

     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 _Register_, 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.

     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--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--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.

     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.

     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.

     A committee on legislation (Mrs. Narcissa T. Bemis, chairman) did
     good 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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.

     Of the annual meeting of 1883,[411] 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.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     Previous to the assembling of this legislature, petitions had
     been widely circulated,[412] 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.

     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[413] 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,[414] 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.

     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.

     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.

     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--so widely known
     as an eloquent lecturer and able lawyer--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.

     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 _Record_ 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.

     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.

     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."

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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:

          _Hon. A. S. Kissell, Superintendent of Public Instruction:_

          DEAR SIR: 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--"time-honored usage," if you will--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.

          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--as I
          have with some care, and, I trust, not without interest--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.

          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.,

                                   HENRY O'CONNOR, _Attorney-General_.

     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."

     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:

          SECTION 1. No person shall be deemed ineligible, by reason
          of sex, to any school office in the State of Iowa.

          SEC. 2. 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.

     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 of the
     board--the first woman, so far as known, to fill the position of
     president of a school board.

     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 _to hum_; she was out of her _spear_ to school
     _meetin's_, _holdin'_ 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.

     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:

          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--Miss Ella A. Hamilton of Des
          Moines--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 _Northwestern
          Educational Journal_ 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.

     Iowa has many women engaged as journalists. Prominent among these
     is Miss Maggie VanPelt, city editor of the Dubuque _Times_. 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 _Review_, does a large part of
     the writing for that paper, and assists in the management of the
     establishment. _Woman's Hour_, 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 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 _Herald_, she has done much for the _State
     Register_, reporting for it the proceedings of the Senate. In
     October, 1875, Nettie Sanford started a paper at Marshalltown,
     called _The Woman's Bureau_, which she published for two years.
     During 1878 she published the _San Gabriel Valley News_, in
     California. Mrs. L. M. Latham for many years conducted a suffrage
     column in the Cedar Rapids _Times_; since 1884 she has been
     associated with Mrs. J. L. Wilson on the _Transcript_, 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 _Spiritual Offering_ at Ottumwa; Mrs. Hattie Campbell,
     a suffrage department in _The Advance_, at Des Moines; Mary
     Osborne edits the _Osceola Sentinel_, and is superintendent of
     the public schools of Clark county; Mrs. Lafayette Young is
     engaged on the _Atlantic Telegraph_. Very many papers in the
     State have women in charge of one or more columns.

     In the humbler walks of literature Iowa can boast quite a number
     of women who have made successful attempts at authorship.[415] 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.

     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[416] that our State is especially indebted for a
     knowledge of the true principles upon which 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.

     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.

     It is quite sure that Iowa may justly claim the first woman in
     the profession of dentistry--Mrs. Lucy B. Hobbs, as early as
     1863.[417] At Cresco there is the firm of Dr. L. F. & Mrs. M. E.
     Abbott, dental surgeons. At Mt. Pleasant, Mrs. M. E. Hildreth is
     a licensed dentist in successful practice.

     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.

     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:

          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:

          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 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.

          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--although in doing so
          she was obliged to make a confidant of one of her own
          sex--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.

          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.

          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.

     A few of the inventions patented by women of Iowa are the
     following:

          Fly-screen door-attachment, by Phoebe 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.

     In the various business avocations I find the following:

          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.

     In the summer of 1884, the Fort Dodge _Messenger_ had this
     paragraph about a Des Moines family:

          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, 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.

     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--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.

     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:

          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.

          In support of the bill, Mr. Holmes spoke as follows:

          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 _résumé_ 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.

          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--little rills that were dry almost the year
          round, suddenly developed into miniature rivers--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.

          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 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--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.

          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--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.

          Mr. Holmes then produced a copy of the _State Register_, 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--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.

          The medal, which is of elegant design and workmanship, was
          executed by Messrs Tiffany & 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 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:

          "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."

          Surrounding the inscription is a wreath of leaves and
          beneath it the great seal of Iowa.

          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.

     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.

     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 resolved in favor of that measure as a
     necessity for the furtherance of their cause.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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, 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.

     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--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--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--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.

     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.


FOOTNOTES:

[395] 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 _Lily_
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 _Lily_ left for the
West and men again reigned supreme.

Mr. and Mrs. Bloomer removed to Mt. Vernon, Ohio, in 1853, and the
publication of the _Lily_ was continued; she was also the associate
editor of the _Western Home Visitor_. 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.

[396] The officers were: _President_, Mrs. D. S. Wilson;
_Vice-President_, Mrs. W. P. Sage; _Secretary_, Mrs. J. S.
McCreery; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Mary N. Adams.

[397] Frank Allen.

[398] Lucy Stone, Mrs. Stanton, Miss Anthony, Mrs. Cutler, Mrs.
Livermore, Anna Dickinson, Phoebe 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.

[399] For information regarding Des Moines I am indebted to Mary A.
Work, one of the most able advocates of woman suffrage in the
State.

[400] _President_, Porte Welch; _Secretary_, Mattie Griffith
Davenport.

[401] _President_, Amelia Bloomer; _Vice-Presidents_, C. Munger
and Mary McPherson; _Recording Secretary_, Ada McPherson;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Will Shoemaker; _Treasurer_, E. S.
Barnett.

[402] Its officers were: _President_, Nettie Sanford; _Secretary_,
Mrs. Fred. Baum; _Treasurer_, Mrs. Dr. Whealen.

[403] _President_, M. W. Stough; _Secretary_, Lizzie B. Read. Mrs.
Read was president of the State society in 1873, and Mrs. C. A.
Ingham in 1881.

[404] _President_, Hon. John E. Goodenow; _Vice-Presidents_, Nancy
R. Allen, Mrs. M. J. Stephens, Mrs. A. B. Wilbur; _Secretary_, Mrs.
E. D. Stewart; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Julia Dunham;
_Treasurer_, Mrs. T. P. Connell; _Executive Committee_, Mrs. S.
Stephens, Mrs. Julia Doe, Mrs. Polly Hamley, Dr. J. H. Allen, W. S.
Belden.

[405] _President_, Henry O'Connor; _Vice-Presidents_, Amelia
Bloomer, Nettie Sanford, Mrs. Frank Palmer, Joseph Dugdale, John P.
Irish; _Secretary_, Belle Mansfield; _Corresponding Secretary_,
Annie C. Savery; _Executive Committee_, Mary A. P. Darwin, Mattie
Griffith Davenport, Mrs. J.L. McCreery, Rev. Augusta Chapin, Hon.
Charles Beardsley.

[406] Assistant postmaster-general under President Arthur.

[407] Mary A.P. Darwin, professor of the college, and Hon. Charles
Beardsley, editor of the _Hawkeye_, 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 _The
Revolution_, Col. George Corkhill, Joseph Dugdale, Rev. Mr. Cooper,
Mt. Pleasant, were also in attendance.

[408] 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: _President_, Mrs.
Amelia Bloomer; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. Belle Mansfield;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Annie Savery; _Treasurer_, Mrs. M.
Callanan.

[409] _Yeas_, Senators Beardsley, Bemis, Burke, Campbell, Chambers,
Converse, Dague, Dashiell, Dysart, Howland, Hurley, Kephart,
Maxwell, McCold, McKean, McNutt, Read, Shane, Smith, Vale, West,
Young--22. _Nays_, 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--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.

[410] The names of the representatives voting on the Woman Suffrage
amendment are as follows (Republicans in Roman, Democrats in
Italics): YEAS--Allen, _Baker_, _Bolter_, Brooks, Brush, Calvin,
Campbell, Case, Chapman, Clark of Johnson, Cleveland, Colvin,
Craver, Deweese, Giltner, Given, Glendenning, Glover, Hall, Hoag,
Homer, Horton, _Hotchkiss_, _Hunt_, Irwin of Warren, Jaqua, Jordan,
Johnson of Benton, Kauffman, Lane, Lathrop, _Lynch_, McCartney,
McHugh, McNeill, Madden of Polk, _Madison_, Maris, Mills, Moffit,
Morse of Wright, Norris, Palmer, Proudfoot, Rae, Reed of Howard,
Robinson, Said, Scott, Smith, Tice, Underwood, Ure, Wilson--54.
NAYS--Auld, Benton, _Birchard_, _Brown_, Bush, _Christy_, _Clark_
of Marion, _Crawford_ of Dubuque, Danforth, _Dixon_, _Elliot_,
Evans, Fuller, _Gibbons_, Gilliland, _Gray_, _Harned_, Hemenway,
_Hobbs_, _Horstman_, _Johnston_ of Dubuque, Johnson of Winneshiek,
McCune, _Madden_ of Taylor, Manning, _Mentzel_, Morse of Adams,
_Mueller_, Reed of Jackson, Rees, Shaw, Simmons, Stone, Stuart,
_Stuckey_, _Thayer_, _White_, Williams, _Young_, Mr. Speaker (John
W. Gear)--40. Absent--Shepardson, Graves, Irwin of Lee, Seevers,
McElderry, _Crawford_ of Scott.

The vote in the Senate was: YEAS--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--22.
NAYS--Bestow, Carr, Clark, Cooley, Dows, Hartshorn, Hebard,
_Kinne_, Larrabee, Lovell, _McCormack_, _Maginnis_, _Merrell_ of
Clinton, Merrill of Wapello, _Pease_, Rothert, Rumple, Teale,
Willett, Williams, _Wilson_, _Wonn_, Wright--23. ABSENT--Hitchcock
(who was sick and died in a few days), yea; _Murphy_, nay; Shane
(resigned on account of being appointed district judge), yea;
_Stoneham_, nay; Young, nay.

[411] 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.

[412] 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.

[413] 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: _President_, Mrs. M. W. Campbell, Des
Moines; _Treasurer_, Mrs. Eliza H. Hunter, Des Moines; _Recording
Secretary_, Mrs. Jennie Wilson, Cedar Rapids; _Corresponding
Secretary_, Mrs. Martha C. Callanan, Des Moines; _Executive
Committee_, Mary J. Coggeshall, _Chairman_; 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.

[414] 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.

[415] 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.

[416] 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.

[417] See New York chapter, page 401.




CHAPTER XLVI.

WISCONSIN.

     Progressive Legislation--The Rights of Married Women--The
     Constitution Shows Four Classes Having the Right to Vote--Woman
     Suffrage Agitation--C. L. Sholes' Minority Report, 1856--Judge
     David Noggle and J. T. Mills' Minority Report, 1859--State
     Association Formed, 1869--Milwaukee Convention--Dr. Laura
     Ross--Hearing Before the Legislature--Convention in Janesville,
     1870--State University--Elizabeth R. Wentworth--Suffrage
     Amendment, 1880, '81, '82--Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine,
     1877--Madame Anneke--Judge Ryan--Three Days' Convention at
     Racine, 1883--Eveleen L. Mason--Dr. Sarah Munro--Rev. Dr.
     Corwin--Lavinia Goodell, Lawyer--Angie King--Kate Kane.


For this digest of facts in regard to the progress of woman in
Wisconsin we are indebted to Dr. Laura Ross Wolcott,[418] 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,[419] 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.

     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 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.

     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.

     By the law of 1878, if the husband dies leaving no children and
     no will, his entire estate descends to his widow.[420] If the
     owner of a homestead dies intestate and without children, the
     homestead descends, free of judgments and claims--except
     mortgages and mechanics' liens--to his widow; if he leaves
     children, the widow retains a life interest in the homestead,
     continuing until her marriage or death.

     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 to a foreign
     exposition;[421] and welcomed them to the professions of
     medicine, law and the ministry.

     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.

     _First_--Citizens of the United States.

     _Second_--Persons of foreign birth who have declared their
     intention to become citizens of the United States.

     _Third_--Persons of Indian blood who have already been declared
     by act of congress citizens of the United States.

     _Fourth_--Civilized persons of Indian descent who are not members
     of any tribe.

     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.

     The women, both German and American, awoke to action and
     organized a local suffrage society at Janesville in 1868. _The
     Revolution_ said:

          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.

     The first popular convention held in Wisconsin, with national
     speakers, convened in Milwaukee February 15, 16, 1869.[422] The
     bill then pending in the legislature to submit the question of
     woman suffrage to the electors of the State added interest to
     this occasion. Parker Pillsbury, in _The Revolution_, said:

          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 _Evening Wisconsin_ 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[423]
          yesterday, the City Hall was crowded with as highly
          intelligent an audience of ladies and gentlemen as ever
          gathered there before.

     Mrs. Stanton spoke at the evening session to an immense audience
     on the following resolutions:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

     Miss Anthony followed showing that every advance step in manhood
     suffrage added to woman's degradation. Quite a number of ladies
     and gentlemen[424] 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.

     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, 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.

     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.

     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:[425]

          ED. NEWS:--We find proofs at every step that one class
          cannot legislate for another, the rich for the poor, nor men
          for women.

          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, 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.

          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.

     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.

     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.

                                        RACINE, August 4, 1875.

          MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.
          Very respectfully yours,

                                   E. R. WENTWORTH.

     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.

     The formation of this club calls out a few words from Mrs.
     Stanton, who sarcastically says:

          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--by lords,
          attorney-generals, sirs, and gentlemen--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.

     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[426] 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.

     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 and women in the State,
     especially as the church began to feel some responsibility in the
     question. The Milwaukee _Wisconsin_ of June 4, 1883, gives this
     interesting item:

          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.

     The State Association[427] 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.

     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[428] 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 _Advocate_, thus sums up the
     three days' meetings:

          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.

          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 as to be absolutely unnoticed; really, one might have
          been tempted to feel that the machine had no master, no
          controlling hand.

          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--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--and
          this the best of all--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--let us
          whisper lest she hear--is Olympia Brown Willis.

     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:

          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.

          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.[429]
          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."

     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:

          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.

          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.

          She immediately declared her determination to share the
          toils of the expedition. Accordingly Col. Anneke appointed
          her _Tolpfofsort_, 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.

          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.

     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:

                                      MADISON, Wis., January 16, 1885.

          MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: 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.

          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--women are
          learning--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.

          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!

          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,

                                                       EMMA C. BASCOM.

     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,[430] and ably
     illustrated the comparative capacity of an educated man and woman
     to reason logically on American jurisprudence and constitutional
     law.

     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 & King. Cora Hurtz, Oshkosh, was admitted and
     began practice in 1882.


FOOTNOTES:

[418] 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.--[E. C. S.

[419] See Vol. I., page 389.

[420] 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--the widower's or
the widow's!--[S. B. A.

[421] 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.

[422] 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: _President_, Rev.
Miss Augusta J. Chapin; _Vice-Presidents_, O. P. Wolcott, M. D.,
Laura J. Ross, M. D., and Madame Matilde F. Annecke; _Secretary_,
Miss Lilia Peckham.

[423] For a further description of this convention see Mrs.
Stanton's letters from _The Revolution_, Vol. I., page 873.

[424] 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.

[425] 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 _Sentinel_ closes
a brief obituary notice of our friend and co-worker as follows:

"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 _now_; still we shall mourn her loss, her brief though
beautiful career."

[426] 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--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--13. Senators Wing and
McKeeby were paired, and Senators Erwin and Richardson were absent.

[427] The officers of the Wisconsin State society for 1885 were:
_President_, Harriet T. Griswold, Columbus; _Vice-Presidents_,
Laura Ross Wolcott, Milwaukee; Rev. Olympia Brown, Racine;
Emma C. Bascom, Madison; F. A. Delagise, Antigo; Laura James,
Richland Center; _Recording Secretary_, Helen R. Olin, Madison;
_Corresponding Secretary_, M. W. Bentley, Schofield; _Treasurer_,
Dr. Sarah R. Munro, Milwaukee; _Chairman Executive Committee_,
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.

[428] 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.

[429] See vol. II. page 259.

[430] For her argument see _Woman's Journal_, April, 1876.




CHAPTER XLVII.

MINNESOTA.

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


Minnesota 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--monuments of civilization--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.

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.

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.[431] 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
the Young Ladies' Seminary at Monroe and lecturing for the benefit
of the Soldiers' Aid Societies.

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:

     The advocates of suffrage in Minnesota were so few in the early
     days,[432] 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.

     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."

     In 1857, Mrs. Jane Grey Swisshelm settled at St. Cloud, where she
     lived until 1863, editing the St. Cloud _Democrat_, the organ of
     the Republican party, and making a heroic fight for freedom and
     equality. In 1860 she 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.[433]

     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--the editor of the
     _Anoka Star_--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.

     In March, 1869, _The Revolution_ copied from the Martin County
     _Atlas_ the following:

          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.

     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."

     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 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.

     In 1872 a suffrage club was formed at Kasson. Its three
     originators[434] 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:

          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.

     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.

     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:

          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.

     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 _Pioneer Press_, the leading paper of Minnesota,
     begging him to urge his readers to do all in their power to
     secure 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."

     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--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.

     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.

     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[435] and Mrs. Charlotte S. Winchell[436] as 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 _Ballot-Box_ said:

          The women of Minnesota are rejoicing in the measure of
          justice vouchsafed them,--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.

     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.

     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,[437] 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.

     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.

     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.

     In 1877, a law was passed which gave the widow an absolute
     title--or the same title her husband had--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.

     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.

     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.

     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. The annual meetings
     of the State Union[438] have ever since been spoken of by the
     press as "suffrage conventions," because they always pass
     resolutions making the demand.

     Mr. L. Bixby, editor of the _State Temperance Review_, 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
     _The Spectator_, gives ample space in his columns to notes of
     women. Miss Mary C. Le Duc is connected with _The Spectator_.
     Other journals have aided our cause, though not in so pronounced
     a way. Mrs. C. F. Bancroft, editor of the _Mantorville Express_,
     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.[439]

     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.[440] 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.[441]

     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.


[Illustration: Sarah Burger Stearns]


     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
     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.[442]

     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.

     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.[443]

     In September, 1881, representative women from various localities
     met at Hastings and organized a State Woman Suffrage
     Association[444] 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[445] 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.

     In the spring of '83, at the request of the State society, and
     with the generous consent of Mr. Bixby, the editor of the _State
     Temperance Review_, 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 organizer,[446] 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.

     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[447] 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:

          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.

     With this view the society adopted the following resolution:

          _Resolved_, 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

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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
     herself at the convention[448] 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."

     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.

     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.[449] 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.

     Wishing to give honor to whom honor is due, we would mention the
     brave young women who have formed the Christian Temperance
     Unions, the leading spirits[450] 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.

     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.

     In some of the larger cities and towns the literary, musical and
     dramatic taste of our women[451] 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.

     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 & 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 partners, she has taken a
     large share of the general management. The orchard yields a
     profit of over $1,000 a year.

     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[452] 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[431] 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.

[432] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., note A.

[433] For further account of Mrs. Swisshelm's patriotic work in
Minnesota see her "Reminiscences of Half a Century": Janson,
McClurg & Co., Chicago, Ill.

[434] 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.

[435] 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.

[436] 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.

[437] For names of women elected as school directors and county
superintendents, see Appendix to Minnesota, Chapter XLVII., Note B.

[438] The officers of the Minnesota State W. C. T. U. are:
_President_, Mrs. H. A. Hobart; _Vice-Presidents_, Mrs. Mary A.
Shepardson, Mrs. E. J. Holley, Mrs. R. C. C. Gale, Mrs. H. C. May,
Mrs. L. M. Wylie; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. D. S. Haywood;
_Corresponding Secretaries_, Mrs. E. S. Wright, Miss M. E.
Mclntyre; _Treasurer_, Miss A. M. Henderson. Editor W. C. T. U.
department of _Temperance Review_, Mrs. Helen E. Gallinger.

[439] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note C.

[440] During the same decade 138 young men were graduated from the
different departments of the University.

[441] For names of graduates and professors, see Appendix, Chapter
XLVII., Note D.

[442] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note F.

[443] 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 Phoebe Couzins.

[444] _President_, Sarah Burger Stearns; _Vice-President_, Julia
Bullard Nelson; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. C. Smith; _Treasurer_,
Mrs. H. J. Moffit; _Executive Committee_, Mrs. Minnie Reed, Mrs. L.
H. Clark, Mrs. R. Coons; _Corresponding Sec'y_, 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.

[445] Mrs. Nelson, Mrs. Hobart, Mr. Satterlee, Mrs. Charlotte O.
Van Cleve, Mrs. Laura Howe Carpenter, Mrs. Viola Fuller Miner.

[446] 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.

[447] 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.

[448] The officers elected at this convention were: _President_,
Martha G. Ripley, M. D., Minneapolis; _Vice-President_, Mrs. Lizzie
Manson, Shakopee; _Recording Secretary_, Mary T. Emery, M. D., St.
Paul; _Corresponding Secretary_, Emma Harriman, Minneapolis;
_Treasurer_, Mrs. Helen E. Gallinger, Minneapolis; _Executive
Committee_, 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.

[449] From John G. Whittier, Mrs. Julia B. Nelson (teaching school
in Tennessee) and Henry B. Blackwell.

[450] Miss Carrie Holbrook, Miss Eva McIntyre, Miss Harriman.

[451] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note F.

[452] See Appendix, Chapter XLVII., Note G.




CHAPTER XLVIII.

DAKOTA.

     Influences of Climate and Scenery--Legislative Action, 1872--Mrs.
     Marietta Bones--In February, 1879, School Suffrage Granted
     Women--Constitutional Convention, 1883--Matilda Joslyn Gage
     Addressed a Letter to the Convention and an Appeal to the Women
     of the State--Mrs. Bones Addressed the Convention in Person--The
     Effort to Get the Word "Male" Out of the Constitution
     Failed--Legislature of 1885--Major Pickler Presents the
     Bill--Carried Through Both Houses--Governor Pierce's Veto--Major
     Pickler's Letter.


Philosophers have had much to say of the effect of climate and
scenery upon the human family--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:

     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 women were
     deprived of freedom, yet we must forgive Judge Moody on the
     ground that "it is never too late to mend."

     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[453]--the oldest and most
     populous--which had districts fully established, and therein
     women still vote at school meetings.

     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.

     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:

          _To the Women of Dakota:_

          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.

          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 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.

          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."

          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--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.

          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.

          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--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 _now_ is the decisive hour.

                    MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE, _Vice-President-at-Large_,
                       _National Woman Suffrage Association_.

     Mrs. Gage also addressed the following to the constitutional
     convention:

          _Gentlemen of the Convention_: 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.

          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.

          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.

                                          MATILDA JOSLYN GAGE,
                                _Vice-President-at-Large, N. W. S. A._

          _Aberdeen, Dakota, Sept. 3, 1883._

     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:

          _Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention_: 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--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--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 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--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"--honored by all
          nations, and the Banner State of the Union [applause].

     But, after all our work and pleading, they turned a deaf
     ear--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.

     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 _will_ 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."

     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."

     This same just judge has appointed a woman (Mrs. Washburn of
     Chamberlain) stenographer of his judicial district--the best
     salaried office in his gift.[454] 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.

     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,[455] and the Council by
     14 to 10. The hopes of the friends were soon disappointed by the
     governor's veto:

                    EXECUTIVE OFFICE, BISMARK, D. T., March 13, 1885.

          _To the Speaker of the House of Representatives:_

          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 "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.

                           [Signed:]    GILBERT A. PIERCE, _Governor_.

     An effort was promptly made to carry the measure over the
     governor's veto, which failed by a vote of 18 to 26.

     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:

          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 _Tribune_, we find the
          following:

          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?

                                                       JUSTICE.

     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:

                                   FAULKTON, D. T., April 20, 1885.

          _Matilda Joslyn Gage, Syracuse, N. Y._:

          DEAR MADAM: 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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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[456] reside in this section of
          the territory, I should be pleased to form their
          acquaintance. Again thanking you for your kind words, I am,

                                   Yours truly, J. A. PICKLER.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[453] These counties are Union, Lincoln, Clay, Minnehaha, Moody,
Deuel, Codington, Cass, Walsh, Grand Forks, Pembina, Barnes,
Lawrence and Hutchinson.

[454] 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.

[455] _Yeas_--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--29. _Nays_--Davison, Hobart, Larson, McCumber, Oliver,
Pugh, Ruger, Strong, Eldridge, Helvig, Myron, McHugh, Runkle,
Swanton, Van Osdell, Williams, Mark Ward, Mr. Speaker--18.

[456] 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.--[E. C. S.




CHAPTER XLIX.

NEBRASKA.

     Clara Bewick Colby--Nebraska Came into the Possession of the
     United States, 1803--The Home of the Dakotas--Organized as a
     Territory, 1854--Territorial Legislature--Mrs. Amelia Bloomer
     Addresses the House--Gen. Wm. Larimer, 1856--A Bill to Confer
     Suffrage on Woman--Passed the House--Lost in the
     Senate--Constitution Harmonized with the Fourteenth
     Amendment--Admitted as a State March 1, 1867--Mrs. Stanton, Miss
     Anthony Lecture in the State, 1867--Mrs. Tracy Cutler, 1870--Mrs.
     Esther L. Warner's Letter--Constitutional Convention, 1871--Woman
     Suffrage Amendment Submitted--Lost by 12,676 against, 3,502
     for--Prolonged Discussion--Constitutional Convention,
     1875--Grasshoppers Devastate the Country--_Inter-Ocean_, Mrs.
     Harbert--Omaha _Republican_, 1876--Woman's Column Edited by Mrs.
     Harriet S. Brooks--"Woman's Kingdom"--State Society formed,
     January 19, 1881, Mrs. Brooks President--Mrs. Dinsmoore, Mrs.
     Colby, Mrs. Brooks, before the Legislature--Amendment again
     Submitted--Active Canvass of the State, 1882--First Convention of
     the State Association--Charles F. Manderson--Unreliable
     Petitions--An Unfair Count of Votes for Woman Suffrage--Amendment
     Defeated--Conventions in Omaha--Notable Women in the
     State--Conventions--_Woman's Tribune_ Established in 1883.


Clara Bewick Colby, 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 _Express_ called "Woman's Work," and in 1883 she started
_The Woman's Tribune_, 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[457] 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.

In her description of Nebraska and the steps of progress in woman's
civil and political rights, Mrs. Colby says:

     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 _Heyokah_, 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.

     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, 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--half way across
     a continent, in a country almost unheard of, and with but scant
     communication with the older parts of the Republic--this
     instinctive justice should have crystalized into legislative
     action.

     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 _Chronotype_ of that date:

          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--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 _man_ could not have beaten it.

          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.

                                                            ONEIDA.

     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.[458] The
     result of the passage of the bill by the House was graphically
     described by the _Chronotype_ of January 30:

          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 perpetrators with lasting shame. We
          will state briefly the facts as we have heard them.

          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--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--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.

     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 _Chronotype_, after the adjournment, commented as
     follows:

          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 _sine die_ 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.

     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.

     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 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,[459] in his message urging the
     ratification of the fourteenth amendment said:

          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.

     Later, Acting-governor A. S. Paddock[459] in his message said:

          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.

     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:

          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.

               [Signed:]     ISAAC WILES, WILLIAM DAILEY, GEORGE CROW.

          A minority report was brought in by S. M. Curran and Aug. F.
          Harvey. On its rejection Mr. Harvey introduced this
          resolution:

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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:

          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 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.

     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.

     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;[460] and a joint
     resolution and a memorial to congress relative to female suffrage
     were introduced. The journals show that:

          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.

     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:

          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 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.

          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.

     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:

          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:

          _Whereas_, The constitution of the State of Nebraska
          prohibits the women of said State from exercising the right
          of the elective franchise; and

          _Whereas_, 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

          _Whereas_, 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

          _Resolved_, By the House of Representatives of the State of
          Nebraska, that the constitutional convention to be begun and
          holden on the--day of May, 1871, for the 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

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          Mr. Porter moved the adoption of the report, which was
          carried by a vote of 19 to 16.[461] In the Senate, March 22,
          E. C. Cunningham offered the following amendment to the bill
          providing for calling a constitutional convention:

          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.

          The amendment was lost by a vote of 6 to 6.[462]

     In accordance with the memorial of the legislature, the
     constitutional convention that met in the following summer by a
     vote of 30 to 13[463] 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 _pro_ and _con_.
     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 men of the State, and
     many of them retain that position to-day, a few extracts will be
     of interest:

          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:

          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.

          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--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."

          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.

          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:

          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 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.

          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--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:

          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--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.

          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:

          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.

          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":

          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 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.

          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:

          The gentleman from Otoe (Mr. Mason) will get the commission
          of the Christian mothers, not _against_ the right of female
          suffrage, but _for_ universal suffrage. That will be a happy
          day--a day when we shall shine out as a nation more brightly
          than any other nation under the sun.[464]

     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.

     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.

     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 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--a member of this, as of
     the preceding convention--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.[465]

     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.

          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.

     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--Senator McMeans and C. B. Slocumb--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.

     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 _Journal_,
     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.

     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 _Inter-Ocean_, which circulated
     largely among country readers. The Omaha _Republican_ 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 _Republican_ 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:

                                   TECUMSEH, Neb., December 4, 1880.

          MRS. HARRIET S. BROOKS--_Dear Madam_: 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.

          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.

                                                       L. R.

     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:[466]

          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:

          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.

          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.

     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:

          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:

          It has now come to the question of absolute right--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.

          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, 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.

     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:

          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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          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.[467]

     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.

     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 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.

     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:

          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,[468] but
          they refused to withdraw or change their report.

          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.[469] When
          Senator Howe's name was called he offered the following
          explanation:

          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 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 _No_.

          Mr. Turner explained his vote as follows:

          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 _Aye_.

          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.

     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
     _Woman's Work_, and then spread broadcast in leaflet form.
     Lectures were given, and societies and working committees formed
     as rapidly as possible. The _Western Woman's Journal_, 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.

     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. _Woman's Work_ 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:

          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 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 & 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 _Express_ 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 _Express_, 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--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."

     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 _Republican_ said:

          This lady is the well-known recent editor of the Osceola
          _Record_, 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.

     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 _Republican_ will indicate the interest and ability shown
     by the women of the State:

          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 also present, with several friends of
          the cause from abroad, including Hon. E. M. Correll, editor
          of the _Western Woman's Journal_, 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 _Herald_ and the _Bee_. 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.

          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--as he expressed, to Dr. McNamara's
          entire satisfaction--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
          _Republican_ would sum up the varied proceedings of the
          first State suffrage convention is the magic word success.

     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.

          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:

                                             OMAHA, October, 17.

          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
          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.

                         Very respectfully yours, CHARLES F. MANDERSON.


[Illustration: Clara Bewick Colby]


     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.[470] 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.

          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."[471]

     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 political conventions,--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.

     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.[472]

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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--the
     well-dressed people, the flowers, the badges, and the flags; but
     the tragic events of that day would fill a volume.

     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--lost by a vote of 50,693 to 25,756--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.

     On the following evening, the speakers of the National
     Association, who still remained in the State held a meeting[473]
     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.

     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:

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          Clara C. Chapin, _La Petite_, 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 _Republican Valley Echo_. 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:

          I never thought much about "woman's rights" until within the
          last five years--that is, _political_ rights. I always had a
          strong sense of my responsibilities as a woman 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."

     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.

          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.

     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. _Woman's Work_ gives the record of
     the proceedings:

          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 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 _Journal_ 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
          Phoenix-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.[474] 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.

     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 _Woman's Tribune_,
     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:

          "Endurance is the crowning quality,
          And patience all the passion of great hearts;
          These are their stay, and when the hard world
          With brute strength, like scornful conqueror,
          Clangs his huge mace down in the other scale,
          The inspired soul but flings his patience in,
          And slowly that out-weighs the ponderous globe;
          One faith against a whole world's unbelief,
          One soul against the flesh of all mankind."



FOOTNOTES:

[457] 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.--[E. C. S.

[458] _Yeas_--Messrs. Boulwere, Buck, Campbell, Chambers, Clancy,
Davis, Decker, Hail, Haygood, Hoover, Kirk, Larimer, Rose,
Sullivan--14.

_Nays_--Messrs. Beck, Bowen, Gibson, Harsh, Laird, Miller, Moore,
Morton, McDonald, Riden, Salisbury--11.

[459] 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.

[460] 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--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.

[461] 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--19. Voting "nay": Messrs. Briggs, Beall,
E. Clark, J. Clark, Dillon, Duby, Grenell, Hudson, Munn, Overton,
Reed, Rosewater, Rouse, Schock, Shook, Sommerlad--16.

[462] Voting in the affirmative: Messrs. Gerrard, Hascall, Kennedy,
Tucker, Tennant, and Mr. President--6. Voting in the negative:
Messrs. Brown, Hawke, Hillon, Metz, Sheldon, and Thomas--6.

[463] 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--30. Voting "nay": Messrs.
Abbott, Eaton, Granger, Griggs, Moore, Myers, Parchin, Reynolds,
Sprague, Stevenson, Hummel, Vifquain, Weaver--13.

[464] 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.

[465] 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.

[466] The officers elected were: _President_, Harriet S. Brooks,
Omaha; _Vice-President-at-Large_, Clara Bewick Colby, Beatrice;
_Vice-Presidents_--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;
_Recording Secretary_, Mrs. Ada M. Bittenbender, Osceola;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Gertrude McDowell, Fairbury;
_Treasurer_, Mrs. L. Russell, Tecumseh; _Executive Committee_, 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.

[467] 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--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--22.

[468] 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.

[469] 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--22. Those voting
in the negative were: Messrs. Ballentine, Cady, Ervin, Howe, Myers,
Taylor, Turk and Zehrung--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!

[470] 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.

[471] The officers elected were: _President_, Ada M. Bittenbender;
_Vice-President_, Clara Bewick Colby; _Secretary_, Belle G.
Bigelow; _Corresponding Secretary_, Gertrude M. McDowell;
_Treasurer_, Lucinda Russell; _Executive Committee_, Harriet S.
Brooks, E. M. Correll, Susie Noble Fifield, George B. Skinner, Rev.
John McNamara, Jennie F. Holmes; _Vice-Presidents of Judicial
Districts_--First, Barbara J. Thompson; second, Dr. Ruth M. Wood;
third, Orpha Clement Dinsmoor; fourth, Ada Van Pelt; fifth, Mrs. H.
S. Sydenham.

[472] 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.--[S. B. A.

[473] For further details of the closing scenes, see Vol. III. page
241.

[474] _Yeas_--Brown (Clay), Brown (Colfax), Butler, Canfield,
Conklin, Dolan, Dunphy, Harrison, Heist, McShane, Norris,
Patterson, Rogers, Sang, Schönheit, Sowers, Thatch and Walker--18.
Senator Butler voted with these for the purpose of being able to
move a reconsideration. _Nays_--Bomgardner, Brown (Douglas),
Conner, Dye, Filley and Reynolds--6. _Absent_--Barker, Brown
(Lancaster), Case, Dech, Fisher, Harris, Kinkaid and Rich.




CHAPTER L.

KANSAS.

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


We 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--alike in Michigan, Colorado,
Nebraska and Oregon--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.

We are indebted to Anna C. Wait for most of the interesting facts
of this chapter. She writes:

     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 who
     have not studied the whole history of the cause, we give the
     following extracts from his message, published February 9, 1871:

          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.

          Let us have a true republic--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"--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."

     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 _Beacon_, 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.

     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.

     In our State suffrage convention, June, 1884, among the demands
     which 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.

     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 _National Citizen and Ballot-Box_ 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 _National Citizen_, culminated, in November
     1879, in sending to the _Saline Valley Register_, 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 _Register_, 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 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 _The Argus_, 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:

          WHEREAS, 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

          WHEREAS, In one issue of the Lincoln _Register_ 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

          _Resolved_, That this association present the editor of the
          _Register_ with a copy of some standard English
          spelling-book, and English Language Lessons, for his
          especial use.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, That a copy of these resolutions be furnished
          the editor of the Lincoln _Register_, with the books above
          named.

     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.

     W. S. Wait bought the _Argus_ at the end of four months, changed
     its politics to Republican, and its name to the Lincoln _Beacon_,
     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:

          WHEREAS, 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

          WHEREAS, George W. Anderson, editor and proprietor of the
          Lincoln _Register_, during his few months' residence in our
          county has, by constant calumny and scurrility, 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

          WHEREAS, His utterances through the columns of the Lincoln
          _Register_ 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

          _Resolved_, 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.

     The above preamble and resolution appeared in the woman's column
     of the Lincoln _Beacon_ 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.

     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.

     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 the year 1882, by Mrs. Lucy Stone, from the
     office of _The Woman's Journal_, 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.

     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.

     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[475]
     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 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.

     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 _nom de plume_ of "Nancy,"
     in the _Beacon_, she has dealt telling blows to our ancient
     adversary, the _Register_. In October, 1882, the writer went by
     invitation to Ellsworth and organized a society[476] 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.[477]

     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.[478] Mrs. Gougar, by the unanimous
     vote of the convention, presided, and dispatched business with
     her characteristic ability. In view of all the circumstances,
     this 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
     _Capital_, the Topeka _Commonwealth_ and Kansas City _Journal_
     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.[479]

     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.

     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:

          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.

     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
     _Woman's Tribune_ of November, 1884, contains the following brief
     sketch of a grand historic character:

          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 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.

     In the introduction to Chapter VII., Vol. I., of this history,
     appears this sentence: "To Clarina Howard Nichols[480] 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--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:

          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.[481]


[Illustration: "The world needs women who do their own thinking.
Cordially yours, Helen M. Gougar"]


     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:

          SECTION 1. 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, 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.

          SEC. 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.

          SEC. 3. A woman may, while married, sue and be sued, in the
          same manner as if unmarried.

          SEC. 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.

     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.

     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:

          OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION, Douglas    }
                                                         Co., Kansas,}
                                   LAWRENCE, Kansas, Sept. 30, 1880. }

          _To Hon. John Martin, Topeka, Kansas, Chairman of the State
          Democratic Central Committee:_

          SIR:--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.

          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.

          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.

                                Respectfully,          SARAH A. BROWN.

     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.

     January 21, 1881, Hon. S. C. Millington of Crawford county
     introduced in the House a joint resolution providing for the
     submission to the legal 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.

     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.

     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--Mrs. Sallie A. Goff of Lincoln,
     Miss Thomas of Olathe, Miss Cunningham of Garnett, and Miss
     Gilman of Pittsburg.

     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.

     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.

          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."

     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.

     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.

     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:

          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 the
          schools, especially the primary teaching, is falling more
          and more to the care of women.

     The Republican State convention of 1882, by an overwhelming
     majority endorsed woman suffrage, which action the Lincoln W. S.
     A. promptly recognized as follows:

          WHEREAS, 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:

          _Resolved_, 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,

          WHEREAS, 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,

          _Resolved_, 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.

     In 1883, Senator Hackney introduced a bill of which we find the
     following in the _Topeka Capital_ of that date:

          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.

     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:

          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.

     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:

          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.

     This year we sent from Lincoln a petition with 175 names asking
     for a resolution recommending to congress the adoption of the
     sixteenth 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,[482] 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.

     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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.[483] In the Senate it
     was a tie, 19 to 19. The new committee[484] 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.

     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,"[485] 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.[486] 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.

     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:

                         KANSAS HISTORICAL SOCIETY Topeka, Nov. 26, 1885

          MISS SUSAN B. ANTHONY, Rochester, N. Y.:

          _My Dear Friend_:--In answer to your request for information
          upon certain points bearing upon the subject of woman
          suffrage in Kansas, I give the following:

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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 education of their
          children, bear with little, if any, less force upon the
          propriety of their voting upon all questions affecting the
          public welfare.

          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.

                                   Yours sincerely,     F. G. ADAMS.

     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--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.


FOOTNOTES:

[475] 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:

                              "NEUTRAL STATION, Kansas, July 17, 1876.

     "DEAR SISTERS: 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 _the rest
     it needed but little electioneering beside reading your
     advertisement to secure their names_. 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.

                                             ELSIE STEWART."

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.

[476] _President_, Mrs. Mary Maberly; _Secretary_, Miss Lillie M.
Hull; _Treasurer_, 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.

[477] Arkansas City Suffrage Club, with Mrs. M. B. Houghton,
_President_; Mrs. E. T. Ayers, _Vice-President_; Miss Gertrude
Fowler, _Secretary_, and Mrs. F. Daniels, _Treasurer_; also one at
Winfield, county-seat of Cowley county, with Mrs. J. Cairns,
_President_; Mrs. M. R. Hall, _Secretary_, and Mrs. E. D. Garlick,
_Treasurer_; and vice-presidents from each of the churches, as
follows: Mesdames P. P. Powell, G. Miller, M. Burkey and J. C.
Fuller.

[478] _President_, Mrs. Hetta P. Mansfield, Winfield;
_Vice-President-at-Large_, Mrs. Anna C. Wait, Lincoln;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Bertha H. Ellsworth, Lincoln;
_Recording Secretary_, Miss Georgiana Daniels, Eureka; _Treasurer_,
Mrs. D. A. Millington, Winfield; _Chaplain_, Rev. S. S. Cairns,
Winfield; _Vice-Presidents_ and _Executive Committee_, 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.

[479] The towns visited were: Beloit, Lincoln Center, Wilson,
Ellsworth, Salina, Solomon City, Minneapolis, Cawker City and
Clyde. The officers of the Topeka society were: _President_, Mrs.
Priscilla Finley; _Secretary_, Mrs. E. G. Hammon; _Treasurer_, Mrs.
Sarah Smith. The officers of Beloit were: _President_, Mrs. H.
Still; _Vice-Presidents_, Mrs. J. M. Patten, Mrs. M. Vaughan;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. F. J. Knight; _Recording
Secretary_, Mary Charlesworth; _Treasurer_, Mrs. M. Bailey. At
Salina, Mrs. Johns and Mrs. Christina Day are the officers.

[480] 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.--[E. C. S.

[481] See compiled laws of Kansas, 79, page 378, chapter XXXIII.

[482] 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.

[483] The names of representatives voting for the committee stand
as follows: _Yeas_--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--75. The names of senators were:
_Yeas_--Bowden, Congdon, Donnell, Edmunds, Granger, Hicks,
Humphrey, Jennings, M. B. Kelley, Kellogg, Kimball, Kohler,
Pickler, Ritter, Rush, Shean, Sheldon, White, Young--19.

[484] 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.

[485] 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: _President_, Mrs. Anna C. Wait of Lincoln;
_Vice-President_, Mrs. Laura M. Johns of Salina; _Treasurer_, Mrs.
Martia L. Berry of Cawker City; _Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. B.
H. Ellsworth of Lincoln; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. Alice G. Bond
of Salina.

[486] 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.--[E.
C. S.




CHAPTER LI.

COLORADO.

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


That 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.

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:

     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--to the ring of the mallet
     and drill, and the hoarse voices of men greedy only for gold.

     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.

     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:

          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--suffrage. It has been said
          that no great reform was ever made without passing through
          three stages--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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     "The criterion of civilization, physical force," "Strength as the
     measure of right,"--as recent writers have defined the divine
     right of might--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. 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.

     The strongest speaker in the legislature upon the subject of
     suffrage--President Hinsdale of the Council--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--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.

     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 _Daily Colorado
     Tribune_, 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 _Rocky Mountain News_. 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.

     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.

     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--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.

     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.

     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;[487] resolutions, duly discussed, were
     adopted, and the meeting closed with a carefully-prepared
     address by Dr. Avery, the newly-elected president of the
     territorial association.

     The committee[488] 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.

     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,--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.

     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.

     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, 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.

     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.

     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:

          SECTION 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.

     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.

     After this the curtain fell, the lights were put out, and all the
     atmosphere and _mise en scène_ 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--to change the
     figure--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.

     A column in the Denver _Rocky Mountain News_, 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 & 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
     _Schlachtfeld_, 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.

     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--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 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.

     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--they
     say only: "Let our work stand for us, be its out-come small or
     great."

     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,--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.

     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.

     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 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."

     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 _résumé_ 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.[489] 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 _petite_,
     pretty young girl, whose remarks made a _bonne bouche_ 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:

          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?--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. * * * The class of women wanting
          suffrage are battalions of old maids disappointed in
          love--women separated from their husbands or divorced by men
          from their sacred obligations--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. * * * 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? * * * No kind husband 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.

     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:

          "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.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     There was no lack of pens to defend women's claim to equal
     chances in the struggle for existence. In Denver, the _Rocky
     Mountain News_ and the _Times_ planted themselves fairly and
     squarely in an affirmative attitude, and gave generous aid to the
     effort. The _Tribune's_ 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 against the qualifications required
     of them, compared with those required of men.

     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 _pro_ and
     _con_, 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.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     The meeting was a full and fervid one, and great confidence of
     success was felt and expressed. A committee of seventeen was
     appointed[490] 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 _Woman's Journal_:

          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 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.

     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.

     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."

     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:

          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--accepting that prophecy as true--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.

     Well, the day came,--the _dies irae_ 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, 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:

          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.

          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.

          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.

     Lucy Stone, in a letter to the _Woman's Journal_ 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.
     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.

            *       *       *       *       *

     Hear the conclusion of the whole matter. In the words of the last
     editorial of the woman's column in the _Rocky Mountain News_:

          Woman's hour has not yet struck! The chimes that were
          waiting to ring out the tidings of her liberty--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--all these
          are relegated to the guardianship of Patience and Hope.
          Colorado has refused to enfranchise its women. * * * * * *
          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. * * * * * * But _all_ opposition, in
          whatever guise, comes back at last to be written under one
          rubric--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--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--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--the real objective point for our future
          work.

          The complacency with which we are able to state without fear
          of contradiction that the body of intelligent and thoughtful
          women _do_ 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--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--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.


FOOTNOTES:

[487] _President_, Alida C. Avery, M. D., Denver.
_Vice-Presidents_, 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. _Recording Secretary_, Miss Eunice D. Sewall, Denver.
_Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. A. L. Washburn, Big Thompson.
_Treasurer_, Mrs. I. T. Hanna, Denver. _Executive Committee_, 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.

[488] 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--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--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.

[489] _President_, Dr. Alida C. Avery of Denver; _Vice-Presidents_,
D. Howe, Mrs. M. B. Hart, J. E. Washburn, Mrs. Emma Moody, Willard
Teller, J. B. Harrington, A. E. Lee, and N. C. Meeker; _Recording
Secretary_, Birks Carnforth of Denver; _Corresponding Secretary_,
Mrs. T. M. Patterson of Denver; _Treasurer_, Mrs. H. C. Lawson of
Denver; _Executive Committee_, 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.

[490] 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.




CHAPTER LII.

WYOMING.

     The Dawn of the New Day, December, 1869--The Goal Reached in
     England and America--Territory Organized, May, 1869--Legislative
     Action--Bill for Woman Suffrage--William H. Bright--Gov. Campbell
     Signs the Bill--Appoints Esther Morris, Justice of the Peace,
     March, 1870--Women on the Jury, Chief-Justice Howe, Presiding--J.
     W. Kingman, Associate-Justice, Addresses the Jury--Women Promptly
     take their Places--Sunday Laws Enforced--Comments of the
     Press--Judge Howe's Letter--Laramie _Sentinel_--J. H.
     Heyford--Women Voting, 1870--Grandma Swain the First to Cast her
     Ballot--Effort to Repeal the Law, 1871--Gov. Campbell's Veto--Mr.
     Corlett--Rapid Growth of Public Opinion in Favor of Woman
     Suffrage.


After 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--an independent, responsible being--endowed with the
capacity for self-government. This great event in the history of
human progress transpired in 1869.

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 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.

Our battles in Parliament and in the Congress of the United States
were simultaneous. While nine senators,[491] 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--the right to
vote at all elections on all questions and to hold any office in
the gift of the people.

The successive steps by which this was accomplished are given us by
Hon. J. W. Kingman, associate-justice in the territory for several
years:

     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:

          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.

     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:

          AN ACT _to protect married women in their separate property,
          and the enjoyment of their labor._

          SECTION 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.

          SEC. 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 _sole_.

          SEC. 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 _sole_.

          SEC. 4. Any married woman may, while married, make a will
          the same as though she were _sole_.

          SEC. 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 _sole_,
          in regard to her trade, business, labor, services, and
          earnings. * * *

          SEC. 9. The separate deed of the husband shall convey no
          interest in the wife's lands.

     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:

          * * * * If such intestate leave a husband or wife, _and_
          children, him or her surviving, one-half of such estate
          shall descend to such surviving husband or wife, and the
          residue thereof * * * * to the children; if such intestate
          leave a husband or wife and _no_ child, * * * * 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.

     The school law also provides:

          SEC. 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.

     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. 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.

     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.

     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, 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.[492] 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.

     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 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.[493] 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.

     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--who favored
     woman suffrage--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.

     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 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:

                                        CHEYENNE, March 3, 1870.

          S. W. DOWNEY--_My Dear Sir_: 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,

                                   J. H. HOWE, _Chief-Justice_.

     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 and make some
     remarks to the women on the duties devolving on them. I said:

          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.

     Judge Howe then spoke as follows:

          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.

     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 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,[494] 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.

     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.:

          If any person shall keep open any tippling or gaming-house
          on the Sabbath day or night, * * * he shall be fined not
          exceeding one hundred dollars, or imprisoned in the county
          jail not exceeding six months.

          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.

     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 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.

     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.

     "LADY JURORS."--Under this head the New Orleans _Times_, the
     ablest and largest paper in the South, said:

          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--that
          they cannot sit as the peers of men without setting at
          defiance all the laws of delicacy and propriety--the
          conclusion may be reached that it will be far better to let
          nature alone in regulating the relations of the sexes.

     The Philadelphia _Press_ had the following:

          WOMEN AS JURORS.--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.

     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 _Legal News_, 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:

                                   CHEYENNE, Wyoming, April 4, 1870.

          _Mrs. Myra Bradwell, Chicago, Ill.:_

          DEAR MADAM: 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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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 _demi-monde_ 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.

          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, 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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          Thanking you for your friendly and complimentary
          expressions, I am very respectfully yours,

                                             J. H. HOWE.

     As showing how the matter was received at home, in Laramie City,
     I copy the following from the _Laramie Sentinel_ of April 7,
     1870:

          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 _more_ 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.

     Among the few exceptions to the general abuse of the press, the
     following from the Cincinnati _Gazette_ of April 14, 1870, is
     well worth preserving:

          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.

          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.

          For women to neglect jury duty is to give men the exclusive
          privilege to _judge women_, 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.

     As long as Judge Howe remained on the bench he had women on his
     juries.[495] 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.

     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 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:

          _Editor Laramie Sentinel:_ 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--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.

          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!"

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          I confess that I believe in the idea of aristocracy--_i. e._
          "the rule of the best ones"--not by blood or position, but
          the aristocracy of character, to which our laws point when
          they declare that prison characters shall not vote.

          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.

          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.

                         D. J. PIERCE, _Pastor Baptist Church_.

     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.

     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 it--glad he had a
     wife so much better than he was, and who had so much more
     influence in town than he had.

     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.

     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:

          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."

          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
          enfranchisement of women is urged are false and untenable,
          and that our experience demonstrates this, influences me not
          a little in my present action.

          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--the power of choice--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--if overthrown
          at all--by something stronger than the force of inert
          conservatism; yet what is there but conjecture, prejudice
          and conservatism opposing this reform? * * * * * * * *

          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.

          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--this time
          perhaps a little in advance of the public sentiment of
          to-day--and give to those whom they consider competent to
          instruct voters, the right to vote.

          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 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.

          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.

          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.

          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,--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.

          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 _vs._
          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."

          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.

          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."

          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 _Magna Charta_ of freedom may be applied,--not as a
          mere figure of speech, but as expressing a simple grand
          truth,--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.

          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.

                                             J. A. CAMPBELL.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     The Laramie City _Daily Sentinel_ of December 16, 1878, J. H.
     Hayford, editor, has the following leading editorial:

          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--even for years past--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 _Sentinel_, 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.

          We assert here, then, that woman suffrage in Wyoming has
          been in every particular a complete success.

          That the women of Wyoming value as highly the political
          franchise, and as generally exercise it, as do the men of
          the territory.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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:

               "No rogue e'er felt the halter draw
                With good opinion of the law."

          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.

     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 so much that was good and practicable, and so little
     that was injudicious, unwise or vicious.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[491] Messrs. Wade, Anthony, Gratz Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Foster,
Nesmith, Patterson, Riddle. See Vol. II., Chapter XVII.

[492] 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 _they_ 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, _quite_. 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--the first governor of the territory of Wyoming--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 _his_ 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.

[493] 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.--[E. C. S.

[494] In the summer of 1871 Mrs. Stanton and myself, _en route_ 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 _Laramie Sentinel_, 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.--[S. B. A.

[495] 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.




CHAPTER LIII.

CALIFORNIA.

     Liberal Provisions in the Constitution--Elizabeth T.
     Schenck--Eliza W. Farnham--Mrs. Mills' Seminary, now a State
     Institution--Jeannie Carr, State Superintendent of Schools--First
     Awakening--_The Revolution_--Anna Dickinson--Mrs. Gordon
     Addresses the Legislature, 1868--Mrs. Pitts Stevens Edits _The
     Pioneer_--First Suffrage Society on the Pacific Coast,
     1869--State Convention, January 26, 1870, Mrs. Wallis,
     President--State Association Formed, Mrs. Haskell of Petaluma,
     President--Mrs. Gordon Nominated for Senator--In 1871, Mrs.
     Stanton and Miss Anthony Visit California--Hon. A. A. Sargent
     Speaks in Favor of Suffrage for Woman--Ellen Clarke Sargent
     Active in the Movement--Legislation Making Women Eligible to Hold
     School Offices, 1873--July 10, 1873, State Society Incorporated,
     Sarah Wallis, President--Mrs. Clara Foltz--A Bill Giving Women
     the Right to Practice Law--The Bill Passed and Signed by the
     Governor--Contest Over Admitting Women into the Law Department of
     the University--Supreme Court Decision Favorable--Hon. A. A.
     Sargent on the Constitution and Laws--Journalists and
     Printers--Silk Culture--Legislative Appropriation--Mrs. Knox
     Goodrich Celebrates July 4, 1876--Imposing Demonstration--Ladies
     in the Procession.


The 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--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.

California, admitted to the Union in 1850, owing to the erratic
character of her early population, has passed through more
vicissitudes 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--

     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.

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.

For the main facts of this chapter we are indebted to Elizabeth T.
Schenck.[496] She says:

     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--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 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.

     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.[497] Mrs. Coleman has been
     reëlected to that office in Shasta county, and Mrs. E. W.
     Sullivan in Mono county has served for several terms.

     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[498] 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 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.

     The way was being prepared however, for further agitation by the
     appearance of _The Revolution_ 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 _San
     Francisco Mercury_, 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 _Pioneer_, and threw
     the woman suffrage banner to the breeze in an editorial of marked
     ability.

     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[499]
     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.

     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.[500]

     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, 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:


[Illustration: Laura deForce Gordon]


          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, _pro. tem._, and Miss Kate Atkinson,
          Secretary. A committee on credentials was appointed by the
          chair, consisting of one member from each organization.[501]
          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.

          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:

          LADIES AND GENTLEMEN--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].

          Mrs. Stow gave the opening address, after which
          delegates[502] from various localities made interesting
          reports. An able series of resolutions was presented and
          discussed at length by various members of the convention,
          and letters of sympathy were read from friends throughout
          the country.[503]

     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:

          _Resolved_, That the California Woman Suffrage Society
          remain independent of all other associations for one year.

     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 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.

     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.

     During the year 1870 a general agitation was kept up. A number of
     speakers[504] 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 _Chronicle_ followed by
     the _Bulletin_, the _Call_, and in its usual negative style, the
     _Alta_, while the _Examiner_ 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 _Post_, then under the management of that
     popular journalist, Harry George, afterwards distinguished as the
     author of "Progress and Poverty." The San José _Mercury_ 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
     _Bee_ 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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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 was also reading law,
     was in Sacramento as editorial correspondent for her paper, the
     _Daily Democrat_ 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 _sine die_),
     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.

     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 _ad interim_.
     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 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 _should_ 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.

     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.

     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:

          ARTICLE II., SEC. 18. No person shall be debarred admission
          to any of the collegiate departments of the State University
          on account of sex.

     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 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:

          ARTICLE XX., SEC. 18. No person shall, on account of sex, be
          disqualified from entering upon or pursuing any lawful
          business, vocation or profession.

     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.

     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 _pro
     tem._, 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.

     The following facts in regard to the constitution and statute
     laws of California were sent us by the Hon. A. A. Sargent:

          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.

          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 XX., provides that
          "no person shall, on account of sex, be disqualified from
          entering upon or pursuing any lawful business, vocation or
          profession."

          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 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.

          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.

     Several creditable attempts were early made in journalism. In
     1855 Mrs. S. M. Clark published the weekly _Contra Costa_ in
     Oakland. In 1858, _The Hesperian_, a semi-monthly magazine, was
     issued in San Francisco, Mrs. Hermione Day and Mrs. A. M. Shultz,
     editors. It was quite an able periodical,[505] and finally passed
     into the hands of Elizabeth T. Schenck.

     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 _Daily Leader_ at Stockton in
     1873, continued afterward at Oakland as the _Daily Democrat_,
     until 1878. In Geo. P. Rowell's _Newspaper Reporter_ for 1874,
     the _Stockton Leader_ 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 _Golden Dawn_. 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."

     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
     _Common Sense_, was published by her and her husband--most of its
     original contents the product of her pen; and when the
     radicalism of her husband caused the suspension of that journal
     in 1878, Mrs. Slocum began the publication of _Roll Call_, 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--now Mrs. Dearing--ranks with the
     best printers in San Francisco, and several women in various
     portions of the State have taken like standing. "Mrs. Richmond &
     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 _Valley
     Review_, 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 _Figaro_, 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.

     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.

     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, 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.

     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--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.

     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.

     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.

     In regard to the position of women in medicine, Miss Elizabeth
     Sargent, M. D., writes:

          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; homoeopathists, 21, 2 in San
          Francisco. 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.

     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 _Overland Monthly_, and the excellent prospects of the
     magazine are largely the result of her own courage and the hard
     work she has done.

     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:

          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.

     There are many men and women throughout the State who have
     faithfully advocated political equality for all citizens.[506]

     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 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.

     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.

     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 _The
     Revolution_, 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.

     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:

          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
          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.

          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 _next to the
          negroes_, 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 _did_ want to go in, however, _ahead of the
          Chinamen_, 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."

     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.

     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.


FOOTNOTES:

[496] 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.--[E. C. S.

[497] 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.

[498] Among them were Mrs. Sarah Wallis of Mayfield, Mrs. E. T.
Schenck, Mrs. L. M. Clarke, Emily Pitts (afterwards Mrs. Stevens of
San Francisco).

[499] _President_, Elizabeth T. Schenck; _Vice-President_,
Emily Pitts Stevens; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. Hutchinson;
_Corresponding Secretary_, Mrs. Celia Curtis; _Treasurer_, Mrs. S.
J. Corbett.

[500] 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.

[501] 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.

[502] See Appendix to California chapter.

[503] At the close of the convention a State society was organized,
with the following officers: _President_, Mrs. A. A. Haskell of
Petaluma; _Vice-Presidents_, 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; _Secretary_, Mrs. Minnie
McKee of Santa Clara. _Board of Control_, 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.

[504] 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.

[505] 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.

[506] 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 _San Francisco_;
Fanny Green McDougal, _Oakland_; Mrs. Phebe Benedict, _Antioch_;
Mrs. Isabella Irwin, _San Rafael_; Mrs. Cynthia Palmer, Mrs. Emily
Rolfe, _Nevada City_; Mrs. Elizabeth Condy, _Stockton_; Miss E. S.
Sleeper, _Mountain View_; Mrs. Laura J. Watkins, Mrs. Damon, _Santa
Clara_; Mrs. Dr. Kilpatrick, _San Mateo_; Mrs. S. G. Waterhouse,
Drs. Kellogg and Bearby, Mrs. M. J. Young, Mrs. E. B. Crocker, and
others, _Sacramento_; Mrs. Mary Jewett, Mr. and Mrs. Howell,
_Healdsburgh_; Mrs. Lattimer, _Windsor_; Mr. and Mrs. Denio, Mrs.
E. L. Hale, _Vallejo_; Mrs. J. Lewellyn, Mrs. Potter, _St. Helena_;
Mr. and Mrs. J. Egglesson, _Napa_; Henry and Abigail Bush,
_Martinez_; Rowena Granice Steele, _Merced_; Mrs. Jennie Phelps
Purvis, Mrs. Lapham and daughter, _Modesto_.




CHAPTER LIV.

THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST.

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


In the spring of 1852, when the great _furor_ 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 governments of their
respective territories on republican principles. Writing of herself
and her labors, Mrs. Duniway says:

     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.

     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.

     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
     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 _The Pioneer_, 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.


[Illustration: "Yours for Liberty, Abigail Scott Duniway"]


     Soon after reaching my home in Albany I sold my millinery store
     and removed to Portland, where, on May 5, 1871, the _New
     Northwest_ 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.

     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 _New Northwest_. 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[507] 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.[508]

     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 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.[509] 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.

     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 _fee simple_. 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.

     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 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--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.

     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.

     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, _mirabile dictu_,
     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.

     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.

     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.

     "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?"

     "Mr. President: The committees are now full!" shouted an excited
     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?"

     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 _free_. 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."

     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--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 _dare_ 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--all
     voters--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 _dare_
     to utter it."

     A gentleman from Michigan--Mr. Curtis--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."

     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.

     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.

     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.

     The first annual convention of the Oregon State Association met
     in Portland, February 9, 1873. Many ladies and several
     gentlemen[510] 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 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 _alma mater_ and gave us no
     further trouble.

     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 _New Northwest_ 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 _Daily Oregonian_.

     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 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.

     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--it stood 8 to 7--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
     _New Northwest_ 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.

     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," as the perpetrators of the outrage were
     styled, grew heartily disgusted over their questionable glory.

     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 _pro_ and _con_ 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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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 _Daily Oregonian_ and the weekly
     issues of the _New Northwest_. 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 _New Northwest_. 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 _New Northwest_, 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.

     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 responses; for the
     old bell quivered in every nerve and broke its heart rather than
     tell a lie!

     An immense ratification jubilee was held in the evening of the
     same day at the city hall in Olympia, with many distinguished
     speakers.[511] 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.

     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.[512] Not one influential man
     made audible objection anywhere.

     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 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.[513] 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.

     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:

          _Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of Oregon:_

          That the elective franchise shall not hereafter be denied to
          any person in this State on account of sex.

          This act to be in force from and after its approval by the
          governor.

     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.

     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 Lester, the famous _prima donna_, 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:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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.

          _Resolved_, 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

          _Resolved_, 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."

     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:

          From Clatsop and from Clackamas, from Linn and Tillamook;
          From Grant, Multnomah, Lane and Coos, and Benton, Lake and
              Crook;
          From Josephine, Columbia, and loyal Washington,
          And Union, Baker and Yamhill, and proud old Marion;
          From where the Cascade mountain-streams their foaming waters
              pour,
          We're coming, mothers, sisters, dear, "ten times ten thousand
              more."

          From Klamath's lakes and Wasco's plains, and Jackson's rolling
              hills;
          From Douglas with her mines of gold, and Curry with her mills;
          From Umatilla's burdened fields, and hills and dales of Polk,
          We're coming with our votes and songs to break the tyrant's
              yoke,
          And in the ears of Liberty this song of joy we'll pour,
          We're coming, mothers, sisters, dear, "ten times ten thousand
              more."

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:

     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 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.

     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 _Transcript_,
     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.

     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--a little band of four--looked upon with pity and
     contempt for what was called our "fanaticism."

     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 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.

     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.

     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
     _hors du combat_, 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 _person_ owing
     allegiance to the government; but then all persons are not _men_;
     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."

     When I commenced speaking, all the men, with the exception of
     two--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--came and 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.

     "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.

     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 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.

     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.

     It had been talked of for some days before the election in the
     adjoining precinct--Black River--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."

     While the women of these two precincts were enjoying the exercise
     of 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.

     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--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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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:

          _Be it enacted by the Legislative Assembly of the Territory
          of Washington:_

          SECTION 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.

          SEC. 2. This act to take effect from and after its passage.

          Approved November 29, 1871.   EDWARD S. SOLOMON, _Governor_.

     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 Mary Olney Brown,
     President of the Washington Territorial Woman Suffrage
     Association; thus giving the credit of the work to the Society.

     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 _New Northwest_. The Olympia
     _Courier_ 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.

     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[514] 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.

     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. There will be a greater effort than ever before put
     forth during the next two years to secure an affirmative vote in
     our legislature.

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.[515] Mrs.
Duniway concludes her account with a brief reference to the work in
neighboring territories:

     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 _New Northwest_ 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.


FOOTNOTES:

[507] 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.

[508] 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 _Washington Standard_.

[509] 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.

[510] 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.

[511] 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.

[512] 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 _Oregonian_,
ex-Governor A. C. Gibbs, District-Attorneys J. F. Caples and T. A.
McBride, and various ex-members of the legislature.

[513] The official vote of the State was 11,223 for the amendment,
and 28,176 against.

[514] _Be it enacted by the Legislature of the Territory of
Washington:_

SECTION 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.

SEC. 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.

SEC. 3. All laws in conflict with this act are hereby repealed.

SEC. 4. This act to be in force on and after its passage.

[515] 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: _Ayes_--Besserer,
Brooks, Clark, Coply, Foster, Goodell, Hungate, Kuhn, Lloyd,
Martin, Miles, Shaw, Stitzel and Speaker Ferguson--14.
_Noes_--Barlow, Brining, Landrum, Ping, Kincaid, Shoudy and
Young--7. _Absent_--Blackwell, Turpin and Warner--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: _Ayes_--Burk, Edmiston, Hale, Harper, Kerr, Power and
Smith--7. _Noes_--Caton, Collins, Houghton, Whitehouse and
President Truax--5. Governor W. A. Newell approved the bill
November 22, 1883.




CHAPTER LV.

LOUISIANA--TEXAS--ARKANSAS--MISSISSIPPI.

     St. Anna's Asylum, Managed by Women--Constitutional Convention,
     1879--Women Petition--Clara Merrick Guthrie--Petition Referred to
     Committee on Suffrage--A Hearing Granted--Mrs. Keating--Mrs.
     Saxon--Mrs. Merrick--Col. John M. Sandige--Efforts of the Women
     all in Vain--Action in 1885--Gov. McEnery--The _Daily
     Picayune_--Women as Members of the School-Board--Physiology in
     the Schools--Miss Eliza Rudolph--Mrs. E. J. Nicholson--Judge
     Merrick's Digest of Laws--Texas--Arkansas--Mississippi--Sarah A.
     Dorsey.


I.--LOUISIANA.

Mrs. Caroline E. Merrick has furnished the following interesting
facts from her native State, for which we feel ourselves deeply
indebted:

     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.

     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.

     Early in 1879, when a convention to make a new State
     constitution[516] 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
     _playing_ 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:

          _To the Honorable President and Members of the Convention of
          Louisiana, convened for the purpose of framing a new
          Constitution:_

          The undersigned, citizens of the State of Louisiana,
          respectfully represent:

          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.

          They have been excluded from holding any office save in
          cases of special tutorships in limited degree, or of
          administration only in specified cases.

          They have been debarred from being witnesses to wills or
          notarial acts, even when executed by their own sex.

          They look upon this condition of things as a grievance
          proper to be brought before your honorable body for
          consideration and relief.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          Wherefore, we, your petitioners, pray that some suitable
          provision remedying these evils be incorporated in the
          constitution you are about to frame.

     While this petition was being circulated, favorable articles
     appeared from time to time in the public prints. The following,
     signed "Fatima," the _nom de plume_ of Clara Merrick Guthrie,
     appeared in the _Democrat_:

          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."

          If the convention should invest women of property with the
          elective franchise it 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. * * * *

          _On dit._--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.

     After securing over 400 influential names[517] 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.

     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 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--here is an opportunity; go forward
     and do your share in this work."

     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 _Daily Picayune_ of June 17,
     1879, said:

          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.

          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.

          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.

          Mr. Robertson of St. Landry then offered the following
          resolution, which lies over under the rules:

          _Resolved_, 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.

          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:

          _Mr. President and Delegates of the Convention:_--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 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.

          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.

          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?

          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.
          * * * *

          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 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.[518]

          Col. John M. Sandidge read a letter from Mrs. Sarah A.
          Dorsey:

                                                  JUNE 11, 1879.

          _Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:_--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.

          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--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.

          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.

          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,

                                             SARAH A. DORSEY.

     The Webster _Tribune_, Mr. Scanland, editor, of June 25, 1879,
     shows the sensation created in the remotest parishes of Louisiana
     by this hearing before the convention:

          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 _Tribune_ 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--something we
          would not dream of attempting in a political or any other
          sense.

          The ladies who advocate female suffrage claim that as they
          are governed by the laws 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--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. * * * * 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--notwithstanding
          the Utopian ideas advanced.

     When the new constitution finally went forth, it contained, as
     the result of all our arguments and appeals, but one little
     concession:

          ARTICLE 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.

     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[519] 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 _Times-Democrat_, gave his opinion
     as follows:

          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 _in solido_ 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.

     The _Daily Picayune_ 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:

          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:

          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:

          ARTICLE 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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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 laws or
          provisions in a constitution or statute abrogate or limit
          the general provisions in the same instrument.

          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 _anything_ 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 _would_ sign his wife's bond, and perhaps he
          would _not_ 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.

          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.

          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.

     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 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.

     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.

     The _Daily Picayune_, in closing its half-century, gives the
     following of Mrs. E. J. Nicholson, its chief owner and manager
     since January, 1876:

          "Pearl Rivers," the lady's _nom de plume_, 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 _Picayune_ 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 _Picayune_ 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 _Picayune_ 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 _Picayune_ 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 & Co. On June 28, 1878, the
          interests of the two copartners were further consolidated by
          marriage. Since then the _Picayune_ has been published under
          the firm name of Nicholson & Co., and the columns daily
          attest the energy, enterprise and ability with which it is
          conducted, while its advertising patronage speaks for
          itself.

     Mrs. Martha R. Field is a member of the editorial staff of the
     _Picayune_. She has charge of the Sunday woman's column, besides
     her regular column over the _nom de plume_ of Catherine Cole.

     The _Times-Democrat_ 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 "_Bric-a-Brac_ 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.

     Mrs. J. Pinkney Smith edits the "Social Melange" of the _States_.
     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 _Courier_ at Gretna, did the printing for the
     Woman's Exposition.

     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,[520] 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,[521] originated by Miss
     Bessie Bisland who was the president of the club for the first
     year, 1885.

     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:

          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 _dotal regime_) 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 _regime_ 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:

          ART. 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.

          ART. 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, posterity, or with respect to their children
          between themselves, without prejudice to the donations
          _inter vivas_ or _mortis causa_, which may take place
          according to the formalities and in the cases determined by
          this code.

          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).

          If the parties adopt the _dotal regime_ 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.

          Under the _regime_ 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."

          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).

          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.

          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.

          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.

          ART. 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.

          ART. 119. The husband and wife owe to each other mutual
          fidelity, support and assistance.

          ART. 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.

          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.


[Illustration: Caroline E. Merrick]


One day in 1842, the New Orleans _Delta_ 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.

In 1869, the New Orleans _Republican_ had an excellent editorial
fully endorsing the demand for woman's enfranchisement. In 1870 the
_Livingston Herald_, published in Ponchatoula parish, by J. O. and
J. E. Spencer, advocated suffrage for women.

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.


II.--TEXAS.

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:

     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--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,--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.

     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--a vote--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--the anatomy, so
     to speak, of the body politic, they would perceive that
     suffrage--a voice in the government--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.

     A family--a household--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.

     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--to a vote. Every
     member of society who is free and independent--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--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.

_The Revolution_ of August 20, 1868, said:

     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:

          _Report of the Committee on State Affairs upon Female
          Suffrage, with accompanying Declaration:_

          July 30, 1868--Introduced and ordered to be printed.

                         COMMITTEE ROOM, AUSTIN, Texas, July 10, 1868.

          _To the Hon. E. J. Davis, President of the Convention:_

          A majority of your Committee on State Affairs, to whom was
          referred the declaration 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.

          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.

          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.

          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?

          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.

                                          H. C. HUNT, _Chairman_,

                                   T. H. MUNDINE,    BENJ. WATROUS,
                                   WM. H. FLEMING,    L. P. HARRIS.


                               A DECLARATION.

          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 ---- of
          article ----: 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.

The _Woman's Journal_ 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:

     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:

          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 _débris_ 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 ---- and ---- 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.

     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--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.

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:

     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 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.

     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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          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.

          The youngest telegrapher in the world is probably Hattie
          Hutchinson, in charge of an office in Texas. She is only ten
          years old.


III.--ARKANSAS.

Under date of March, 1868, Miles L. Langley writes from
Arkadelphia, Arkansas, in regard to the efforts for equality in the
constitutional convention:

                                   ARKADELPHIA, Ark., March 5, 1868.

     SUSAN B. ANTHONY--_Dear Friend_: 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.

     The new constitution--a copy of which I send you--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.

     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 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.

     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.

                              Very respectfully,     MILES L. LANGLEY.

     The Arkansas _Ladies' Journal_ says:

          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?

     In 1885, Arkansas formed its first woman suffrage society at
     Eureka Springs through the efforts of Miss Phoebe 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.

     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.

A very able report[522] 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.


IV.--MISSISSIPPI.

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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     Miss Eliza A. Dupuy for many years contributed copiously to Mr.
     Bonner's _Ledger_. 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.

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 _Review_
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.


FOOTNOTES:

[516] 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."

[517] 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:

"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.

                 "Very sincerely your friend,         E. L. SAXON."

"_May 5, 1879._"

[518] 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.'--[EDITORS.

[519] 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.

[520] The officers of the Christian Woman's Exchange for 1885,
were: _President_, Mrs. R. M. Walmsley; _Vice-Presidents_, Mesdames
T. G. Richardson, M. W. Bartlett, Albert Baldwin, John R. Juden, J.
H. Allen; _Recording Secretary_, Mrs. Theo. Auze; _Corresponding
Secretary_, Mrs. E. J. Wharton; _Treasurer_, Mrs. S. H. Davis;
_Acting Treasurer_, Mrs. F. N. Griswold; _Board of Managers_,
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.

[521] 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.

[522] See Report Washington Convention, 1884.




CHAPTER LV. (CONTINUED).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA--MARYLAND--DELAWARE--KENTUCKY--TENNESSEE--
VIRGINIA--WEST VIRGINIA--NORTH CAROLINA--SOUTH CAROLINA--FLORIDA--
ALABAMA--GEORGIA.

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


I.--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

The 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.

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 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[523] 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.

For a brief report of what has been accomplished in the District of
Columbia, we are indebted to Belva A. Lockwood:

     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,[524] 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.[525] 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.

     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:

          "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."

          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.

          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.

          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.

     September 25, 1868, the Universal Franchise Association held its
     first annual meeting[526] at Union League Hall, Mrs. Josephine S.
     Griffing presiding. A letter was read from Senator Pomeroy,
     stating that he was willing to act as president of the society.
     In closing he said:

          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.

     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.

     In the House of Representatives, March 21, 1870, Mr. Arnell, on
     leave, introduced the following bill:

          _A bill to do justice to the female employees of the
          Government, and for other purposes._

          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.

          SEC. 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.

          SEC. 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.

          SEC. 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.

          SEC. 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.

          SEC. 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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     In 1871, a large number of ladies tried to register in the city
     of Washington. They marched in solid phalanx some seventy[527]
     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.[528]

     In 1866 Jane G. Swisshelm commenced the publication of a liberal
     sheet in the District of Columbia, known as _The Wasp_. This was
     the continuation of a paper formerly published by her in
     Pittsburg, Pa., and in St. Cloud, Minn., called _The Visitor_.
     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.

     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
     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 _Times_, and the
     latter for the New York _Herald_. 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.

     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--one-half the lowest price paid to
     any male clerk--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:

          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.

     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.

     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.


II.--MARYLAND.

_The Revolution_ of February 26, 1868, shows an effort in the
direction of progress on this question in Maryland. A correspondent
says:

     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.

     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.

From various papers we clip the following items:

     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.----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.----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.

Miss R. Muller has for several years been engaged as subscription
and general correspondence clerk for the Baltimore _Daily
American_. 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:

     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 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.

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:

     The Havre de Grace _Republican_ 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.

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.

Charlotte Richmond of Baltimore writes the _Woman's Journal_, April
22, 1873:

     The American _Journal of Dental Science_ 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."

     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 lady-like
     qualifications, together with ability and perseverance, she has
     won the honor and esteem of the faculty and the students.

     I wish that Prussia could have witnessed the success of her
     daughter on the night of commencement--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.


[Illustration: Mary B. Clay]


For the facts in regard to the Baltimore Dental College we are
indebted to the dean of the faculty:

                    BALTIMORE COLLEGE OF DENTAL SURGERY, Jan. 2, 1886.

     MISS SUSAN B. ANTHONY--_Dear Miss_: 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.

                                   Very truly yours,     R. B. WINDER.


III.--DELAWARE.

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:

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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." * * * * 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[529] exceptions, were opposed to the
     measure.

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 _The Revolution_ 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.


IV.--KENTUCKY.

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:

     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 _Courier-Journal_. In later years, Anna Dickinson
     and others have lectured in our chief cities. But the first note
     of associated effort is that given in _The Revolution_ from
     Glendale, which says:

          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.

     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.[530] 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 _Register_, sister Anne a
     column in the Lexington _Gazette_, and Kate Dunning Clarke, a
     column in the _Turf, Field and Farm_. Mrs. Clarke is also
     associate editor of the Kentucky _State Journal_. The Misses
     Moore are making a success of a daily paper at Milledgeville.

     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.

     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:

          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.

     In 1884, all of the Clay sisters--Mrs. Bennet, Mary, Laura and
     Anne--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.

     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.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     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."

     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.

     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 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.

     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.[531] 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.

     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 _materia medica_, 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.

     Mrs. Kate Trimble de Roode, in a recent letter says:

          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 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 _femme sole_. 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.


V.--TENNESSEE.

We are indebted to Mrs. Elizabeth Lisle Saxon for the following:

     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"--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 _Memphis Appeal_, through its chivalrous editor, Mr.
     Keating, declared squarely for woman suffrage.

     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.

     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.


VI.--VIRGINIA.

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
_The Revolution_ of May, 1870:

     DEAR REVOLUTION:--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.

     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.

     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--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[532] 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
     depriving the wives of all voice in the disposition of the
     property possessed by them before marriage.

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:

     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.

But Mrs. Bodeker, who also memorialized the general assembly, was
first to make the attempt to vote. The Richmond _Dispatch_
describes the occasion:

     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.

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 _Ballot-Box_ said:

     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.

The Philadelphia _Press_, edited by J. W. Forney, said:

     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.


VII.--WEST VIRGINIA.

Hon. Samuel Young, in a letter to _The Revolution_, dated Senate
Chamber, Wheeling, West Virginia, February 22, 1869, writes:

     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--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.


VIII.--NORTH CAROLINA.

We are indebted to Mrs. Mary Bayard Clarke of New Berne for the
following:

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     In a letter to the Boston _Index_, published August, 1885, the
     venerable Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes Smith, who is now a resident of
     this State, truthfully says,

          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.

     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.

     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.

     Mrs. C. Harris started the _South Atlantic_ at Wilmington. The
     Misses Bernheim and their father started a magazine in the same
     city called _At Home and Abroad_, which was afterwards moved to
     Charlotte; both were short-lived. We have now the _Southern
     Woman_. 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.

     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.

     The _North Carolinian_ of January, 1870, contained an able
     editorial endorsing woman suffrage, closing with:

          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.

From an interesting article in the _Boston Advertiser_, 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:

     One of our eminent surgeons, Dr. Samuel Cabot, said to me
     yesterday:

          "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."

     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--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.

     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--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 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."

     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.


IX.--SOUTH CAROLINA.

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
_Republican_ said:

     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."

     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.[533] The following
     letters were read:

                         EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, Columbia, Jan. 19, 1871.

          _Miss L. M. Rollin_:--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.

          I have the honor to be, very respectfully, etc.,

                                              R. K. SCOTT, _Governor_.

               OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, Columbia, Feb. 1, 1871.

          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.

          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 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.

          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,

                                             D. H. CHAMBERLAIN.

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.

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:

     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.

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.


X.--FLORIDA.

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.

The following is from a letter to the Savannah _News_, reporting a
judgment rendered by a Florida county judge, in a case between an
old black man and his wife:

                                   OCALA, Fla., May 12, 1874.

     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.

                                   [Signed]      WM. R. HILLYER.

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.


XI.--ALABAMA.

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:

     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.

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:

     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.

At Huntsville lives Mrs. Priscilla Holmes Drake, whose name has
stood as representative of our National Association in Alabama
since 1868.


XII.--GEORGIA.

We give a letter from Georgia's great statesman, defining his views
of woman's sphere:

          HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D. C., May 29, 1878.

     _Mrs. E. L. Saxon, New Orleans, La._

     MY DEAR MADAM:--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.

               Very respectfully yours,     C. P. CULVER, _Secretary_.


FOOTNOTES:

[523] Myrtilla Miner; published by Houghton, Mifflin & Co., Boston
and New York.

[524] See Vol. II., page 90.

[525] _President_, Hon. Samuel C. Pomeroy; _Vice-Presidents_,
Josophine S. Griffing, Belva A. Lockwood, Jas. H. Holmes, John H.
Craney; _Advisory Council_, 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.

[526] The officers elected were: _President_, United States Senator
S. C. Pomeroy; _Vice-Presidents_, 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; _Recording Secretary_, George F. Needham; _Treasurer_,
Daniel Breed; _Board of Managers_, Josephine S. Griffing, Hamilton
Wilcox, Dr. Daniel Breed, Mrs. Corner, Geo. F. Needham, Mrs. Lydia
S. Hall, J. H. Crane; _Corresponding Secretary_, 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."

[527] 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.

[528] For full account see Vol. II., page 587.

[529] David Eastburn and Henry Swaine of New Castle county.

[530] The officers were: Sally Clay Bennett, Maggie S. Burnham,
Mrs. Somers, Mary B. Clay.

[531] 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 _Courier Journal_ 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, _President_, Dr.
E. A. Grant, _Secretary_, and James K. Lemon, _Treasurer_. The
school opened with fifteen students, and continued until June,
1883. A lecture and practical course combined, occupy ten months of
the year--lectures being given five afternoons of each week during
the term.

[532] _President_, Mrs. Anne W. Bodeker, Richmond;
_Vice-Presidents_, 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; _Secretary_, Miss Sue L. F. Smith, Richmond; _Executive
Committee_, Rev. W. F. Hemenway, Mrs. Andrew Washburne, Mrs. Dr. E.
H. Smith, Dr. and Mrs. Langstedt, Richmond, and Mrs. Allen
(Florence Percy) of Manchester.

[533] _President_, Gov. R. K. Scott; _Vice-Presidents_, 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; _Secretary_, Miss K. Rollin; _Treasurer_, Mrs. K. Harris.




CHAPTER LV. (CONCLUDED).

CANADA.


We 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:

     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 _feme sole_, 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--notwithstanding the appointment of
     another person by the father--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.

     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.

     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.

Mrs. Curzon writes:

     In the year 1876 Dr. Emily H. Stowe--graduated in New
     York--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[534] 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[535] formed, March 9, 1883.

     McGill University at Montreal has an annex for women founded
     through the munificence of one of the merchants of that
     city.----Dalhousie College, Halifax, admits women on the same
     footing as men. The Toronto _Mail_ says it is only a question of
     time when all Canadian colleges will do the same thing.----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.----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.----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.


FOOTNOTES:

[534] _The Ballot-Box_ in 1880 said: "_The Citizen_ 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. _The
Citizen_ 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 _résumé_ 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."

[535] The officers were: _President_, Mrs. Donald McEwen;
_Vice-Presidents_, Mrs. Curzon, Mrs. E. H. Stowe, M. D., Captain W.
F. McMaster, John Hallam, esq.; _Treasurer_, Mrs. W. B. Hamilton;
_Secretary_, Miss J. Foulds; _Executive Committee_, 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.


[Illustration: Mentia Taylor]




CHAPTER LVI.

GREAT BRITAIN.

BY CAROLINE ASHURST BIGGS.

     Women Send Members to Parliament--Sidney Smith, Sir Robert Peel,
     Richard Cobden--The Ladies of Oldham--Jeremy Bentham--Anne
     Knight--Northern Reform Society, 1858--Mrs. Matilda
     Biggs--Unmarried Women and Widows Petition
     Parliament--Associations formed in London, Manchester, Edinburgh,
     1867--John Stuart Mill in Parliament--Seventy-three Votes for his
     Bill--John Bright's Vote--Women Register and
     Vote--Lord-Chief-Justice of England Declares their Constitutional
     Right--The Courts give Adverse Decisions--Jacob Bright secures
     the Municipal Franchise--First Public Meeting--Division on Jacob
     Bright's Bill to Remove Political Disabilities--Mr. Gladstone's
     Speech--Work of 1871-2--Fourth Vote on the Suffrage Bill--Jacob
     Bright fails of Reëlection--Efforts of Mr. Forsyth--Memorial of
     the National Society--Some Account of the Workers--Vote of the
     New Parliament, 1875--Organized Opposition--Diminished Adverse
     Vote of 1878--Mr. Courtney's Resolution--Letters--Great
     Demonstrations at Manchester--London--Bristol--Nottingham--
     Birmingham--Sheffield--Glasgow--Victory in the Isle of Man--Passage
     of Municipal Franchise Bill for Scotland--Mr. Mason's Resolution--
     Reduction of Adverse Majority to 16--Conference at Leeds--Mr.
     Woodall's Amendment to Reform Bill of 1884--Meeting at Edinburgh--
     Other Meetings--Estimated Number of Women Householders--Circulars
     to Members of Parliament--Debate on the Amendment--Resolutions of
     the Society--Further Debate--Defeat of the Amendment--Meeting at
     St. James Hall--Conclusion.


In 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 for the county of
Suffolk, Sir Simonds d'Ewes being high-sheriff:

     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.

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 _vs._ 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.' * *
* 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.

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 _male_ persons, but in the old franchises continuing
in force, the word "person" alone is strictly used. Mr. Sidney
Smith said:

     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, it continues them
     to every person, leaving the word "male" out on system.

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:

     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.

The following year Sir Robert Peel in opposing vote by ballot said:

     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?

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. In a speech on
free-trade, delivered in Covent Garden Theater January 15, 1845,
Richard Cobden said:

     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.

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:

     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.

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:

     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?

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 incompatible with home duties." In 1841 a
strong article appeared in the _Westminster Review_, written by
Mrs. Margaret Mylne, a Scotch lady still living. Mrs. Stuart Mill's
admirably comprehensive article appeared in the same review in
1851.[536] In 1846, also, Col. T. Perronet Thompson, the well-known
anti-corn-law advocate, wrote:

     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.

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:

     ADDRESS OF THE SHEFFIELD POLITICAL ASSOCIATION TO THE WOMEN OF
     ENGLAND--_Beloved Sisters_: 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 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.[537]

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[538] said in the _Newcastle
Guardian_, February 19, 1859:

     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.

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--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:

     In a country governed by a woman--where you allow woman to form
     part of the estate of the realm--peeresses in their own right for
     example--where you allow a woman not only to hold land, but to be
     a lady of the manor and hold legal courts--where a woman by law
     may be a church-warden and overseer of the poor,--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.

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 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[539] 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:

     _To the Honorable, the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great
     Britain and Ireland, in Parliament assembled:_

     The humble petition of the undersigned,--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.

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. e._, free-holders and householders 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.

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.[540] 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.

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 was appointed secretary. The Edinburgh
committee elected Mrs. McLaren[541] 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.

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:

     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.

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 _Times_ 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:

     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.

In the substitution of the word "man" for that of "male person"
in the Reform act of 1832, a great difference was already
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.

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.:

     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.

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 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."

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.

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 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--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:

     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--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 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.

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) 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.

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.

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 Miss Becker,
seconded by the venerable Arch-deacon Sandford, and supported by
Mr. T. B. Potter, M. P.:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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, _Justitia_), 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.[542]

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.

     A BILL _to remove the Electoral Disabilities of Women_:

     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:

     _First_--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.

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:

     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.

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.

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 of this year
the _Women's Suffrage Journal_ 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:

     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.

In London, with the sole exception of the city, the persons who
elect the vestries, _i. e._ the rate-payers, are the electors--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.

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:

     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 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--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.]

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--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.

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.

In this year a new committee was established in London called the
Central committee, to which all other branches of the society had
the right of appointing delegates, and the movement received
thereby a considerable increase of strength and solidity.[543]

Meantime each branch of the society was working away indefatigably.
During 1871, the _Suffrage Journal_ 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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--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 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.

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.:

     _To the Right Honorable William Ewart Gladstone, M. P., First
     Lord of Her Majesty's Treasury:_

     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.

     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.

     The electoral disability is further anomalous, because by the law
     and constitution of this realm, women are not disabled from the
     exercise of 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.

     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.

     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 _expressly
     provided_." 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.

     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.

     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
     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.

     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.

     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.

     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 will continue to act as if their wishes, opinions
     and interests were undeserving of serious consideration.

     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."

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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 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.

     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.

     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 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.

     Signed on behalf of the conference,

                                   CAROLINE M. TAYLOR, _President_.

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.[544]

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 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.

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.

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:

     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,--then I say, trust to that
     light, follow that hand, without fear of the future.

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.

The last time that the question was brought before that parliament
was the following summer, 1870. Mr. Courtney, after 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:

     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.

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.

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.[545] Every suffrage meeting 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.


[Illustration: Priscilla Bright McLaren]


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:

     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.

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.[546]

As a specimen of these letters Miss Frances Power Cobbe said:

     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 creatures, that full grown swallows and larks
     have no need of wings, and are always happiest when their pinions
     are broken.

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.

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.[547] The three principal associations in England were
those of London,[548] including the east and north-east counties;
Manchester,[549] taking charge of the north of England and Wales,
and Bristol[550] 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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:

     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.

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.[551]

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. George's Hall, Bradford, on
November 22, and here again Mrs. McLaren took the chair, and said:

     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.

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.[552]

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.

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, 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.

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 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.

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--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.

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.

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,
though the number of women who voted varied greatly--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.

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.[553]

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:

     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.

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:

     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.

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:

     They have told us women can get what they want without the
     franchise. That used to be said of working men--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--an act which
     ought to confer lasting fame on the present lord chancellor--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[554] 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?

Mr. Courtney also addressed the House in stirring words. The result
was most encouraging. Four years had passed since a 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.

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:

     _Resolved_, 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; _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_.

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.

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:

     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 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.

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--the "monstrous political fad," as one of
our opponents in parliament had called it--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.

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:

     _Resolved_, That this meeting regards the extension of the
     parliamentary franchise to female householders as just and
     reasonable, and would hail with satisfaction the introduction of
     a government measure which would confer the parliamentary
     franchise upon all female householders, whether resident in
     counties or burghs.

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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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[555] 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.

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
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.

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.

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 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:

     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.

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.

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--that of the United Presbyterian Synod--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.[556] Lady Harberton occupied
the chair and was accompanied by the delegates.[557] Letters[558]
of sympathy were read by Miss Wigham, the secretary.

     LADY HARBERTON 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"--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.

A series of meetings[559] after this was held in Bath, Newcastle
and London.

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.

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.

The _Suffrage Journal_ 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 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.

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.[560]

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:

     SIR: 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.

     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.

     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.

     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 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.

     Several bills having special reference to the interests and
     _status_ 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.

     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,[561]

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:

     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.

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

     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.

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--

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

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.

     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 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.

On motion of Lord John Manners the debate was adjourned till June
12.

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:

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, 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.

     _Resolved_, That a copy of these resolutions be forwarded to Mr.
     Gladstone and to every member of parliament.

     _Resolved_, 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.

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 distinct
declaration that he would abandon the bill if the amendment were
passed. On June 12 Lord John Manners resumed the debate. He said:

     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.

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:

     The principle of this bill is household suffrage. Household
     suffrage is one of two things--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--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--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.

After some speeches against the motion Colonel King-Harman said:

     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 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--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.

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:

     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.

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.

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:

     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.

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.

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[562] proposed as the best measure for agitation, a
determined resistance against taxation.[563]

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.[564] The enacting
clause of the bill was as follows:

     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.

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.

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.

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 _men_, though we
are repeatedly assured that nothing but the want of time prevents
their fair consideration of the enfranchisement of _women_. It is
another proof that there is always time for a representative
government to attend to the wants of its constituents.

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[565] were unaware of his intention until they read
a notice of the bill in the newspapers. The enacting clause was as
follows:

     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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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, 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.

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 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 _Pall Mall Gazette_,
finally roused the national conscience, and now a larger measure of
protection is afforded to young girls than has ever been known
before.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[536] This was called out by the movement in America. A report of a
convention held in Worcester, Mass., published in the New York
_Tribune_, 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.--[EDITORS.

[537] _Council of the Association_--Mrs. S. Turner, Mrs. S.
Bartholomew, Mrs. E. Stephenson, Mrs. M. Whalley, Mrs. E. Rooke,
Mrs. E. Wade, Mrs. C. Ash, president _pro tem._, Mrs. E.
Cavill, treasurer, Mrs. M. Brook, financial-secretary, Mrs. A.
Higginbottom, corresponding secretary.

[538] 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--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.--[EDITORS.

[539] 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, _nee_ 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.

[540] 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.

[541] 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.

[542] 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.

[543] 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.

[544] 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.

_Resolved_, 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.

_Resolved_, That Mr. E. P. Bouverie be requested to act as
chairman, and Lord Claud John Hamilton and Mr. Kay Shuttleworth as
honorary secretaries.

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.

[545] 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.

[546] 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.

[547] 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--as will happen at times--a few
eloquent and heart-stirring words from her have been sufficient to
raise the courage and revive the interest.

[548] 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.

[549] Mrs. Jacob Bright, Miss Becker, Mrs. Scatcherd, Miss Corbutt,
Mr. Steinthal, Mrs. Thomasson, and others.

[550] 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.

[551] 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.

[552] 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--more than forty years before--she had been refused a seat as
a delegate in the World's Anti-Slavery Convention in London.

[553] MARRIED WOMEN'S PROPERTY COMMITTEE.--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; _Treasurer_, Mrs.
Jacob Bright. _Secretary_, Mrs. Wolstenholme Elmy.

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.--[E. C. S.

[554] The Contagious Diseases acts.

[555] 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.

[556] The inscription was: "Women Claim Equal Justice with Men.
_The Friends of Women_: Henry Fawcett, John Stuart Mill, Chas.
Cameron, Jacob Bright, Leonard Courtney, Duncan McLaren, George
Anderson, James Stansfeld, Sir Wilfred Lawson, J.P. Thomasson."

[557] 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.

[558] 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.

[559] EDINBURGH.--The first resolution was moved by Miss Tod and
seconded by Mrs. Scatcherd:

     _Resolved_, 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.

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.

BATH, GUILD HALL.--Presided over by the mayor. Among other speakers
were Mrs. Beddoe, Miss Becker, Mrs. Jeffrey and Mrs. Ashworth
Hallet.

NEWCASTLE, TOWN HALL.--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.

LONDON, ST. JAMES HALL.--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.

[560] The result is as follows:

                         No. of Inhabited          Estimated No. of
                              Houses.             Women Householders.
  ENGLAND AND WALES.
             Boroughs,      2,098,476                  340,746
             Counties,      2,733,043                  390,434
                            ----------4,831,519        --------740,180
  SCOTLAND.
             Boroughs,        329,328                   54,888
             Counties,        409,677                   58,525
                              --------739,005           -------113,413
  IRELAND.
             Boroughs,        129,837                   21,339
             Counties,        784,571                   98,034
                              --------914,108           -------119,373
                                                               -------
                                                               972,966

[561] 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.

[562] 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.

[563] 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.

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.--[E. C. S.

[564] The bill was prepared and brought in by Mr. Woodall, Mr.
Illingworth, Mr. Coleridge Kennard, Mr. Stansfeld, Mr. Yorke and
Baron Henry de Worms.

[565] _Central Committee of the National Society for Women's
Suffrage_--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. _Secretary_, Miss Florence Balgarnie. _Assistant
Secretary_, Miss Torrance. _Organizing Agent_, Miss Moore.
_Treasurer_, Mrs. Laura Pochin McLaren. _Office_, 29 Parliament
street, London S. W.




CHAPTER LVII.

CONTINENTAL EUROPE.[566]

BY THEODORE STANTON.

          If you would know the political and moral status of a
          people, demand what place its women occupy.--[L. AIMÉ
          MARTIN.

          There is nothing, I think, which marks more decidedly the
          character of men or of nations, than the manner in which
          they treat women.--[HERDER.

     The Woman Question in the Back-ground--In France the Agitation
     Dates from the Upheaval of 1789--International Women's Rights
     Convention in Paris, 1878--Mlle. Hubertine Auclert Leads the
     Demand for Suffrage--Agitation began in Italy with the
     Kingdom--Concepcion Arenal in Spain--Coëducation in
     Portugal--Germany: Leipsic and Berlin--Austria in Advance of
     Germany--Caroline Svetlá of Bohemia--Austria Unsurpassed in
     contradictions--Marriage Emancipates from Tutelage in
     Hungary--Dr. Henrietta Jacobs of Holland--Dr. Isala van Diest of
     Belgium--In Switzerland the Catholic Cantons Lag Behind--Marie
     Goegg, the Leader--Sweden Stands First--Universities Open to
     Women in Norway--Associations in Denmark--Liberality of Russia
     toward Women--Poland--The Orient--Turkey--Jewish Wives--The Greek
     Woman in Turkey--The Greek Woman in Greece--An Unique
     Episode--Woman's Rights in the American Sense not known.


The 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.

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 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,--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.

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,--public opinion must be convinced before it will accept
an innovation. This has been the _rôle_ of France in Europe ever
since the great revolution; it is her _rôle_ to-day. She is the
agitator of the old world, and agitation is the lever of reform.


[Illustration: George Sand]


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.

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, 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[567] 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.

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 referred to France, and in turn, I
salute republican America, which so often offers Europe examples of
good sense, wisdom and liberty."

At the second session was read a long and eloquent letter from
Salvatore Morelli,[568] 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--the same studies for
boys and girls, and coëducation--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.

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.[569] The chief duties of this committee were to be 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.

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,
_La Citoyenne_[570]; the reformers of the code are lead by Léon
Richer and his outspoken monthly, _Le Droit des Femmes_[571]; 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--and herein lies the
greatest and most dangerous obstacle that the reformers
encounter--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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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.

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 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 _La
Donna_, and in 1872 Aurelia Cimino Folliero de Luna established in
Florence _La Cornelia_, which has since ceased to exist, while in
1882 Ernesta Napollon began at Naples the publication of the
short-lived _L'Umanitario_, 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.

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.[572] 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 (_voto amministrativo_), 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.[573] Aurelia Cimino Folliero de Luna, says:

     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.

       *       *       *       *       *

Concepcion Arenal, the distinguished Spanish authoress, signals
several signs of progress in her country. This lady writes:

     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,--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.

     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 (_institutos_) 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.

     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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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:

     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:

          We are here a few old men, very fortunate gentlemen, in
          being excused from having to marry the girls you propose to
          bring up.

     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:

          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.

     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.

     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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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 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, _New Paths_ (_Neue Bahnen_), was
established as the organ of the association. It still exists. The
plan of holding annual conventions--much like those which have been
in progress in America for so many years--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
_Neue Bahnen_; 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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--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 _German Woman's
Advocate_ (_Deutcher Frauenanwalt_), 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 years
and is still at the head of this admirable society. She writes me:

     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."

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" (_Zeitfragen
und Abenteuer_) 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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 prizes for musical compositions. Johanna
Leitenberger, of Salzburg, writes:

     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 _Women's Universal
     Journal_ (_Allgemeine Frauen Zeitung_). This newspaper was wholly
     devoted to women's interest, but it soon died. The same thing is
     true of the _Women's Journal_ (_Frauenblätter_) of Gratz, which
     appeared for a short time under my editorship. * * * * On October
     9, 10, 11, 1872, the third German women's convention (_Deutsche
     Frauenkonferenz_) 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. * * * * 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.

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:

     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--a very important one, it
     must be confessed--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.

     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 their having done so. In southern
     Bohemia, a short time ago, a countess was chosen member of a
     provincial assembly (_okresni zastupitestvo_) 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.

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 _Zenské Listy_, 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:

     The club has always been in a most flourishing condition,
     although it has never had a constitution or by-laws to hold it
     together,--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 by the club as an
     honorable title, and from that time it formally called itself the
     "American Club."

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.

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:

     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.

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 Eoetvoes, the savant, poet and
philanthropist, who was minister of public instruction in 1867.
Women are employed in the postal and telegraphic service.

       *       *       *       *       *

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 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:

     A few of our women do not hesitate to participate in political
     and social discussions. The Union (_Unic_), a society which aims
     to promote popular interest in politics by meetings, debates,
     tracts, etc.; the Daybreak (_Dageraad_), 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.

Elise van Calcar, the veteran Dutch authoress, sums up the
situation in Holland, as follows:

     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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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:

     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.

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:

     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 longer strides in the direction of
     instruction than is the case with the present generation.

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:

     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.

Concerning the higher education of women Dr. van Diest writes:

     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 (_gradué-en-lettres_). 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
     _graduat_, 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.

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--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--divorce exists, excellent intermediate girls' schools were
created more than thirty years ago, and women are admitted to all
the university lectures. Marie Goegg, the untiring leader of the
movement in that country, writes me:

     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.

In March, 1868, Marie Goegg 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 Goegg 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. Goegg says:

     With the object of advancing the young movement, I established at
     my own risk a bi-monthly, the _Woman's Journal_ (_Journal des
     femmes_). But this was a violation of that good Latin motto,
     _festina lenté_, and, at the end of a few months the paper
     suspended publication. Swiss public opinion was not yet ready to
     support such a venture.

     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.

Two years later the International Association was revived in the
form of the Solidarity (_Solidarité_), whose name signified the
spirit which ought to unite all women. In 1875 Mrs. Goegg became
president of the new organization as well as founder and editor of
its organ, the _Solidarity Bulletin_ (_Bulletin de la Solidarité_).
But on September 20, 1880, both society and journal ceased to
exist. The president in her farewell address said:

     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.

The striking success of university coëducation in Switzerland calls
for a few words of notice. Mrs. Goegg writes:

     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.

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:

     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.

The rector of the university of Geneva wrote, February, 1883:

     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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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.

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 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.

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 _Home Review_
(_Tidskrift för Hemmet_), 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

If we cross the boundaries of Sweden into the sister kingdom of
Norway, we find the condition of woman absolutely changed.
"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--"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:

     The admission of women to the university is denied, but we
     recognize the necessity for changing the law on the subject.

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 (_examen artium_ and _examen philosophicum_). 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--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:

     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.

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 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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.

Denmark has produced several journals devoted to the interests of
women and edited by women. The _Friday_ (_Fredagen_), 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 _Woman's
Journal and Friday Society_, which appeared at Copenhagen in 1767,
under the anonymous editorship of a woman. The _Woman's Review_
(_Tidsskrift for Kvinder_) 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--the first journal in Denmark to take this radical step.

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 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:

     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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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--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 Zebrikoff, an able Russian
writer, sends me this curious information:

     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.

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--especially in medicine--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--for Russia thinks of medicine only in its relation to
the army--came to the aid of the new movement, and the medical
profession, though in a restricted manner, was thrown open to
women.[574] 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.

In literature Russian women take an active part; reviews,
magazines, and political journals counting many women among their
contributors and in some cases their directors. Writes Maria
Zebrikoff:

     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.

"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.

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--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 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.

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:

     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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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.

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
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.

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.

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--perhaps it would be better to say, with the spirit of
their classic ancestors. Primary, secondary and normal schools,
asylums, hospitals, societies--all for women and generally managed
by women--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:

     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.

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 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

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, 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."


FOOTNOTES:

[566] 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.--[THE
EDITORS.

[567] 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.

[568] 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" (_La Donna e la Scienza_), 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.

[569] 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.

[570] The office of this journal is 12, rue de Cail, Paris.

[571] The office of this journal is 4, rue des Deux-Gares, Paris.

[572] See the _Index_, of Boston, May 19, 1881, where I give in
full this remarkable speech.

[573] 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.

[574] 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.




CHAPTER LVIII.

REMINISCENCES.

BY E. C. S.


Reaching 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.

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 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.

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--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 Phoebe 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.

Among the young women, Mrs. Fawcett, Mrs. Charles McLaren, Mrs.
Scatcherd, Miss Henrietta Müller, Mrs. Fenwick 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[575] and his charming wife.

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,[576]
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
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.

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.

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 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.

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
_recherché_ 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.

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. 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 _Suffrage Journal_ 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.

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--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.

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,[577] 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 properly appreciating the
democratic principles it is our interest to cherish at home.

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--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.

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.

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 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."

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.

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 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,[578] than on that evening.

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.

There, too, I met some Positivists, who, though quite reasonable on
religious questions, were very narrow on the sphere of 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.

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."

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.

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
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.

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.

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.

We went with Mrs. Lucas to a meeting of the Salvation army, in
Exeter Hall, which holds 5,000 people. It was literally packed--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, _The War Cry_, 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 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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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--then a young bar-maid, now the aged proprietor.

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.

At Dublin she visited the Castle, the old parliament building, now
a bank; Kings and Queens College, that gives diplomas to 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.

There Miss Anthony made the acquaintance of numbers of excellent
Friends,[579] 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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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
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.

It was a pleasant surprise to meet the large number of Americans
usually at the receptions of Mrs. Peter Taylor.[580] 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 extending it. John Stuart Mill, too,
was always opposed to the exclusion of married women in the demand
for suffrage.

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.

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.

But this experience did not satisfy the "Napoleon of our 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.

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--a swarming, seething mass whom nobody
owns--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.

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 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."

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.[581] 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.

We heard Mr. Fawcett speak to his Hackney constituents at 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.

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 her through all dangers. It added much to my comfort in
this visit to have an escort in Mrs. Lucas.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 _débris_, she said, "Charles,
remove this." I was filled with admiration at her coolness, and
devoutly thankful that we Americans maintained an equally dignified
silence.

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.[582]

Mrs. Thomasson, daughter of Mrs. Lucas, gave several delightful
evening parties,[583] 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
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.

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 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[584] 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.

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.

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 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.

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,[585] 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.

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 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.

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.

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.


FOOTNOTES:

[575] 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.

[576] 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.

[577] 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.

[578] 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."

[579] 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.

[580] 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.

[581] 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.

[582] 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.

[583] 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.

[584] 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.

[585] 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:

"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

"_Resolved_, That we do here appoint a committee of correspondence,
preparatory to forming an International Woman Suffrage Association.

"_Resolved_, That the committee consist of the following friends,
with power to add to their number:

"_For the American Center_--Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Miss Susan
B. Anthony, Miss Rachel Foster. _London Center_--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. _Manchester Center_--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. _Bristol
Center_--Miss Helen Bright Clarke, Street; Mrs. Alfred Ostler,
Birmingham; Miss Priestman, Bristol. _Center for Scotland_--Mrs.
Duncan McLaren, Mrs. Elizabeth Pease Nichol, Miss Eliza Wigham,
Edinburgh. _Center for Ireland_--Miss Tod, Belfast; Mrs. Haslam,
Dublin. _Center for France_--M'lle Hubertine Auclert, Mr. and Mrs.
Theodore Stanton, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Paris.




APPENDIX.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER XXVII.

THE CENTENNIAL YEAR.

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: _Maine_, Lavinia M. Snow, Lucy A. Snow; _New Hampshire_,
Marilla M. Ricker, Abby P. Ela; _Massachusetts_, E. T. Strickland,
Sarah E. Wall; _Rhode Island_, Paulina Wright Davis; _Connecticut_,
Isabella Beecher Hooker, Frances Ellen Burr, Julia and Abby Smith;
_New York_, Clemence S. Lozier, Henrietta Paine Westbrook, Nettie
A. Ford, Elizabeth B. Phelps, Charlotte A. Cleveland, Elizabeth M.
Atwell; _Pennsylvania_, E. A. Stetson Lozier, Anna Thomson; _New
Jersey_, Ellen Dickinson, S. Mary Clute, Mary M. Van Clief, S. H.
Cornell, Emma L. Wilde, Jennie Dixon, Casa Tonti, Marie Howland,
Lucinda B. Chandler; _District of Columbia_, 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; _Virginia_, Sally Holly, Carrie Putnam; _Kentucky_,
Annie Laurie Quinby; _Tennessee_, Elizabeth Avery Meriwether;
_Louisiana_, Elizabeth Lisle Saxon; _Michigan_, Sarah C. Owen,
Margaret J. E. Millar; _Illinois_, A. J. Grover, Edward P. Powell,
Cynthia A. Leonard, Susan H. Richardson; _Missouri_, Francis Minor,
Annie R. Irvine; _California_, Sarah L. Knox, Sarah J. Wallis,
Carrie M. Robinson, Mary E. Kellogg, Georgiana Bruce Kirby;
_Oregon_, Mrs. A. J. Johns, Eveline Merrick Roork, Charles A. Reed;
_Washington Territory_, Mary Olney Brown, Abby H. H. Stuart; _Utah
Territory_, Annie Godbe; _Iowa_, 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;
_Wisconsin_, Laura Ross Wolcott, M. Josephine Pearce, Eliza T.
Wilson, H. S. Brown; _Minnesota_, Sarah Burger Stearns; _Kansas_,
Susan E. Wattles, Elsie Stewart, Henrietta L. Miller, Lottie
Griffin, Jane M. Burke, Malura Hickson, Elsie J. Miller;
_Colorado_, Alida C. Avery; _Ohio_, Sarah R. L. Williams, Margaret
V. Longley; _England_, Lydia E. Becker, Caroline A. Biggs, Jessie
M. Wellstood.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER XXX.

CONSTITUTION OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.

ARTICLE 1. This organization shall be called the NATIONAL WOMAN
SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION.

ARTICLE 2. The object of this Association shall be to secure
NATIONAL Protection for women in the exercise of their right to
vote.

ARTICLE 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.

ARTICLE 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.

ARTICLE 5. A quorum of the Executive Committee shall consist of
nine, and all officers of this Association shall be _ex-officio_
members of the committee, with power to vote.

ARTICLE 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.

OFFICERS OF THE NATIONAL WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION, 1886.

_President_--Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Tenafly, N. J.

_Vice-Presidents-at-Large_--Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.;
Matilda Joslyn Gage, Fayetteville, N. Y.; Rev. Olympia Brown,
Racine, Wis.; Phoebe W. Couzins, St. Louis, Mo.; Abigail Scott
Duniway, Portland, Ore.

_Honorary Vice-Presidents_--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.

_Vice-Presidents_--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 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.

_Executive Committee_--May Wright Sewall, _Chairman_, 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.

_Recording Secretaries_--Julia A. Wilbur, Caroline A. Sherman,
Washington, D. C.

_Corresponding Secretaries_--Rachel G. Foster, Philadelphia, Penn.;
Ellen H. Sheldon, Washington, D. C.

_Foreign Corresponding Secretaries_--Caroline A. Biggs, London;
Lydia E. Becker, Manchester, England; Marguerite Berry Stanton,
Hubertine Auclert, Charlotte B. Wilbour, Paris, France; Clara
Neymann, Berlin, Germany.

_Treasurer_--Jane H. Spofford, Riggs House, Washington, D. C.

_Auditors_--Eliza T. Ward, Ellen M. O'Connor, Washington, D. C.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER XXXII.

CONNECTICUT.

_Is the Family the Basis of the State?_

BY JOHN HOOKER.

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 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.

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.

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 _particular_ State that they have any meaning. "Is it cold
in Russia?" "Is English spoken in Connecticut?"

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--not the family--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 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.

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--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.

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.

_Hartford, May, 1879._

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER XXXVII.

NEW YORK.

     _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._

BY HAMILTON WILCOX.

I. LEGISLATURE OMNIPOTENT.--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.

"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).

"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).

"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).

II. POWERS UNDEFINED.--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).

III. NO PROHIBITION.--No constitution of New York has ever
forbidden the 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.

IV. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.--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.

V. DISFRANCHISEMENT.--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.

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.

Women, it is now fully recognized, are citizens, and hence "members
of the State," entitled to the security guaranteed. The _practice_
under the constitution has been to treat as _disfranchised_ all
persons _not specified_ 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.

VI. PRECEDENTS.--The legislature _has_ repeatedly corrected this
practice by express enactments securing freedom to various portions
of the people.

(_a_). CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1801.--The act calling this
convention extended the suffrage for members of that body--_the
highest officers of the State_--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).

(_b_). CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, 1821.--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--this act allowed
_all_ 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--_again for the highest
officers of the State_--and to vote on the question of adoption of
the new constitution--_to exercise a voice in framing the State's
fundamental law_. 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).

The vote for governor, 1820, was 93,437--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 _fifty
thousand persons_. The vote on the new constitution stood: For,
74,732; against, 41,402; majority for, 33,330. Thus the votes of
fifty thousand persons--enfranchised, not by the constitution but
by the legislature--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--the next
hotly-contested election--was 190,545; so that the immediate effect
of the legislature's act was to add 97,108 persons to the
constituency--to make a mass of new voters who outnumbered those
specified by the constitution.

(_c_). ALIENS VOTING.--The constitution specifies none but
"citizens" as entitled to vote; yet the legislature, by a school
law of many years' standing, allowed _aliens_ 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).

(_d_). NORTHFIELD.--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).

(_e_). 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).

(_f_). 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).

(_g_). 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).

VII. SCHOOL SUFFRAGE.--If the legislature can admit aliens to vote
at school-meetings, it can admit female citizens to do so.

VIII. PRESIDENTIAL SUFFRAGE.--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).

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).

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.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER XXXVIII.

PENNSYLVANIA.

BY CARRIE S. BURNHAM.

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,
_First_--To ascertain her condition under the common law;
_Second_--How this law has been modified in this State by statutes.


COMMON LAW.

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).

"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 to her
earnings--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.)

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).

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).

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 _trespass vi et armis_ 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).

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).

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 _choses_ 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).

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. e._, 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. _His_ 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).

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).

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
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).

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).

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 _auter droit_ 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).

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).

When a woman marries after having commenced a suit, the suit
abates; but the husband may _in equity_ 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).

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).

"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).

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).

"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).


PENNSYLVANIA STATUTES AND COURT DECISIONS.

This "perfection of reason" (the common law) has been changed in
Pennsylvania in the following particulars:

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).

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).

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; _provided_, that he is not liable for the
debts contracted before or after marriage, or for her torts
(Purdon's Dig., 1,005, 13).

"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).

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).

In a clear case the wife's real estate cannot be levied upon and
sold by a creditor of the husband, _but the burden of proof_ 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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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 _habeas corpus_ if unlawfully
restrained of her liberty (Purd. Dig., 510, 12; 513, 24; 754, 1).

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 "_feme sole trader_,"
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).

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).

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).

The husband may bar the wife's dower by a _bona fide_ 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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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).

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.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER XLII.

INDIANA.

[A.]

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. 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.


EXTRACT FROM GEN. COBURN'S ADDRESS.

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.


[B.]

LEGAL OPINION BY W. D. WALLACE, ESQ., UPON THE POWER OF THE
LEGISLATURE TO AUTHORIZE WOMEN TO VOTE FOR PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.

_Capt. W. DeWitt Wallace, Attorney-at-law, Lafayette, Ind.:_

DEAR SIR: 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?

                               MARY F. THOMAS, _President I. W. S. A._

_Richmond, Ind._, December 30, 1880.


                                      LAFAYETTE, Ind., January 5, 1881.

_Dr. Mary F. Thomas, President of Indiana Woman Suffrage
Association, Richmond, Indiana:_

DEAR MADAM: 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 electors appointed by the several States, declares in
the following words how said electors shall be appointed:

     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.

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.

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 * * * *
shall be entitled to vote in the township or precinct where he may
reside.

Two questions at once suggest themselves upon the reading of this
section: _First_--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? _Second_--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.

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
_Ex-Parte_ Henry E. Hayne, _et al._, 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:

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.

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:

     The constitution prescribes that States only shall choose
     electors. * * * 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.--[Electoral Commission, p. 242.

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:

     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.--[2 Story on Constitution, section
     1,472.

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:

     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 _appoint_, 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. * * * It was not until years afterward that the
     electors were chosen by vote.--[Electoral Commission, p. 252.

Senator Frelinghuysen, also a member of the Electoral Commission,
thus speaks of the practice in the several States:

     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.--[Electoral Commission, p. 204.

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:

     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. * * * 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.--[Electoral Commission, p. 200.

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).

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:

     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 _must_ be, exercised by the legislature in
     _virtue_ of _powers confided_ 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 _unlimited_ 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 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? * * * 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 _own view_ of _public policy_ and
     _principle_; and yet this proposition compels it to surrender all
     discretion. In my humble judgment * * * it is a direct and
     palpable infringement of the constitutional provisions to which I
     have referred.--[Electoral Commission, p. 186.

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
_it_ may direct," etc., but it is, "each State shall appoint in
such manner as the _legislature_ thereof may direct," etc.

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
_them_ 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.

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 _organized_ 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 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.

                                             W. DE WITT WALLACE.


[C.]

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.

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.

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.

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 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."

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.

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.

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.


[D.]

GOV. PORTER'S BIENNIAL MESSAGE, 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."


[E.]

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.

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.


[F.]

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.

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.

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.

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.


[G.]

The friends of woman's equality addressed the following petition to
each member of the State legislature:

Being personally acquainted with Mrs. SARAH A. OREN, and knowing
her to be a woman of refinement and culture, we can consistently
urge upon you a favorable consideration 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
_made fatherless by a rebel bullet_ 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.[586]

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.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER XLVII.

MINNESOTA.

[A.]

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.


[B.]

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: _Mille Lacs County_,
Olive R. Barker; _Pine_, Ella Gorton; _Lac Qui Parle_, Malena P.
Kirley; _Anoka_, Mrs. Catharine J. Pierce, Mrs. Ellen Conforth,
Miss Dailey; _Benton_, Mrs. Belle Graham, Mrs. E. K. Whitney;
_Cottonwood_, Mrs. E. C. Huntington, Mrs. B. J. Banks, Mrs. L.
Huntington; _Dodge_, Mrs. Mary Powell Wheeler, Mrs. P. L. Dart,
Mrs. J. W. Willard, Barbara Van Allen; _Dakota_, Mrs. Martha
Wallace, Harriet E. Jones, Mrs. C. H. Day, Mrs. C. Teachout, Nellie
Duff, Mary Mather, Anna Manners, Jennie Horton; _Freeborn_, Mrs. J.
B. Foote, Mrs. D. R. Hibbs, Mrs. A. W. Johnson, Mrs. J. H.
Pickard; _Fillmore_, Charlotte Taeor, Margaret Hood, Mrs. M. E.
Molstad, Mrs. A. E. Harsh; _Fairbault_, Jane Harris, Georgia Adams,
Mrs. A. B. Thorp, Mrs. Levi Crump, Mrs. R. C. Smith, Mary Rumage,
Mrs. L. A. Scott; _Goodhue_, Mrs. H. A. Hobart; _Brown_, Mrs. O. B.
Ingraham; _Douglass_, Mrs. M. C. Lewis, Mrs. J. B. Van Hoesen, Mrs.
Trask; _Houston_, Mrs. Annie M. Carpenter; _Hennepin_, Angelina
Dupont, Mrs. M. F. Taylor; _Lyon_, Louise M. Ferro, M. D., Mrs. W.
C. Robinson, Mertie Caley; _Mower_, Mrs. W. H. Parker, Mrs. V. J.
Duffy, Mrs. J. F. Rockwell, Mrs. E. Hoppin, Sarah M. Dean;
_Marshall_, Mrs. L. H. Stone; _Meeker_, Mrs. A. R. Jackman, Mrs.
Orin Whitney, Mary E. Ferguson; _Martin_, Mrs. J. W. Fuller, Mrs.
M. E. St. John, Mary E. Harvey, Mary A. McLean; _Olmstead_, Adelle
Moore, Jane Haggerty, Mrs. R. S. Carver; _Polk_, Mrs. M. C. Perrin,
Mrs. J. A. Barnum; _Ramsey_, Mrs. B. McGuire, Annie E. Dunn; _St.
Louis_, Sarah Burger Stearns; _Winona_, Dr. Adaline Williams;
_Stevens_ county reports one lady serving as school-district
treasurer; _Otter Tail_ county reports six ladies serving in
different places; _Wright_ county, four serving as clerks of
school-districts; and in _Beeker_ county it is said ladies
sometimes serve as deputies during their husbands' absence.


[C.]

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.

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.


[D.]

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.

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.

Among the teachers in the normal schools of the State are the
following:

_Winona_--Martha Brechbill, Sophia L. Haight, Jennie Ellis, Sarah
E. Whittaker, Kate L. Sprague, Vienna Dodge, Ada L. Mitchell, Anna
C. Foekens, Rena M. Mead, Mary E. Couse, B. S.

_Mankato Normal School_--Helen M. Philips, Defransa A. Swan, Anna
McCutcheon, Genevieve S. Hawley, Mary E. Hutcheson, Eliza A.
Cheney, Charity A. Green, M. Adda Holton.

_St. Cloud Normal School_--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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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--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
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--no more, no
less.


[E.]

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.

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.

The board of officers of the Sisters of Bethany has for many years
consisted of: _President_, Mrs. Charlotte O. Van Cleve;
_Vice-President_, Mrs. Euphemia N. Overlock; _Secretary_, Mrs.
Harriet G. Walker; _Treasurer_, Mrs. Abbie G. Mendenhall.

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.

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.


[F.]

Portrait and landscape-painters in oil and water-colors, who give
promise of success: _Minneapolis_, 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; _St. Paul_, 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. C. B.
Grant, Jennie Lynch, Miss Wilson, Miss Lilla Inness, Mrs. George
Eastman, Mrs. Paine, Mrs. Fannie Smith, Miss Alice Page, Mrs.
Hunter; _Winona_, Mrs. W. Ely, Mrs. Ella Newell, Miss D. E. Barr;
_Lake City_, Mrs. H. B. Sargent, Mrs. J. G. Richardson, Bessie
Milliken; _Stillwater_, Sadie S. Clark, Miss Field, Sarah Murdock;
_Albert Lea_, Birdie Slocum; _Fairbault_, Grace McKinster, Miss S.
E. Cook; _Litchfield_, Mrs. Carter; _Alexandria_, Mamie Lewis; _St.
Cloud_, Mary Clarke; _Fergus Falls_, Mrs. Wurtle; _Owatonna_, Mrs.
D. O. Searles; _Duluth_, 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.

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, "_noblesse oblige_," 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.


[G.]

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.

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.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER LIII.

CALIFORNIA.

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.

In San Francisco we must not omit the venerable Eliza Taylor, a
sweet-faced Quaker, eighty years of age, nor Fanny Green
McDougall--"Aunt" Fanny, as we loved to call her--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,[587] 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.

Hon. Philip A. Roach, often a prominent official of the State, and
for many years editor of the _Daily Examiner_, 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 _Daily Post_, 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 _City Argus_,
Hon. Frank Pixley of the _Argonaut_, ex-Gov. James A. Johnson of
the _Daily Alta_, Alfred Cridge, esq., Dr. R. B. Murphy, N. Hawks,
W. H. Barnes of _The Call_, O. Dearing, Hon. W. W. Marrow, Hon.
Charles A. Sumner, representative in congress; Hon. J. B. Webster
of the _California Patron_, 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.

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
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.

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. Phoebe 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.

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 _Russian River Flag_, 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.

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--Rev. John
Benton and wife, Professor E. Carr and wife, Mrs. C. C. 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 _San Joaquin Valley Argus_, 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 _San José Mercury_; 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.

       *       *       *       *       *

CHAPTER LVI.

GREAT BRITAIN.

A CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE SUCCESSIVE STEPS OF PROGRESS TOWARDS
FREEDOM FOR WOMEN.

     1848. Queen's College, Harley street, London, founded for girls.

     1849. Bedford College, London, founded; incorporated, 1869.

     1850. North London Collegiate School for girls opened by Miss
     Buss, April 4.

     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.

     1856. Female Artists' Society founded.

     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.

     1858. _Englishwoman's Journal_ started (now _Englishwoman's
     Review_) by Bessie R. Parkes and Mdme. Bodichon, March 2....
     First swimming bath for ladies, opened in Marylebone, July 14.

     1859. Society for the Employment of Women established in London,
     June 22.

     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).

     1861. Lectures on Physiology to ladies at University College,
     April.

     1862. Social Science Congress in London; though not the first
     time ladies had read papers at the congress--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.

     1863. Establishment of Queen's Institute, Dublin, for industrial
     training of women.

     1864. Female Medical and Obstetrical Society begun.... Working
     Women's College, Queen's Square, opened October 26.

     1865. Miss Garrett receives her medical diploma from
     Apothecaries' Hall.

     1866. A petition of 1,500 women for the franchise presented, and
     the first women's suffrage society formed.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     1870. Publication of _Women's Suffrage Journal_ 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.).

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     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.

     1881. Sydney University (New South Wales) admits women to
     matriculation and degrees.... New Zealand University confers
     title of M. A. on a woman, August.... 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.

     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.

     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.--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.

     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.

     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.


FOOTNOTES:

[586] 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.

[587] Mrs. Hill was President of the San Francisco Woman Suffrage
Society for three years prior to her death in 1884.




INDEX

TO

THE HISTORY OF WOMAN SUFFRAGE.

Compiled by JOHN WEINHEIMER of _The New York Tribune_.


  A.

  Abelard, i, 759.

  Abbott, Francis, iii, 127.

  Adam and Eve, i, 561.

  Adams, Abigail Smith, i, 32, 201.

  Adams, Hannah, author, i, 205.

  Adams, John, i, 31, iii, 79.

  Adams, John Q., iii, 479.

  Adams, Mary N., lecturer, iii, 614.

  Addresses and appeals, i, 106, 595, 676, 742, 856; ii, 51, 67, 167,
    168, 364, 485, 517; iii, 58, 129, 580.

  Adelbert College, iii, 498.

  _Agitator_, ii, 373, iii, 274.

  Agrippa, Cornelius, i, 29.

  Alabama, iii, 830.

  _Albany Evening Journal_, ii, 282.

  _Albany Knickerbocker_ on woman's rights, i, 611.

  _Albany Register_ on woman's rights, i, 608, 609, 610, 611.

  _Albany Law Journal_, ii, 691, 947.
    --on "our laws," iii, 94.

  Alcibiades and the dog, ii, 103.

  Alcott, A. Bronson, iii, 193
    --on woman suffrage, iii, 519.

  Alcott, Abby May, appeal, i, 247.

  Alcott, Louisa May, letter to Mrs. Stone, ii, 831.

  Alexander, Janet, iii, 298.

  Allen, Jane, case of, ii, 592.

  Allen, Nancy R., argument before Senate Committee, iii, 160
    --legacy, iii, 624
    --Notary Public, made, iii, 626.

  Allen, Sophia Ober, iii, 502.

  Almanac, Woman's Rights, i, 863.

  Amberly, Lady, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 439.

  AMERICAN EQUAL RIGHTS ASSOCIATION:
    --"colored," the word, discussion, ii, 214
    --Constitution, ii, 173
    --Meetings:
      Academy of Music (Brooklyn), ii, 398,
      Church of the Puritans, ii, 182,
      Cooper Institute, ii, 309,
      Steinway Hall, ii, 378
    --Memorial to Congress, ii, 226
    --name changed to "Nat. Woman Suffrage Association," ii, 400
    --officers, ii, 174
    --organized, ii, 173
    --letter of B. F. Wade, ii, 117
    --report, Susan B. Anthony's, ii, 183.

  American flag, design, i, 323.

  AMERICAN WOMAN SUFFRAGE ASSOCIATION, ii, 756
    --Celebration of Woman Suffrage in New Jersey, ii, 846
    --constitution of, ii, 763
    --conventions:
      call for first, ii, 757,
      Baltimore, 820,
      Brooklyn in Plymouth Church, 831,
      Cincinnati, O., 854,
      Cleveland, O., 802,
      Detroit, Mich., 834,
      Indianapolis, Ind., 851,
      Louisville, Ky., 861,
      New York City in Apollo Hall, 821,
      in Cooper Institute, 825,
      in Steinway Hall, 809, 840,
      Philadelphia, 815, 849,
      St. Louis, Mo., 821,
      Washington, D. C., 819, 858
    --letter, circular, ii, 757
    --members received at the White House by Mrs. Hayes, ii., 860
    --memorial to Congress, ii., 859,
      referred to Committee on Territories, 860
    --report of chairman of Executive Committee, ii, 803
    --resolutions, ii, 805, 809, 810, 818, 826, 837, 843, 849, 851, 859.

  Ames, Chas. G., i, 271, ii, 844, iii, 754.

  Amnesty, universal, ii, 315.

  Amos, Sheldon, on vice, i, 796.

  Anderson, Geo. W., iii, 699.

  Andrews, Margaret H., letter to S. J. May, i, 531.

  Angell, John W., iii, 341.

  Ann Arbor University, ii, 541.

  Annekè, Franceska, i, 571, ii, 374, 393
    --sketch of, iii, 646.

  Anniversaries, _See Conventions_.

  Anthony, Daniel, Lucy and Mary, i. 461.

  Anthony, Hon, Henry B., on woman suffrage, i, 867, ii, 106, 273
    --Pembina Territory bill, on the, ii, 568
    --Sargent's amendment to the Pembina Territory bill, on, _ib._
    --suffrage on, iii, 339
    --woman suffrage, his last utterance on, iii, 350.

  ANTHONY, Susan B., i, 186, 465, 467,468, 476, 485, 487, 489, 490, 500,
    501, 515, 517, 526, 570, 589, 591, 607, 624, 653, 673, 679, 716;
    ii, 66, 67, 116, 154, 220, 286, 287, 322, 360, 361, 363, 375, 382,
    389, 391, 427, 431, 437, 442, 456, 582, 584, 760; iii, 3, 40, 66,
    151, 175, 178, 195, 243, 257, 412, 502, 560, 580, 630, 641, 697,
    773, 811, 819
    --Abolitionists, and the, ii, 264
    --American Equal Rights Association, ii, 117, 171
    --appeal for woman rights, 1854, i, 856
    --appeal to Congress, ii, 167
    --argument before Illinois Legislature, iii, 572
    --argument before Senate Committee, iii, 160, 227
    --arrest of, ii, 628
    --arrest, incidents of, ii, 539
    --arrest, resolution concerning, ii, 537
    --birthday celebrated in Indianapolis, iii, 538
    --"Bloomer," in a, i, 128
    --bonnet and Noah's ark, iii, 522
    --"Bread and Ballot," iii, 536
    --California visit, iii, 756
    --call, loyal women, ii, 53
    --Centennial Exhibition, at the, iii, 27
    --complimented by Judge Edmunds, iii, 160
    --Constitutional Convention at Albany, before, ii, 284
    --corruptionist, as a, ii, 936
    --Declaration of Rights, reads, at Centennial, iii, 31
    --delegate to Democratic National Convention, ii, 340,
    --comments of the press, ii, 342
    --Democratic National Convention, at the, iii, 182
    --_feme sole_ capable of making a contract, iii, 21
    --Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, 340
    --financial report, ii, 175
    --fugitive wife's escape from an insane asylum, aids, i, 469
    --general agent, appointed, i, 619
    --Grant and Wilson  campaign, appeal, ii, 517
    --Grant, U. S., conversation with, ii, 544
    --Iowa, in, iii, 622
    --Kansas campaign, i, 200, ii, 239, 254, 261, 262, 263
    --lecture, "False Theory," iii, 675
    --lecturing tour, Ohio, iii, 491
    --Letters: Boston Convention, i, 256
      --Brooks, James, to, ii, 97
      --Carson League, i, 488
      --Democratic National Convention, to, ii, 340
      --Foote, E. B., to, ii, 941
      --Garfield. Jas. A., to, iii, 185
      --loyal women, from, ii, 875
      --Mott, Lydia, to, i, 748
      --Stanton, Mrs., to, announcing her having voted, ii, 934
      --Wright, Martha C, to, i, 678.
    --Logan, Olive, and, ii, 385
    --"Male" in the Constitution, on the  word, ii, 91
    --manhood suffrage, on, iii, 566
    --marriage and divorce, on, i, 735
    --meeting in Rahway, N. J., iii, 479
    --meetings in Virginia, iii, 824
    --Michigan campaign, iii, 522
    --Napoleon of Woman Suffrage, the, i, 456
    --Newport Convention, ii, 403
    --on Mrs. Robert Dale Owen, i, 303
    --Oregon visit, iii,  769
    --police officer, and the, ii, 540
    --portrait, i, 577
    --President Mozart Hall Convention, i, 668
    --President National Woman Suffrage Association, ii, 516
    --presentations, iii, 193
    --reception, Sorosis,  iii, 571
    --registered, ii, 627
    --reminiscences, Mrs. E. C. Stanton's, i, 456
    --report, National Convention, at Cooper Institute, i, 689
    --report as secretary of American Equal Rights Association, ii, 183
    --_Revolution_, i, 46
    --Secretary Loyal League, made, ii, 66
    --sex, and her, ii, 112
    --Speeches: Anti-Slavery question, ii, 898
      --Congressional Committee, before, ii, 414, 513
      --first public speech, i, 41
      --Furness' Church, in, iii, 35
      --Is It a Crime for a United States' Citizen to Vote? ii, 630
      --Philadelphia Convention, i, 385
      --Saratoga Convention, i, 621
      --Teachers' Convention, N. Y. State, i, 513
      --Temperance Convention, Rochester, i, 483
      --Washington Convention, ii, 423, 521
      --Washington Convention, iii, 259
      --Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 57, 61.
    --Suffrage, on, ii, 383
    --tableau "Mother and Susan," i, 461
    --Taxation without Representation, on, ii, 539
    --Temperance Convention at Rochester, read call, i, 481
    --testimonial, i, 534
    --tour, western, ii, 367
    --tour with Ernestine L. Rose, i, 97
    --tracts, Kansas campaign, ii, 239
    --tracts and petitions, on, i, 383
    --Train, G. F., and _The Revolution_, criticism, ii, 264
    --Trial:
      --Arrest, ii, 628
      --argument, Crowley's, ii, 648, 675
      --argument, Judge Selden's, ii, 654
      --bail, refused to give, ii, 629
      --case opened by Judge Selden, ii, 652
      --Gage, Matilda J., Letter to _Albany Law Journal_, ii, 947
      --guilty, Court directs a verdict of, ii, 679
      --Hunt's, Judge, decision, ii, 677
      --Hunt's decision criticised, ii, 689
      --Hunt's decision reviewed, ii, 946
      --incidents, ii, 537
      --indictment, ii, 647
      --inspectors of elections, _See trials and decisions_
      --Jones, B. W., testimony, ii, 650
      --letter from Gerrit Smith, ii, 941
      --trial, new, denied, ii, 687
      --trial, new, motion for, ii, 680
      --opening of, ii, 647
      --petition to Congress praying for remission of fine, ii, 698
      --reports, majority and minority, ii, 701, 711
      --Pound, J. E., testimony ii, 653
      --press comments, ii, 935
      --resolutions concerning, ii, 537
      --Selden's letter, ii, 935
      --sentenced to pay a fine of $100, ii, 687
      --testimony in trial of election inspectors, ii, 692
      --Washington gossip, ii, 943.
    --Tribute, "Aunt Lottie's," iii, 41
    --tribute, to Laura C. Haviland, iii, 532
    --tribute, from _The Leavenworth Commercial_ (Kansas), ii, 263
    --tribute to Lucretia Mott, iii, 189
    --tribute, St. Louis Convention, iii, 147
    --tribute, Scovill's, ii, 420
    --visit to Lucretia Mott, i, 414
    --voted for Grant for President, ii, 628
    --letter announcing her having voted, ii, 934
    --Washington Territory Legislature, hearing before, iii, 786
    --Wyoming visit, iii, 734.

  Anti-Slavery struggle, i, 39, 52, 54, 323, 325, 339, 417
    --Josephine Griffing and Freedman's Bureau, ii, 29
    --Society reorganized, ii, 153.

  Anti-Woman Suffrage Society, iii, 99.

  Antonelli's, Cardinal, sacrilegious child, i, 788.

  Appendix, i, 801, ii, 863, iii, 955.

  Archer, Stevenson, iii, 816.

  Arkansas, iii, 805
    --Constitutional Convention, iii, 806.

  Arnell's services in Congress, ii, 489, 491.

  Arnett, Hannah, i, 442.

  Art and artists, iii, 301.

  Ashley, Henry, iii, 319.

  Ashley, J. M., speech in Congress, iii, 495.

  Astell, Mary, i, 30.

  Attorneys, ii, 604.

  Augustine, i, 756.

  Austin, Helen V., sketch of, i, 312.

  Austria, iii, 904.

  Autograph book, Centennial, iii, 40.

  Avery, Alida C., iii, 719.


  B.

  Ballard, Anna, iii, 407.

  Ballot, the, ii, 168
    --Sumner on the, ii, 95
    --what is the, ii, 155.

  _Ballot-Box_, iii, 51, 504.

  Banks, N. P., speech, iii, 10.

  Banquet, St. James Hotel, ii, 441.

  Bar, admission to the, iii, 330.

  Barber, Miss, i, 807.

  Barkaloo, Helena, lawyer, iii, 404.

  Barker, Jos., i, 114
    --Pulpit, on the, i, 140.

  Barnum, P. T., i, 503.

  Barstow, Hon. A. C., i, 499
    --battle-field, services on the, ii, 23
    --letters to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 916.

  Barton, Clara, appeal to soldier friends, ii, 418.

  Bascom, Emma C, letter to S. B. Anthony, iii, 647.

  Batchelder, Mrs. Dr. L. S., on working women, ii, 389.

  "Battle Hymn of the Republic," ii, 18.

  Battle of Lexington, commemoration of, iii, 414.

  Baxter, Richard, on witchcraft, i, 765.

  Bayard, Thos. F., ii, 567, 576; iii, 205-6.

  Beck, Senator, on woman suffrage, iii, 209.

  Becker, Lydia E., letters, iii, 62, 121, 249.

  Beecher, Catharine E., ii, 787, iii, 399.

  Beecher, Edward, ii, 368, iii, 566.

  BEECHER, Henry Ward, Kansas campaign, ii, 265
    --letter to American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in
      St. Louis, ii, 825
    --letter to Lucy Stone, Presidency American Woman Suffrage
      Association, ii, 808
    --letter to Washington Convention, ii, 496
    --President of American Woman Suffrage Association, made, ii, 764
    --speeches, ii, 156, 216, 399, 766, 774; iii, 52
    --suffrage, universal, and, ii, 315
    --Tilton colloquy, ii, 167
    --Tilton trial, i, 789
    --woman's right to vote, on, i, 620.

  Beecher, Lyman, i, 393.

  Belgium, iii, 909.

  Bell, Lydia, iii, 693.

  Bell, Dr. T. S., ii, 862.

  Bellows, Dr., on woman's rights, i, 245.

  Bennett, Dr. Alice, iii, 472.

  Bennett, James Gordon, i, 546.

  Bentham, Jeremy, iii, 836.

  Bequests, i, 257, 258, 667, 742.

  Berlin, iii, 903.

  Berlin Congress, ii, 404.

  Bible, Antoinette L. Brown's points, i, 535
    --divorce, and, i, 213
    --interpolations, i, 797
    --revision, i, 798
    --woman and the, discussion, i, 380.

  Biggs, Caroline A., letter to S. B. Anthony, iii, 250
    --letter to Rochester Convention, iii, 120
    --letter to Washington Convention, iii, 261.

  Biggs, Emily J., iii, 702.

  Bingham, Anson, i, 687, ii, 461.

  BIOGRAPHY: Austin, Helen V., i, 312
    --Blake, Lillie D., iii, 408
    --Barton, Clara, ii, 23
    --Boyd, Louise V., i, 312
    --Brown, Olympia, iii, 646
    --Clark, Mary T., i, 312
    --Colby, Clara B., iii, 670
    --Collins, Emily, i, 88
    --Davis, Paulina Wright, by "E. C. S.", i, 283
    --Duniway, Abigail S., iii, 768
    --Griffing, Josephine Sophie, ii, 26
    --Lozier, Clemence, iii, 411
    --Morrow, Jane, i, 313
    --Owen, Mary Robinson, i, 313
    --Owen, Robert Dale, i, 293
    --Rose, Ernestine, i, 95
    --Swank, Emma B., i, 313
    --Thomas, Mary F., i, 314
    --Underhill, Sarah E., i, 313
    --Warren, Mercy Otis, in the Revolution, i, 201
    --Way, Amanda M., i, 311
    --Wright, Frances, i, 35.

  Bird, Frank W., iii, 194.

  Birdsall, Mary B., sketch of, i, 313.

  Bittenbender, Ada M., sketch of, iii, 692.

  Blackstone on the canon law, i, 771.

  BLACKWELL, Antoinette L. B., ii, 760
    --letter to Cooper Institute Convention, i, 862
    --marriage and divorce, on, i, 723
    --speech at American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in New York,
      ii, 841
    --Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 69.
    (See Brown, A. L.)

  BLACKWELL, Elizabeth, i, 37, 78
    --letter to Emily Collins, i, 90
    --letter to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, 831
    --physician, as a, i, 94
    --sanitary commission, ii, 13.

  BLACKWELL, Henry B., ii, 382
    --Kansas Campaign, ii, 232, 235
    --South, on the, ii, 929
    --speech at American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Steinway
      Hall, ii, 811
    --at American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Cooper
      Institute, ii, 830
    --Cleveland Convention, i, 126, ii, 780
    --President of Am. Woman Suffrage Association, made, ii, 856
    --_Vermont Watchman_, on, iii, 386
    --Woman Suffrage in New Jersey, on, ii, 846.

  BLAKE, Lillie Devereux, iii, 74, 223, 483
    --Argument before House Committee, iii, 163
    --sketch of, iii, 408
    --Dix's Lenten lectures, her reply to, iii, 436
    --lectures "Woman's Place to-day," iii, 436
    --Washington Convention '76, iii, 7
    --Washington Convention, at, ii, 541
    --Fable, "The Selfish Rats," iii, 114
    --speech, Battle of Lexington Commemoration, iii, 414.

  Blake, S. L., against woman suffrage, iii, 371.

  Blaine, Jas. G., iii, 164, 165, 366.

  Blair, Henry W., letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 380.

  BLOOMER, Amelia, i, 46
    --address before Nebraska Legislature, iii, 672
    --Cleveland National Convention, at, i, 128
    --comments on Jane G. Swisshelm, i, 844
    --portrait, i, 496
    --replies to Senator Gaylord's speech against woman suffrage,
      iii, 623
    --speech at Rochester Temperance Convention, i, 483
    --work done, iii, 613.

  Bloomer costume, i, 127, 469, 844.

  Blunt, Gen., Kansas campaign, ii, 243.

  Boarding House Law, i, 688.

  Bodeker, Anna W., iii, 823
    --vote, attempted to, iii, 824.

  Bohemia, iii, 907.

  Bolton, Sarah Knowles, iii, 494.

  Bolton, Sarah T., i, 300.

  Bones, Marietta, address to Dakota Constitutional Convention,
    iii, 665.

  Booth, Mary L., i, 48, 624, ii, 433.

  _Boston Commonwealth_, report of fifth Washington Convention, ii, 543.

  Boston Convention, i, 255.

  _Boston Transcript_, iii, 227.

  Bottsford, Harriette, iii, 623.

  Bower, E. S., iii, 700.

  Bowles, Ada C., iii, 194.

  Bowles, Samuel, letter to Mrs. Hooker, iii, 325.

  Boyd, Louise V., sketch of, i, 312.

  Bradburn, Geo., address, i, 56.

  Bradlaugh, Charles, speaks in New York for woman suffrage, ii, 842.

  Bradley, Judge, on the XIV. Amendment, ii, 457
    --opinion, Bradwell case, ii, 624.

  Bradstreet, Anne, i, 204, iii, 302.

  Bradwell, Myra, application to Illinois Bar, ii, 601
    --opinion denying, ii, 609
    --Carpenter's, Matt. H., argument, ii, 615
    --opinion of Justice Bradley, ii, 624
    --report of proceedings in Illinois and U. S. Supreme Courts,
      ii, 614
    --U. S. Supreme Court decision, ii, 622
    --writ of error, ii, 614.

  Brent, Margaret, first woman in America to claim the right to vote,
    iii, 815.

  BRIGHT, Jacob, iii, 727, 841
    --letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 438
    --municipal franchise bill, secures, iii, 845
    --became law, iii, 847
    --Parliament, fails of reelection, iii, 853
    --speech on woman suffrage, iii, 849, 873
    --votes for woman suffrage, iii, 842.

  Bright, John, ii, 349, 366, 420
    --speech against woman suffrage, iii, 861.

  Bright, Wm. H., career of, iii, 729.

  Brinkerhoff, Martha H., iii, 614.

  British taxation, ii, 202.

  Bromwell, H. P. H., iii, 720.

  Brooklyn Bridge, iii, 440.

  Brooks, James, on woman suffrage, ii, 97.

  Brooks, Harriet S., sketch of, iii, 692.

  Broomall, John H., iii, 464.

  Brougham, Lord, i, 633.

  BROWN, Antoinette L., i, 41, 119, 186, 624
    --Bible argument, points on the, i, 535
    --colleges, on, i, 144
    --on the Half-world's Temperance Convention, i, 507
    --pastor, ordained as, i, 473
    --portrait, i, 449
    --resolutions, Albany Convention, i, 593
    --speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 553
    --Syracuse National Convention, argument, i, 524
    --World's Temperance Convention, at the, i, 152.
    (See Blackwell, A. L. B.)

  Brown, B. Gratz, speech, ii, 136
    --universal suffrage, on, iii, 598.

  Brown, David Paul, i, 333.

  Brown, Martha McClellan, iii, 226.

  Brown, Mary Olney, iii, 767
    --argument, her right to vote, iii, 783
    --vote, attempts to, iii, 780, 785.

  BROWN, Olympia, iii, 73, 267, 301
    --discussion with Fred. Douglass, ii, 311
    --Kansas, in, i, 200, ii, 239, 240, 241
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 259
    --sketch of, iii, 646
    --speech at Equal Rights Association anniversary, Cooper Institute,
      ii, 309
    --speech before Congressional Committee, iii, 95
    --speech, Washington Convention, '76, iii, 7
    --speech at Washington Convention, ii, 422.

  Brown, R. T., speech on suffrage, ii, 853.

  Brown, Sarah A., nominated for office, iii, 705.

  Brown, Wm. Wells, ii, 368.

  Bruhn, Rosa, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 439.

  Buchanan, James, ii, 204.

  Buck, J. D., iii, 511.

  Buckalew, Senator, speech, ii, 146.

  Buckingham, Mrs., iii, 337.

  Buckley, Brother, on women as preachers, i, 784.

  Burger, Sarah, iii, 526 (see Stearns, S. B.).

  Burleigh, Celia, ii, 402, 790, 801, 817.

  Burleigh, Charles C., i, 148, 549, 558, ii, 194, 392, 818.

  Burnet, Rev. J., i, 55.

  Burnham, Carrie S., ii, 600, iii, 444.

  Burns, Anthony, i, 254.

  Burns, Robert, ii, 266.

  Burr, Frances Ellen, iii, 319
    --letters to S. B. Anthony, ii, 912, iii, 334
    --Senate Judiciary Committee, argument before, ii, 543.

  Burtis, Sarah Anthony, i, 76.

  Burton, Mary, iii, 852.

  Bush, Abigail, i, 75, iii, 120.

  BUTLER, Benj. F., letters to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 539, iii, 255
    --report on Victoria C. Woodhull's memorial to Congress, ii, 464
    --speech, ii, 514.

  Butler, David, iii, 691.

  Butler, Deborah, ii, 348.

  Butler, Josephine E., on prostitution, iii, 145
    --vice, on, i, 795.


  C.

  Cadwallader, John, i, 330.

  CALIFORNIA, iii, 749
    --Appendix, iii, 977
    --constitution, liberal provisions, 750
    --constitution and statute-laws, 760
    --Conventions (_see Conventions_)
    --journalism, 761
    --Mill's Seminary, 751
    --petition to Legislature, 755
    --press, _ib._
    --senator, Mrs. Gordon nominated for, 756
    --silk culture, 762
    --State Society organized, 754
    --woman's lawyer bill, 757
    --woman suffrage society, first, 752
    --women made eligible to school offices, 757
    --women in the industries, 763
    --women in the State University, contest, 758.

  Cameron, Don, iii, 176.

  Campbell, Margaret W., iii, 269, 716
    --speech in Detroit, ii, 839.

  Campbell, Mary G., iii, 712.

  Canada, women's position in, iii, 831.

  Canon law, i, 755, 769, 770, 771, 774.

  Carey, Mary A. S., iii, 72.

  Carey, Samuel F., i, 121, 154.

  Carpenter Hall, application for, iii, 16.

  Carpenter, C. C., letter to Iowa Woman Suffrage Association, iii, 621.

  Carpenter, Matt. H., on Sargent's amendment to Pembina Territory bill,
    ii, 562
    --Anthony, Susan B., trial, on, ii, 701
    --argument in Myra Bradwell's application to Illinois Bar, ii, 615
    --letter to Elizabeth C. Stanton, ii, 423.

  Carr, Jeanne, iii, 751.

  CARROLL, Anna Ella, iii, 153
    --claim before Congress, ii, 12, 863
    --statement of Benj. F. Wade, ii, 865
    --letters, ii, 865, 866, 867, 868
    --Tennessee campaign, ii, 3
    --Vicksburg, on, ii, 11.

  Cartter, Mrs. M. M., ii, 442.

  Cartter, Chief-Justice, opinion, Spencer-Webster suit, ii, 597.

  Cary, Alice and Phoebe, ii, 433.

  Catherine II., i, 34.

  Catholic Church, ii, 201, 207.

  Cattle expert, Middie Morgan, iii, 404.

  Cavender, John H., i, 328.

  Centennial celebration, iii, 411.

  Centennial headquarters, iii, 21.

  Centennial Tea-Party, iii, 269.

  Centennial year, iii, 1.

  Centralization, iii, 89
    --Matilda J. Gage, on, ii, 523.

  Century Club, Philadelphia, iii, 469.

  Chace, Elizabeth B., iii, 340, 341, 348.

  Chalkstone, Mrs., ii, 59.

  Chamberlain, D. H., favors woman suffrage, iii, 829.

  Chambers, Rev. John, i, 159, 167, 500, 508.

  Chandler, Dolly, iii, 275.

  Chandler, Z., on Mrs. J. S. Griffing and the freedmen, ii, 33.

  CHANNING, William Henry, i, 476, 583, 584, 587, 591
    --appeal, woman's rights, i, 588
    --resolutions, Rochester Convention, i, 580
    --social relations, report on, i, 233
    --speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 550
    --Woman's Rights, Declaration, i, 129
    --World's Temperance Convention and John Chambers, on the, i, 508,
      iii, 922.

  Chapin, Augusta, iii, 276.

  Chapin, Clara C., iii, 691, 693.

  Chapin, E. H., i, 476.

  Chaplain, Mrs. E. F. Hobart, ii, 18.

  Chapman, Maria Weston, i, 53
    --poem, i, 82.

  Chase, Salmon P., i, 167, ii, 73, iii, 808.

  Cheever, George B., ii, 226.

  Chicago Historical Society, iii, 179.

  _Chicago Inter-Ocean_, iii, 682.

  _Chicago Legal News_, iii, 562.

  Chicago Legal News Company, ii, 607.

  CHILD, Lydia Maria, i, 38, 258, 775
    --letter to E. C. Stanton, ii, 910
    --letter to St. Louis Convention, ii, 825
    --petitions Congress, iii, 266
    --universal suffrage, on, iii, 519.

  Children, guardianship of, i, 747
    --illegitimate, i, 760
    --rearing of, i, 304.

  Christine of Pisa, i, 29.

  Christlieb, Prof., i, 787.

  Church and State, i, 753.

  Church, Elmwood, Illinois, iii, 563.

  Churchill, Elizabeth K., iii, 371
    --woman suffrage, on, ii, 812.

  CITIZENSHIP, ii, 462, 468, 469, 470, 473, 532, 555, 556, 665
    --Bates, Attorney-General, on, ii, 461
    --Blake, Devereux, on, iii, 7
    --Curtis, Justice, on, ii, 472
    --Daniel, Justice, on, ii, 471
    --Stanton, Elizabeth C., speech on, iii, 80
    --Taney, Justice, on, ii, 472
    --term defined, ii, 451
    --Thorbeck, on, ii, 473
    --White, Richard Grant, on, ii, 567.

  Citizenship, women crowned with rights of, in Wyoming, iii, 726.

  Claiborne, F. L., iii, 795.

  Clark, Emily, i, 489.

  Clark, Helen Bright, iii, 874.

  Clark, Mary T., sketch of, i, 312.

  Clark, Sidney, ii, 363.

  Clarke, Hannah B., on woman suffrage, ii, 807.

  Clarke, Jas. Freeman, on suffrage, i, 258, ii, 768, iii, 266
    --speech, New England, Convention, i, 263.

  Clarke, Mary Bayard, iii, 825.

  Clarkson, Thomas, i, 54.

  Clay, Mary B., iii, 818.

  Clemmer, Mary, letter to S. B. Anthony, iii, 262
    --letter to Senator Wadleigh, iii, 111.

  Clergy, charges against, i, 135
    --celibacy of, i, 757.

  Clergymen and corkscrews, ii, 167.

  Cleveland, Grover, iii, 437.

  Clute, Oscar, on woman suffrage, ii, 770.

  Cobbe, Francis Power, iii, 865
    --letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 438.

  Cobden, Jane, iii, 875.

  Cobden, Richard, favors woman suffrage, iii, 835.

  Coe, Emma R., i, 146, 232.

  Cogswell, Brainard, iii, 371.

  Colburn, Catharine A., iii, 774.

  Colburn, Mary J., iii, 650.

  Colby, Clara Bewick, iii, 222
    --sketch of, iii, 670.

  Colby University opened to girls, iii, 355.

  Cole, Mrs. Miriam M., ii, 790, 806, 832, iii, 501.

  Coleman, Lucy N., speech at Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 62.

  Coleridge, Lord, iii, 844.

  Colfax, Schuyler, ii, 181.

  Colleges, iii, 399
    --women in, i, 144.

  Colleges for women, iii, 296.

  College, Woman's, Evanston, Ill., iii, 578.

  Collier, Robert Laird, iii, 567.

  Collins, Emily, reminiscences of, i, 88
    --Miss Sarah Owen's correspondence, i, 91.

  Collins, Jennie, speech at Washington Convention, ii, 423.

  Collins, Stacy B., iii, 482.

  Collyer, Robert, ii, 368, 371, 372
    --recollections of Lucretia Mott, i, 409, 414
    --speech at Chicago, iii, 565.

  COLORADO: clergy, iii, 720
    --Conventions, _See Conventions_
    --Desert, great American, iii, 712
    --equal-rights mass-meeting in Denver, 722
    --leaders in the cause, 719
    --legislation, 714, 715
    --press, 715
    --suffrage amendment, defeat of, 723
    --suffrage first effort for, 712
    --suffrage, Gov. McCook's message, 713
    --woman suffrage, Gov. Evan's on, 722.

  _Colorado Tribune_, iii, 715.

  Columbia College, effort to open to women, iii, 410.

  Colvin, N. J., letters to S. B. Anthony, i, 691, 750; ii, 914.

  Conciliatory amendments, ii, 527.

  _Concord Monitor_, iii, 371.

  Congress, first Continental, iii, 17
    --Elizabeth C. Stanton runs for, ii, 180
    --Victoria C. Woodhull's memorial, 443
    --Riddle's speech in support of, 448
    --House majority report, 461
    --Minority report, 464.

  CONGRESSIONAL ACTION, ii, 90
    --Anthony, Senator, speech, ii, 106
    --arguments before House Committee, iii, 161
    --arguments before Senate Committee, iii, 155
    --Banks' N. P., speech, iii, 10
    --Brooks' James, speech, ii, 96
    --Brown's, Senator, speech, ii, 136
    --Buckalew's, Senator, speech, ii, 146
    --Butler's, Benj., speech, ii, 514
    --Committee, special, House appoints, iii, 221
    --Committee, special, on woman suffrage, Senate discussion, iii, 198
    --Committee, special, on woman suffrage, House discussion, iii, 219
    --Committee, standing, Senate discussion, iii, 190
    --Cowan, Senator, speech, ii, 103, 110
    --Cowan repels the charge of insincerity, ii, 121
    --Davis's Senator, speech, ii, 144
    --Debate, Senate and House, iii, 70
    --Democrats and the petitions, ii, 95
    --District of Columbia suffrage bill, ii, 103
    --vote, ii, 151
    --District of Columbia bill, Julian's amendment, ii, 482
    --Doolittle, Senator, speech against, ii, 150
    --electors, who constitute, House debates, ii, 326
    --female employées, iii, 811
    --Frelinghuysen's, Senator, speech, ii, 135
    --hearing before Senate Committee, iii, 227
    --Henderson, Senator, presents Mrs. Gerrit Smith's petition with a
      speech, ii, 98
    --House discussion, ii, 514
    --Johnson's, Senator, speech, ii, 130
    --joint resolutions before House affecting women, ii, 72
    --Julian's bills, ii, 325
    --Morrill's, Senator, speech, ii, 118
    --National Association granted hearing, iii, 75
    --Negro's hour, ii, 94
    --Parker's bill, ii, 516
    --Pembina Territory bill, debate on, Sargent's amendment, ii, 545;
      am't rejected, 582;
      Anthony's remarks, 568;
      Bayard's remarks, 567, 575;
      Boreman's remarks, 549, 580;
      Carpenter's remarks, 562;
      Conkling's remarks, 558, 559;
      Edmund's remarks, 562, 569, 571, 572, 573, 580;
      Ferry's remarks, 568;
      Flanagan's remarks, 552;
      Merrimon's remarks, 552, 553, 554, 555, 556, 557, 560;
      Morrill's remarks, 562;
      Morton's remarks, 549, 569;
      Sargent's remarks, 546, 555, 564, 567;
      Stewart's remarks, 548, 558, 559, 564, 573, 579.
    Petition, iii, 9
    --petition read and referred, iii, 130
    --petition, Rhode Island, ii, 560
    --petition for universal suffrage, ii, 97
    --petitions against the word "male" in Constitution, ii, 91
    --Pomeroy's, Senator, resolution, ii, 324
    --Pomeroy's, Senator, speech, ii, 151
    --Report, first favorable majority, iii, 231
    --report, first favorable, Senate, iii, 131
    --report, minority, iii, 237
    --reports on Victoria C. Woodhull's memorial, ii, 461, 464
    --reports, iii, 150
    --Republicans' protest in presenting petitions, ii, 94, 96
    --Republicans, squirming of, ii, 101
    --resolution to appoint special committee, iii, 175
    --Sargent, Senator, speech, iii, 9
    --Sixteenth Amendment, ii, 333
    --Sixteenth Amendment, resolutions, iii, 154
    --Stevens', Thaddeus, resolution, ii, 95
    --Sumner, Charles, presents a petition under protest, ii, 96;
      why he protested, ii, 100.
    Wade, Benj. F., speech, ii, 123
    --Williams, Senator, speech against, ii, 108
    --Wilson's, Senator, bill, ii, 324
    --Wilson's, Senator, speech, ii, 128.

  Conkling, Roscoe, ii, 363
    --on Senator McDonald's Woman Suffrage resolution, iii, 191
    --talk with, ii, 347
    --Senator Stewart and woman suffrage, on, ii, 558.

  Connecticut, iii, 316
    --Appendix, iii, 957
    --Bar, admission to the, iii, 330
    --Legislature, minority report, iii, 317.

  Constitution, Story on the, ii, 477, 478, 588.

  Constitution and suffrage, ii, 741.

  Continental Europe, iii, 895.

  CONVENTIONS: American Woman Suffrage Association (_See Am. Woman
    Suffrage Association_)
    --barn, in a, i, 123
    --_California_, San Francisco, iii, 753, 760
    --_Connecticut_, Hartford, iii, 197, 322
    --_Colorado_, Denver, iii, 716, 720
    --_Illinois_, Bloomington, iii, 572,
      Chicago, ii, 368, iii, 175, 565, 570;
      Galena, ii, 375;
      Springfield, ii, 371, iii, 570.
    --_Indiana_, Dublin, Wayne Co., i, 306;
      Indianapolis, i, 307, iii, 175, 534, 537;
      Richmond, i, 307;
      Winchester, i, 308;
    --_Iowa_, Des Moines, iii, 618, 623, 624;
      Mount Pleasant, iii, 617;
      Ottumwa, iii, 624.
    --_Kansas_, Topeka, iii, 702, 709;
      Salina, iii, 709.
    --London, first ever held, ii, 406
    --Loyalists' ii, 329
    --_Maine_, Augusta, iii, 359, 363;
      Portland, iii, 197, 352
    --_Massachusetts_, Boston, ii, 178, iii, 192
    --Worcester (Nat.), i, 215, 266
    --_Michigan_, Detroit, iii, 516;
      Grand Rapids, iii, 530;
      Lansing, iii, 519
    --_Minnesota_, Minneapolis, iii, 659
    --_Missouri_, St. Louis, ii, 369, 407, iii, 142, 601, 606
    --National, in 1866-67,
      report by Caroline H. Dall, ii, 899
    --_Nebraska_, Kearney, iii, 688 694;
      Norfolk, iii, 689;
      Omaha, iii, 241, 687, 690
    --New England, i, 254, 255, 262, iii, 267
    --_New Hampshire_, Concord, iii, 270, 368;
      Dover, iii, 197;
      Keene, _ib._;
      New Haven, _ib._
    --_New Jersey_, Vineland, iii, 479
    --_New York_, Albany, i, 591, 628, 678, 745;
      Rochester, i, 75, 577,
        press comments, i, 802;
      Rochester, iii, 117;
      Saratoga, ii, 402;
      Burleigh's, Celia, description, ii, 402;
      Saratoga, i, 620, 623;
      Saratoga, iii, 396;
      Seneca Falls, i, 67,
        press comments, i, 802;
      Syracuse (Nat.), i, 517,
        press comments i, 852
    --New York Constitutional, ii, 269, 282
    --New York City, Apollo Hall, ii, 427, 484, 533;
      Broadway Tabernacle i, 631, 546;
      Church of the Puritans (Nat.), 152;
      Cooper Institute (Nat.), i, 688;
      Irving Hall, ii, 426, 545;
      Masonic Temple, ii, 584, iii, 19, 98;
      Mozart Hall (Nat.), i, 668, 672;
      Steinway Hall, ii, 809
    --_Ohio_, Akron, i, 111;
      Cincinnati (Nat.), i, 163;
      Cincinnati, iii, 492;
      Cleveland (Nat.), i, 124;
      Cleveland, ii, 757;
      Dayton, iii, 493;
      Massilon, i, 123;
      Salem, i, 103;
      Toledo, ii, 377, iii, 506.
  _Oregon_, Portland, iii, 773
    --Paris, International, iii, 127, 585, 896
    --_Pennsylvania_, Philadelphia, i, 375, iii, 34, 229;
      Westchester, i, 350
    --_Rhode Island_, Newport, ii, 403;
      Providence, iii, 197, 340
    --_South Carolina_, Columbia, iii, 828
    --_Vermont_, Montpelier, iii, 385
    --_Washington Ter._,  Walla Walla, iii, 775
    --Washington, D. C., ii, 345, 356, 359, 416, 418, 425, 417, 442,
      493, 521, 537, 538, 543, 582, iii, 3, 60, 71, 128, 150, 187,
      221, 254
    --_Wisconsin_, Janesville, iii, 642;
      Madison, ii, 374;
      Milwaukee, ii, 374, iii, 640;
      Racine, iii, 645.

  Conventions, Constitutional, Kansas, i, 189
    --Massachusetts, i, 253
    --New York, ii, 267
    --Ohio, i, 105
    --Pennsylvania, iii, 465.

  Conventions held in Washington, why, iii, 150.

  Cooper, Edward, against woman suffrage, iii, 422.

  Cooper, Joseph, i, 447.

  Cooper, Peter, iii, 399.

  "Copperheads," going over to the, ii, 320.

  Corbin, Hannah Lee, i, 33.

  Cornell, A. B., iii, 223, 423.

  Cornell, University, iii, 398.

  Corner, Mary T., i, 122, iii, 810.

  Correll, E. M., ii, 862, iii, 691.

  Correspondence, _See Letters_.

  Corson, Hiram, letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 472.

  Courtney, Leonard, iii, 862.

  COUZINS, Phoebe W., iii, 7, 60, 370
    --address, "Woman as a Lawyer," ii, 542
    --argument before House Committee, iii, 170
    --delegate to National Democratic Convention, iii, 27
    --Labors of, iii, 596
    --reception, iii, 610
    --Senate Judiciary Committee, argument before, ii, 543
    --Speeches:
        Centennial, iii, 36,
        St. Louis Convention, iii, 142;
        Washington Convention, 223, 258;
        Woman Suffrage, ii, 387.

  Couzins, Mrs. J. E. D., as a nurse, iii, 596.

  Covenant, Ladies' National, ii, 39.

  Cowan, Senator, speech on District of Columbia suffrage bill,
    ii, 163, 110.

  Cowles, Betsey M., i, 104.

  Cox, Rt. Rev. Dr., i, 782.

  Crandall, Prudence, iii, 316, 560, 703.

  Craven, Rev. E. A., on Woman in the Pulpit, iii, 485.

  Crawford, S. J., ii, 251.

  Cromwellian era, i, 775.

  Crosby, Howard, letter to Mrs. M. J. Gage, i, 798.

  Crow, Wayman, iii, 595.

  Crowley, Richard, argument Miss Anthony's trial, ii, 648.

  "Crown and Anchor," i, 438.

  Culver, Hon. Erastus D., speech at Cooper Institute Convention,
    i, 709.

  CURTIS, Geo. Wm., i, 668; ii, 378; iii, 440
    --speech on woman suffrage, ii, 795
    --speech, Constitutional Convention at Albany, ii, 288
    --suffrage for women, favors, i, 672.

  Cushman, Major Pauline, ii, 20.

  Cutler, Hannah M. T., i, 123, 163, 380, 384; ii, 773, 788, 809, 818,
    823, 853; iii, 561, 614, 675.


  D.

  Dahlgren, Madeleine, ii, 494, 495, iii, 101.

  DAKOTA, iii, 662
    --address to women of, M. J. Gage's, iii, 663
    --Constitutional Convention, iii, 664
    --Legislative action, iii, 662
    --school suffrage, iii, 663, 666
    --suffrage bill passed Legislature, iii, 667
    --vetoed, iii, 667.

  DALL, Caroline H., "Drawing-room Convention," i, 276
    --lectures, i, 262
    --letter to _The Nation_, ii, 101
    --petition, i, 262
    --reports National Conventions held in '66 and '67, ii, 899
    --speech, New England Convention, i, 265.

  Dana, Richard H., on womanhood, i, 367
    --woman suffrage, on, i, 41.

  Darlington, Hannah M., i, 349
    --letter to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, i, 344.

  Darrah, Lydia, i, 321.

  Dartmouth College case, ii, 725.

  Daughters of Liberty, i, 203.

  Davis, Senator, speech against woman suffrage, ii, 144.

  Davis, Edward M., ii, 358, iii, 45, 462.

  Davis, Jefferson, ii, 542.

  Davis, J. J., iii, 154.

  Davis, Mary F., ii, 390, 791, iii, 480.

  DAVIS, Paulina Wright, i, 37, 46, iii, 823
    --colored women on, ii, 391
    --death of, i, 827
    --Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, 336
    --portrait, i, 273
    --President, made, Boston Convention, i, 255
    --President, made, Worcester convention, i, 221
    --President, made, Worcester National Convention, i, 227
    --reminiscences of, Elizabeth Cady Stanton's, i, 283
    --speech, Boston Convention, i, 256
    --speech, Syracuse National Convention, i, 533
    --_The Una_, i, 246
    --woman's rights movement, review of, ii, 428.

  Deaths, Mrs. Dall's report, ii, 905.

  Decisions and Trials, ii, 586.

  Declaration, Channing's, i, 129.

  Declaration of sentiments, i, 70.

  Declaration and pledge, ii, 486.

  DeFoe, Daniel, i, 29.

  Delaware, iii, 817.

  Democrats advocated woman suffrage, ii, 320.

  Denmark, iii, 914.

  Dentistry, Lucy B. Hobbs, iii, 401, 455.

  Dentistry, women in, iii, 452.

  Deroine, Jeanne, address to women of America, i, 234.

  DICKINSON, Anna E., ii, 375, iii, 320, 811
    --California, in, iii, 752
    --Chicago Convention, at, ii, 368
    --Fifteenth Amendment, her suggestion, ii, 227
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 916
    --speech, Chicago, iii, 567
    --speeches, ii, 40
    --tribute, ii, 433
    --"Young Elephant," ii, 42.

  Dilke, Sir Charles, iii, 847.

  Dimock, Susan, tribute, iii, 827.

  Dinsmoor, Orpha C., sketch of, iii, 693.

  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, iii, 808
    --Conventions (see Conventions);
    --Miner Normal School, iii, 809
    --Organic Act, iii, 812
    --suffrage bill, iii, 809, ii, 103, 482
    --Universal Franchise Association, iii, 809
    --women admitted to District bar, iii, 812
    --women in government departments, iii, 808
    --women in the profession of medicine, iii, 812
    --women writers and teachers, iii, 813.

  Disraeli on woman suffrage, iii, 839.

  Dix, Dorothea, i, 479, ii, 12.

  Dix, John A., i, 530.

  Dix, Morgan, Lenten lectures, iii, 436
    --Mrs. Blake's reply, iii, 436
    --coëducation, on, iii, 410.

  Divorce (see Marriage and Divorce).

  Dodge, Mary Mapes, i, 49.

  Dolph, J. N., iii, 778.

  Doolittle's, Senator, speech against woman suffrage, ii, 150.

  Dorsett, Martha Angle, lawyer, iii, 660.

  Dorsey, Sarah A., iii, 794, 807.

  Doud, Katharine R., iii, 645.

  DOUGLAS, Frederick, i, 74, 584, 585, 587, ii, 391, iii, 74, 125
    --discussion with Olympia Brown, ii, 311
    --Fifteenth Amendment, on the origin of, ii, 326
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 265
    --letter to Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ii, 328
    --Loyalists' Convention, delegate, ii, 329
    --refuge in Mrs. E. C. Stanton's house, ii, 382
    --_Revolution_, on the, ii, 382
    --wolf-skins, in, ii, 377
    --speech, Washington Convention '76, iii, 7.

  Douglass, Sarah M., i, 332.

  Douglass, Stephen A., ii, 263, 301.

  Dow, Neal, i, 121, 154.

  Downing, Geo. T., ii, 214, 215, 377.

  Downing, Lucy, iii, 296.

  Downs, Cora M., made a Regent, iii, 706.

  Doyle, Sarah E. H., iii, 344.

  Draper, E. D., ii, 242.

  Dresser, Horace, ii, 952.

  Duchess of Sutherland, i, 421.

  Dugdale, Jos. A., on wills, i, 357.

  DUNIWAY, Abigail Scott, arrest of, ordered, iii, 774
    --career, iii, 768
    --egged at Jacksonville, Oregon, iii, 775
    --Constitutional liberty, on, _ib._
    --lecturing tour, iii, 769
    --temperance meeting, at a, iii, 772.


  E.

  Eaglesfield, Elizabeth, iii, 549.

  Earl, Sarah H., tribute, i, 217
    --President New England Convention, made, i, 254.

  Eastman, Mary F., speeches, ii, 829, 840, 845, 854.

  Ecclesine, Thos. C, iii, 420.

  Eddy, Eliza F., will case, iii, 312.

  Edgerton, A. J., on woman suffrage, iii, 666.

  Editor, first colored, i, 91.

  Editors, opinions of three liberal, ii, 227.

  Editors interviewed, iii, 623.

  Edmunds, Senator, on State rights and suffrage, ii, 561, 569, 570,
    571, 572, 573. 580
    --woman suffrage, on, iii 70.

  Education, Mrs. Dall's report, ii, 900.

  Education, compulsory, iii, 61.

  Education, equal, ii, 909.

  Educational movement, iii, 398.

  Eggleston, Edward, on woman suffrage, ii, 810.

  Eldridge, Edward, iii, 781.

  Electors, qualification of, ii, 272, 463-4.

  Eliot, Rev. Wm. G., i, 171.

  Elizabeth, Queen, i, 30.

  Ellsworth, Bertha H., iii, 700.

  Elstob, Elizabeth, i, 30.

  Emancipation Petition, ii, 78.

  Emerson, on Power of Human Mind, ii, 427.

  Episcopal restrictions, i, 785.

  Essex County Society, iii, 270.

  Estabrook, Prof., speech for woman suffrage, ii, 839.

  "Eumenes", i, 451.

  Evans, L. D., ii, 10, iii, 801.

  Evarts, Wm. M., upon woman's subordination, i, 789, iii, 53.


  F.

  Fable, "The Selfish Rats," iii, 114.

  Fales, Mrs. I. C, speech on suffrage, ii, 851.

  Fairchild, Governor, ii, 375.

  Faithful, Emily, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 440.

  Farnham, Eliza W., iii, 750
    --speech at Mozart Hall, i, 669, iii, 750.

  Ferrin, Mary Upton, i, 209, iii, 289
    --speech before Judiciary Committee, Massachusetts Legislature,
      i, 212.

  Ferry, Thos. W., ii, 568, iii, 28, 154, on the Pembrina Territory
    bill, ii, 568.

  Feudalism, i, 761-3.

  Flanagan, Senator, on Sargent's amendment to Pembrina Territory bill,
    ii, 552.

  Florida, iii, 829.

  Field, Anna C, ii, 398.

  Field, David Dudley, iii, 647.

  Field, Kate, i, 620.

  Fields, Jas. T., letter to H. B. Blackwell, ii, 838.

  Fifteenth Amendment, ii, 314, 327, 333, 334, 335, 336, 337, 387, 455,
    463, 478, 479, 502, 503, 556, 557, 569, 616, 618, 619, 641, 642,
    663.

  Filley, Mary Powers, iii, 97, 380.

  Foeking, Emilie, iii, 816.

  Foley, Margaret, iii, 301.

  Folger, Chas. J., i, 750, ii, 271, iii, 801.

  Folsom, Marianna, iii, 703.

  Foltz, Clara S., iii, 757.

  Foote, Samuel A., i, 629.

  Forbes, Arathusa L., iii, 596.

  Ford, Jennie G., iii, 693.

  Forney, John W., on women and hospital clinics, 3, 450.

  Foster, Abby Kelly, i, 40, 53, 101, 134, ii, 216.

  Foster, J. Ellen, iii, 536.

  Foster, Julia, i, 301.

  Foster, Rachel, i, 391, iii, 474.

  Foster, Stephen S., i, 141, ii, 381, iii, 372.

  Fourteenth Amendment, ii, 313, 315, 323, 324, 327, 407, 411, 412, 422,
    455, 457, 461, 463, 468, 478, 479, 499, 500, 501, 502, 503, 556,
    586, 590, 593, 595, 596, 619, 617, 618, 619, 621, 622, 624, 625,
    626, 641, 642, 663.

  Fox, Charles James, i, 453.

  Fox, W. J., on women in politics, iii, 836.

  Fowler, Lydia F., i, 178, 478, 491.

  France, ii, 202
    --agitation in, address of Pauline Roland and Jeanne Deroine, i, 234
    --international woman's rights congress, iii, 896.

  "Frank Miller," ii, 19.

  Franklin, Benjamin, i, 324, ii, 244, 475.

  Franklin, William, i, 441.

  Freedmen's Relief Association, Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, 26
    --Josephine Griffing's letter to Lucretia Mott, ii, 869
    --letters on the, ii, 45
    --originator of, ii, 38.

  Freeland, Margaret, arrest of, i, 475.

  Frelinghuysen, F. G., speech, ii, 135.

  Fremont, Jessie B., letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 911.

  Fremont, Jno. C., Presidential campaign, i, 651.

  French, Charlotte Olney, iii, 784.

  Frothingham, O. B., ii, 186, 248, 380, 545.

  Fry, Elizabeth, i, 479.

  Fry, Elizabeth, and Lucretia Mott, i. 423.

  Frye, Wm. P., iii, 105, 366.

  Fuller, Margaret, i, 40, 49, 217, 801; iii, 307.

  Fulton, W. C., iii, 776.

  Furness' church, iii, 35.


  G.

  GAGE, Frances Dana, ii, 112, 113, 114, 116, iii, 561
    --Cleveland Convention, at, i, 124
    --lectures in Iowa, iii, 613
    --letter to American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, 769
    --at Cincinnati, ii, 857
    --letter to Matilda Joslyn Gage, i, 117
    --letter to _National Anti-Slavery Standard_, ii, 176
    --letter to Lucy Stone, i, 656
    --letter to Rochester Temperance Convention, i, 845
    --letter to Washington Convention, ii, 424
    --mothers and their children, on, i, 360
    --National Convention, Philadelphia, at, i, 325
    --negro testimony quoted by Senator Cowan in U. S. Senate, ii, 115
    --Nichols, Mrs., and, i, 198
    --orator, as an, i, 168
    --portrait, i, 128
    --reminiscences of Sojourner Truth, i, 115
    --reply to Gerrit Smith's letter to Mrs. Stanton, i, 842
    --speech, Akron Convention, i, 111;
      Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 563;
      Winchester, Ind., Convention, i, 308;
      Equal Rights Association Convention, ii, 197, 200
    --her last speech, ii, 223;
      temperance and the ballot, ii, 211.

  GAGE, Matilda Joslyn, i, 589, 591, iii, 65, 151, 227, 437
    --address to women of Dakota, iii, 663
    --Anthony case, her letter to _Albany Law Journal_, ii, 947
    --appeal, iii, 413
    --argument before House Committee, iii, 167
    --Carpenter Hall, application for, iii, 17
    --church influence on woman's liberties, iii, 74
    --divorce on, i, 566
    --Grant and Wilson campaign, appeal, ii, 517
    --letter to wife of Admiral Dahlgren, ii, 494
    --letter to Dakota Constitutional Convention, iii, 664
    --letter to Omaha convention, iii, 259
    --Minor suit, her review of Judge Waite's opinion, ii, 742
    --_National Citizen_ prospectus, iii, 116
    --_National Citizen and Ballot-Box_, i, 47
    --petition, political disabilities, iii, 60
    --portrait, i, 753
    --report, iii, 522
    --sketch of, i, 466
    --speeches:
      Centralization, at Washington Convention, ii, 523;
      Congressional Committees, before, ii, 415, iii, 10, 93;
      Furness' church, in, iii, 35;
      Rochester Convention, i, 579;
      Saratoga Convention, i, 622;
      Syracuse National Convention, i, 528;
      United States on trial, not Susan B. Anthony, ii, 630;
      Washington National Convention, iii, 4
    --Sunderland controversy, i, 543
    --Van Schaick, and Mr., i, 406
    --Woman, Church and State, i, 753.

  "Gail Hamilton," iii, 365.

  Gaines, Myra Clark, iii, 801.

  Gale's, Senator, insulting epithets, i, 483.

  Gallup, J. D., iii, 319.

  Galusha, Eben, address, i, 55.

  Gardner, Nannette B., ii, 587
    --votes in Michigan, iii, 523.

  Garfield, James A., letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 185.

  Garret, Eliza, iii, 582.

  Garrett, Thomas, iii, 818.

  GARRISON, Wm. Lloyd, argument at Cleveland National Convention, i, 136
    --attacked by Dr. Nevin, i, 144
    --on Gen. Carey, i, 162
    --letter to American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in
      Philadelphia, ii, 816
    --letter to Concord Convention, iii, 368
    --letter to Rochester Convention, iii, 122
    --letter to Worcester National Convention, i, 216
    --London Anti-slavery Convention, and the, i, 61
    --marriage and divorce, on, i, 733
    --National Convention, Philadelphia, at, i, 378
    --speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 548, 570
    --tracts and petitions, on, i, 383
    --tribute to Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, 38
    --woman suffrage, apathy, ii, 322
    --women in national councils, on the right of, i, 672
    --World's Temperance Convention, on the, i, 160.

  Gay, Sidney Howard, ii, 369.

  Gaylord, Senator, iii, 623.

  Geddes, Geo., on the Property bill, i, 64.

  Generals, why kept in the army, ii, 75.

  Geneva, iii, 909.

  George Eliot, i, 302.

  Georgia, iii, 830.

  Germans against woman suffrage, ii, 231.

  Germany, iii, 902.

  Gibbons, Abby Hopper, i, 40.

  Gibbs, Sarah A., dissection of a sermonizer, iii, 391.

  Gibson, Anthony, i, 29.

  Giddings, Joshua R., on woman suffrage, i, 128
    --World's Temperance Convention, on the, i, 162.

  Giddings, Maria L., i, 114.

  Gillette, Rev. Mrs., ii, 837.

  Gillingham, Lydia, i, 324.

  Girls and boys, ii, 541.

  Gladden, Washington, on woman suffrage, ii, 815.

  GLADSTONE, ii, 293, 366
    --Catholicism, i, 27
    --speech on woman suffrage, iii, 850, 854, 877, 883, 888.

  Goddard, Sarah, i, 44.

  Godwin, Parke, on the higher education of women, iii, 433.

  Goodell, Lavinia, iii, 648.

  Goodrich, Sarah Knox, iii, 765.

  Gordon, J. W., i, 307.

  Gordon, Laura DeForce, iii, 6, 751
    --Lectures, iii, 755
    --Letter to Washington Convention, iii, 64
    --Senator, nominated for, iii, 756.

  Gougar, Helen M., iii, 540, 552, 697, 702, 708, 857.

  Government, Hooker on, ii, 475
    --Paine on, ii, 474
    --Pillsbury on, ii, 201
    --Priestly on, ii, 476
    --Radical basis of, ii, 290
    --Sharpe, Granville, on, ii, 475
    --Summers, Lord, on, ii, 475
    --theory, true, ii, 474.

  "Grace Greenwood" (_see_ Mrs. Sara J. Lippincott).

  GRANT. U. S., ii, 88
    --campaign (1872), Tremont Temple meeting, iii, 278
    --XV. Amendment, on the, ii, 646
    --talk with Susan B. Anthony, ii, 544.

  Grant and Wilson campaign, National Woman's Rights Association's
    appeal, ii, 517.

  Graves, Ezra, ii, 282, 307.

  GREAT BRITAIN, ii, 202; iii, 833
    --associations formed, iii, 841
    --circular to Members of Parliament, iii, 881
    --Conference, Edinburgh, iii, 878
    --Conference, Leeds, iii, 874
    --Conference, St. James' Hall, iii, 888
    --demonstration, Birmingham, iii, 868
    --demonstration, Manchester, iii, 867
    --demonstrations, iii, 869
    --education act, iii, 850
    --education bill, Scotch, iii, 851
    --household suffrage, iii, 886
    --Isle of Man, iii, 870
    --letters, woman suffrage, iii, 865
    --Manchester Liberal Association, iii, 876
    --married women's property act, iii, 872
    --medical relief bill, iii, 890
    --meetings during 1870, iii, 852
    --memorial of the Birmingham conference, iii, 855
    --memorial to Gladstone, iii, 883
    --memorials, iii, 853, 854, 873
    --municipal franchise bill, iii, 845
    --municipal franchise bill for Scotland, iii, 871
    --Northern Reform Society, iii, 838
    --Parliament debates woman suffrage, iii, 850, 861, 862, 863, 873,
      884, 889, 890
    --petitions, iii, 866
    --petitions and pamphlets, iii, 840
    --petition to Parliament, Mary Smith's, iii, 835
    --reform act, ii, 590
    --Sheffield Association, iii, 837
    --suffrage bill before Parliament, iii, 842
    --chronological table of successive steps towards freedom, iii, 980
    --women householders, iii, 881
    --women in politics, iii, 835
    --woman suffrage, able advocates of, iii, 836
    --women suffrage meeting, first ever held in London, iii, 848
    --_Woman Suffrage Journal_, iii, 850
    --women vote, iii, 843
    --women vote in Scotland, iii, 871.

  Greece, iii, 919.

  Greeley, Ann F., iii, 356.

  GREELEY, Horace, ii, 227; iii, 408, 773
    --abolitionists, denounced, ii, 287
    --bullet and ballot, ii, 284
    --defranchisement, panacea for, ii, 101
    --enfranchisement of women, on, ii, 103
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 230
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, i, 628
    --letter to Cleveland National Convention, i, 125
    --letter to Paulina W. Davis, i, 520
    --letter to Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, 36
    --letter to Sam'l J. May on woman's rights, i, 653
    --marriage, on, i, 730
    --marriage and divorce, on, i, 740
    --Owen, R. D., discussion, divorce, i, 296, 746
    --Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, and, ii, 287
    --support of, lost, ii, 269
    --temperance speech, Metropolitan Hall, i, 491
    --universal suffrage and universal amnesty, ii, 315
    --woman and work, on, i, 589
    --woman suffrage, opposed to, iii, 185
    --woman suffrage, report against, ii, 285
    --criticism, _New York Independent_, ii, 305.

  Greeley's, Mrs., petition, ii, 287.

  Green, Anna R., Md., iii, 815.

  Green, Beriah, i, 417
    --speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, 699, 450, 487.

  Gregory, Samuel, i, 38.

  Grew, Rev. Henry, on woman's rights, i, 379.

  Grew, Mary, i, 325
    --speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, 735
    --woman suffrage, on, ii, 814
    --President, iii, 457.

  GRIFFING, Josephine S., i, 110; ii, 345, 422; iii, 810
    --Freedman's Aid Association, letter to Lucretia Mott, ii, 869
    --Freedman's Bureau, originator of, ii, 38
    --Freedman's Relief Association, ii, 26
    --letter to Horace Greeley, ii, 36
    --letter to Lucretia Mott, ii, 33
    --letter to Catharine F. Stebbins, ii, 874
    --report 1871, ii, 484
    --"Shirley Dare," on, ii, 30
    --speech, Equal Rights Association, ii, 221
    --testimonials of Congressmen, ii, 33
    --tribute from Wm. Lloyd Garrison, ii, 38.

  GRIMKÉ, Angelina, i, 39, 52
    --anecdotes, by her husband, i, 402
    --letter to Wm. Lloyd Garrison, i, 397
    --sketch of "E. C. S.," i, 392
    --speech against slavery, i, 334.

  GRIMKÉ, Sarah Moore, i, 39, 53, 406
    --letter, West Chester, Pa., Convention, i, 353.

  Grover, A. J., iii, 560, 591.

  Guardianship law, i, 749.

  Gurney, Samuel, i, 421.

  Guthrie, Clara Merrick, iii, 790.

  Guthrie, Mrs., daughter of Frances Wright, ii, 543.


  H.

  Haggerty, James, ii, 210, iii, 434.

  Hale, Sarah Josepha, i, 45, 388.

  Hall, Israel, ii, 377.

  Hall, Mary, admission to the Bar, iii, 330.

  Halleck, Sarah H., ii, 60.

  Hallock, Frances V., ii, 435.

  Halstead, Murat, iii, 593.

  Hamilton, Alexander, ii, 413.

  Hamlin, Senator, ii, 411.

  Hampden Society, iii, 270.

  Hanaford, Phebe, ii, 398, 791; iii, 327, 479, 481.

  Hancock, Gen. W. S., iii, 185, 431.

  Hanna, Laura, iii, 720.

  HARBERT, Elizabeth Boynton, iii, 560, 592, 621
    --delegate to Republican National Convention, iii, 26
    --oration, iii, 581
    --speech before Congressional committee, iii, 76.

  Harberton, Lady, speech at Edinburgh, iii, 879.

  Hare, Thomas, ii, 292.

  Harper, Frances E. W., ii, 838.

  Harrington, Mary L., iii, 374.

  Harris, Sarah, ii, 376.

  _Hartford Courant_, iii, 322.

  _Hartford Times_, ii, 538.

  Harvard Annex, iii, 294.

  Haskell, Mehitable, Worcester Convention, i, 232; iii, 286.

  Hatch, Junius, "pin-cushion ministry," i, 539.

  Hatton, Frank, iii, 617.

  Haven, Gilbert, ii, 388; iii, 268, 528, 620; ii, 839, 398, 840.

  Havens, E. O., iii, 526 428.

  Haviland, Laura C, iii, 532.

  Hawley, Jos. R., letter to Mrs. Stanton, iii, 28, 30, 90.

  HAY, William, letter to Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 655
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, i, 631
    --letter to _The North Star_, on the Saratoga Convention, i, 621;
      paper, property rights, 607.

  Hayes, R. B., iii, 165.

  Hayhurst, Martha, i, 348.

  Hazard, Rebecca N., ii, 855, iii, 604.

  Hazlett, Adelle, ii, 787; iii, 522.

  Heath, Jeannette Brown, i, 642.

  Heloise, i, 759.

  Henderson, Miss A. M., iii, 654.

  Henderson, Senator, ii, 98.

  Heroism, Kate Shelly, iii, 633.

  Herricourt, Madame, ii, 569, 395.

  Hertell's, Barbara, will, i, 63.

  Hewitt, Rev. Dr., i, 502.

  Heyrick, Elizabeth, i, 41.

  Heywood, E. H., ii, 222.

  Hiatt, Hannah, i, 306.

  Hiatt, Sarah W., iii, 803.

  Hicks, Elias, i, 412, 415.

  HIGGINSON, Thos. Wentworth, iii, 275, 277, 305
    --Brick Church meeting, i, 500
    --coëducation, on, iii, 496
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 265
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 237
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 917
    --letter to Cleveland National Convention, i, 131
    --letter to Lucy Stone, i, 566
    --marriage ceremony, on, i, 260
    --Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, i, 253
    --_New York Times_, on the, i, 648
    --speech, in Cleveland, O., ii, 802
    --speech, in Cooper Institute, ii, 828
    --speech, Broadway Tabernacle Convention, at, i, 656
    --speech, Cleveland Convention, ii, 760, 771
    --speech, National Convention, New York, i, 642
    --voters, qualification of, i, 249
    --temperance and woman suffrage, on, ii, 819
    --theological discussion, i, 647
    --woman's rights almanac, i, 863
    --women in Christian civilization, on, i, 791.

  Hilda, Abbess, i, 30.

  Hill, Benj. H., speech, iii, 217.

  Hill, Charlotte, iii, 365.

  Hill, Peter, iii, 524.

  Hillier, C. J., iii, 756.

  Hinckley, Frederick A., on woman suffrage in Rhode Island, iii, 349
    --speech at Washington Convention, iii, 222.

  Hindman, Matilda, iii, 459, 522, 621, 719, 723.

  HOAR, Geo. F., minority report, iii, 131,
    --presents petitions, iii, 104
    --letter to Washington Convention, ii, 858
    --speech, women in the Supreme Court, iii, 139
    --select committee, U. S. Senate, iii, 198-216
    --speech in 1871, ii, 820.

  Hobart's, Ella F., services as chaplain in Union army, ii, 18.

  Hobbs, Lucy B., dentist, iii, 401, 455.

  Holland, J. G., iii, 46.

  Holloway, Wm. R., iii, 534.

  Homeopathic College, ii, 765.

  Holland, iii, 907.

  Holmes, Jennie F., iii, 683.

  Holmes, Rev., iii, 390.

  Hook, Frances, as a soldier, ii, 19.

  HOOKER, Isabella B. iii, 194, 327
    --argument before House Judiciary committee, iii, 103
    --before Senate committee, iii, 105
    --declaration and pledge, ii, 486
    --letter to New York Convention, twenty-fifth anniversary, ii, 534
    --police, how she would rule,, iii, 73
    --receptions in Washington; iii, 99
    --reminiscences of, iii, 320
    --report, National Association, 1872, ii, 496
    --speech before House Judiciary committee, ii, 458
    --speech before Senate Judiciary committee, ii, 499
    --thanks the champions of woman's rights in Congress, ii, 489
    --Washington Convention, notes ii, 425.

  Hooker, John, iii, 101, 327, 957.

  Hopkins, E. A., on legal grievance of women, i, 584.

  Hosmer, Harriet, iii, 143, 301, 595, 951.

  Hospital clinics, iii, 448.

  Houghton, Agnes A., iii, 359.

  Hovey, Charles F., i, 625
    --Bequests, i, 257, 258, 667.

  Howe, Frederick B., iii, 438.

  Howe, J. H., on women as jurors, iii, 736.

  HOWE, Julia Ward, ii, 757, 770, 792, 873, portrait, 783; iii, 270,
    275, 276, 371
    --Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, 335
    --President of Am. Woman Suffrage Association, made, ii 834
    --Speech in Philadelphia, ii, 817; in Detroit, 834
    --Woman Suffrage in New Jersey, on, ii, 847.

  Hoyt, John W., Gov. of Wyoming, iii, 241, 474, 730.

  Hoyt, Mrs., on anti-slavery and woman's rights, ii, 59, 61, 63.

  Howitt, Wm., letter to Lucretia Mott, i, 434.

  Howland, Emily, i, 688.

  Howland, Fannie, description of Washington Convention, ii, 416.

  Howland, William, iii, 437.

  Hubbard, R. D., iii, 326.

  Hugo, Victor, ii, 369, iii, 75, 127.

  Hulett, Alta C., iii, 572.

  "Human Rights," Hurlbut's, i, 38.

  HUNT, Harriot K., i, 219, 224, 255, 356, 531, 535, ii, 583
    --medical education, on, i, 356
    --physician, as a, i, 260
    --speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 564
    --taxation, protest against, i, 259, iii, 298.

  Hunt's, Ward, Judge, decision Anthony trial, ii, 689
    --resolution against, ii, 537.

  Hunt's, Richard, tea table, i, 68.

  Hunt, Seth, iii, 270.

  Hurlbut's "Human Rights," i, 38.

  Husband and wife, act concerning rights and liabilities of, i, 686.

  Hussey, Cornelia Collins, iii, 482.

  Husted, James W., favors suffrage for women, iii, 409, 417, 424, 437.

  Hutchinson family, ii, 59, 239, 262, 309, 542, 934; iii, 35
    --Letter, John W., i, 627.

  Hutchinson, Anne, i, 206.

  Hutchinson, Nellie, iii, 752.


  I.

  ILLINOIS, iii, 559
    --Art Union, iii, 587
    --Bar, Myra Bradwell's application, ii, 601
    --opinion denying, ii, 609
    --Carpenter's, Matt. H., argument, ii, 615
    --opinion of Justice Bradley, ii, 624
    --report of proceedings in Illinois and U. S. Supreme Courts,
      ii, 614
    --U. S. Supreme Court decision, ii, 622
    --writ of error, ii, 614
    --centennial celebration at Evanston, iii, 581
    --Conventions (see conventions)
    --Elmwood church trouble, iii, 563
    --Garrett Biblical Institute, iii, 582
    --houses of ill-fame, licensing Chicago, iii, 572
    --married women's earnings act, iii, 570
    --Master in Chancery, Mrs. Schuchardt, iii, 588
    --Moline Association, iii, 589
    --Monticello Ladies Seminary, iii, 579
    --petitions, toils of circulating, iii, 590
    --pulpit utterances, iii, 564
    --Social Science Association, iii, 584
    --Suffrage Association formed, iii, 569
    --suffrage society, first, iii, 560
    --temperance petition, iii, 587
    --Woman's College at Evanston, iii, 578
    --woman, as preacher, first in, iii, 579
    --women elected as school officers, iii, 575
    --women eligible as school officers, bill making, iii, 575
    --women, trials and triumphs of, iii, 560.

  Impeachment, articles of, iii, 31.

  INDIANA, i. 290, iii, 533
    --appendix, iii, 965
    --campaign of 1882, iii, 543
    --colleges open to women, iii, 548
    --constitutional debates, i, 296
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --electoral bill, iii, 541
    --Equal Suffrage Society Indianapolis, iii, 536
    --laws for women, changes in, iii, 544
    --legislative enactments, iii, 544
    --legislative hearings, iii, 538
    --liquor law, i, 307
    --mass meeting in Indianapolis, iii, 541
    --newspapers, iii, 555
    --Republican State Convention, iii, 542
    --secret conclave, iii, 535
    --temperance petition, Mrs. Wallace, iii, 539
    --women in schools, iii, 547.

  Infidelity, i, 143.

  International Convention, iii, 157, 585, 896, 952.

  IOWA, iii, 612
    --churches indorse woman suffrage, iii, 620
    --Clergymen's tract, iii, 624
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --Fort Dodge, iii, 617
    --friendly associations, iii, 635
    --Governor Kirkwood appoints women to office, iii, 626
    --Governor, first, to recognize woman suffrage, iii, 622
    --Governor Sherman interviewed, iii, 624
    --Inventions by women, iii, 632
    --Journalism, iii, 629
    --laws, improvement in, iii, 636
    --lectures, iii, 630
    --Legislative action, iii, 619
    --Legislative action, summary, iii, 625
    --mass meeting at the capitol, iii, 619
    --medical profession, iii, 631
    --Polk County Society, iii, 614
    --Republican Convention, women's plank, iii, 620
    --County School Superintendents, Attorney General's opinion,
      iii, 627
    --school offices, eligibility of women to hold, iii, 628
    --societies organized, iii, 615, 617
    --_State Register_, iii, 620
    --women in office, iii, 626
    --women employed as teachers, iii, 627
    --woman suffrage, first agitation of, iii, 613
    --woman suffrage society, first, iii, 614
    --women in positions of trust, iii, 616.

  Island No. 10, ii, 10.

  Italy, iii, 899.


  J.

  Janney's, Mrs. R. A. S., recollections, i, 122.

  Jay, John, ii, 413.

  Jackson, Rev. E. M., i, 502.

  Jackson, Francis, i, 189, 257, 634, 667, 743,
    will case, iii, 310.

  Jackson, James C., ii, 582.

  Jackson, Mercy B., letter, ii, 920.

  Jenkins, Lydia Ann, i, 145.

  Jerry, rescue trials, i, 474.

  Johnson, Andrew, ii, 205.

  Johnson, Mariana, i, 103, 351.

  Johnson, Oliver, i, 101, 367, 671; ii, 786, 813.

  Johnson, Rev. Samuel, letter to National Convention in New York,
    i, 635.

  Johnson, Wm. H. and Mary, letter to Westchester, Pa., Convention,
    i, 832.

  Jones, Mrs. E. C., Jailoress, iii, 488.

  Jones, Jane Graham, delegate to National Convention at Washington,
    ii, 522, 442; iii, 229, 580
    --address International Congress at Paris, iii, 585
    --Genevieve Graham, daughter, iii, 586, 897.

  Jones, J. Elizabeth, report, i, 168
    --speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, 694
    --speech at Syracuse National Convention, i, 530.

  Journalism, women in, i, 43, iii, 303, 629, 761, 813.

  Judge direct a verdict of guilty, can a, ii, 690.

  Julian, Geo. W., ii, 333, 489, 490, 552, 727
    --amendment to District of Columbia suffrage bill, ii, 282
    --speech on woman suffrage, ii, 801.

  Juries, venerable decisions on, ii, 705.

  Jury, women on, iii, 732.

  Justice of Peace, Mrs. Esther Morris made, iii, 731.


  K.

  Kalamazoo college, iii, 525.

  KANSAS, Mrs. Nichols' account, i, 185, iii, 696
    --appeal, ii, 247
    --campaign, 1867, ii, 928
    --campaign, S. N. Wood's summing up of, ii, 254
    --_Champion_ (Atchison) on woman suffrage, ii, 240
    --_Commercial_, (Leavenworth) on the campaign, ii, 262
    --constitutional amendment to strike word "white" from suffrage
      clause, ii, 229
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --elections, iii, 701, 708
    --Harvey, Governor, message, iii, 696
    --legislative action, iii, 709
    --Lincoln suffrage association, iii, 701
    --Lincoln Auxiliary of the National Association, iii, 698
    --parties in convention, action of, iii, 707
    --press, iii, 699
    --property rights, iii, 704
    --Radical Reform Christian Association, iii, 703
    --reminiscences, Helen Ekin Starrett's, ii, 250
    --schools, iii, 706
    --Stanton Suffrage Society organized, iii, 702
    --suffrage organizations, history of, iii, 698
    --suffrage song, the Hutchinsons, ii, 934
    --Superintendent of Public Instruction, Sarah A. Brown nominated,
      iii, 705
    --suppressed proceedings, ii, 931
    --Temperance Convention, ii, 231
    --woman suffrage facts, iii, 709
    --woman suffrage indorsed by Republican State Convention, iii, 707
    --woman suffrage petitions, report of Judiciary Franchise Committee,
      i, 194
    --Women's Christian Temperance Union, iii, 703
    --Women's Impartial Suffrage Association, address, ii, 932
    --women run for office, iii, 708
    --women in office, iii, 706
    --women in the professions, iii, 706.

  Kasson, John A., iii, 619.

  Keating, Harriette C., iii, 791.

  Kelley, W. D., suffrage resolution, iii, 71.

  Kelly, Abby (_see Foster_).

  Kemble, Fanny, i, 412.

  KENTUCKY, iii, 818
    --architecture, Miss White, iii, 820
    --education, facilities for, iii, 821
    --Louisville School of Pharmacy, iii, 821
    --woman suffrage society, ii, 862
    --school suffrage, i, 869, iii, 821.

  King, Susan A., sketch of, iii, 420.

  King, Thos. Star, i, 666.

  Kingman, Judge, Kansas, i, 192.

  Kingman, J. W., ii, 836, iii, 727, 241.

  Kingsbury, Benjamin, iii, 359.

  Kingsbury, Elizabeth A., ii, 310, iii, 476.

  Kingsley, Henry, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 438.

  Kirk, Mrs. Eleanor (Nellie Ames), ii, 390.

  Knight, Ann, i, 438, iii, 837.

  Knowlton, Helen M., iii, 302.


  L.

  Ladies' Art Association, iii, 399.

  Lander, Mrs. Dick, iii, 852.

  Lane, James H., i, 191.

  Langdon, Lady Anna G., iii, 854.

  Lapham, Elbridge G., presents petition, ii, 283
    --votes for, ii, 304
    --Anthony trial, ii, 647
    --printing speeches in the House, iii, 174
    --vote in Senate, iii, 218
    --Senate committee, 228, 231
    --Senate report, 232
    --thanks to, iii, 252.

  Lawrence, Amos A., iii, 330.

  Lawrence, Sybil, iii, 532.

  Lawyers, women, iii, 575.

  Lee, Mary B., legacy, iii, 624.

  Leftwich, i, 649.

  Legacy, iii, 624.

  Leipsic, iii, 902.

  Leslie, Mrs. Frank, iii, 441.

  Lester, Louise, iii, 780.

  Letters:
  Alcott, Louisa May, to Lucy Stone, ii, 831
    --Amberly, Lady, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 439
    --Andrews, Margaret H., to S. J. May, i, 531
    --Anthony, H. B., to S. B. Anthony, iii, 350.

  Letters, Anthony, Susan B., to her family; Boston Convention, i, 256;
    to Brooks, James, ii, 97;
    to Foote, E. B., ii, 941;
    to Garfield, iii, 185;
    to Mott, Lydia, i, 748;
    to National Democratic Convention, ii, 340;
    to Wright, Martha C., i, 676.

  Letters, Barton, Clara, to Susan B. Anthony,  ii, 916
    --Bascom, E. C., to S. B. Anthony, iii, 647
    --Becker, Lydia E., to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 62
    --Beecher, H. W., to St. Louis Convention, ii, 825
    --Bennett, Alice, to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 472
    --National Association to Berlin Congress, ii, 404
    --Briggs, Caroline A., to S. B. Anthony, iii, 250
    --Blackwell, Elizabeth, to Emily Collins, i, 91
    --Blackwell, Antoinette Brown, to Cooper Institute Convention,
      i, 862
    --Blackwell, Elizabeth, to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, 831
    --Blackwell, H. B., to E. C. Stanton, ii, 232, 235
    --Blair, Henry W., to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 380
    --Bowles, Samuel, to Mrs. Hooker, iii, 325
    --Bright, Jacob, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 438
    --Brown, Olympia, to S. B. Anthony, ii, 259
    --Bruhn, Rosa, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 439
    --Burleigh, Celia, giving account of Saratoga Convention, ii, 402
    --Burns, Alexander, to Des Moines Convention, iii, 618
    --Burr, Frances E., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 912, iii, 334
    --Butler, Benjamin F., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 539, iii, 255.

  Letters:
    Carpenter, C. C., to Iowa W. S. Association, iii, 621
    --Carpenter, M. H., to Elizabeth C. Stanton, ii, 423
    --Channing, Wm. Henry, Cleveland National Convention, i, 129
    --Child, L. Maria, to St. Louis Convention, ii, 825; E. C. Stanton,
      ii, 910
    --Clemmer, Mary, to Senator Wadleigh, iii, 111;
      to S. B. Anthony, iii, 262
    --Cobbe, Frances P., to Paulina W. Davis, ii, 438
    --Cole M. M., to H. B. Blackwell, ii, 832
    --Colvin A. J., to Susan B. Anthony, i, 691, 750; ii, 914
    --Corner, Mary T., to Mrs. Bloomer, i, 122
    --Corson, Hiram, to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 472
    --Cutler, Mrs. H. M. T., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 915
    --Dall, Caroline H., to _The Nation_, ii, 101
    --Darlington, Hannah M., to Mrs. Stanton, i, 344
    --Deroine, Jeanne, to women of America, i, 234
    --Dickinson, Anna E., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 916
    --Douglass, Fred., to E. Cady Stanton, ii, 328
    --Faithful, Emily, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 440
    --Fields, James T., to H. B. Blackwell, ii, 838
    --Folger, Charles J., to Susan B. Anthony, i, 750
    --Foster, Rachel G., to _Our Herald_, iii, 243
    --Freedman's Relief Association, on, ii, 35
    --Fremont, Jessie B. to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 911.

  Letters:
    Gage, Frances D., to Cincinnati Convention, ii, 857;
      Steinway Hall Convention, ii, 769;
      Gage, M. E. J., to, i, 47;
      Rochester Temperance Convention, i, 845;
      Stone, Lucy, i, 656;
      Washington Convention, ii, 424
    --Gage, M. J., to Mrs. Dahlgren, ii, 494;
      to Omaha Con., ii, 250;
      to women of Dakota, iii, 663
    --Garfield, James A., to S. B. Anthony, iii, 185
    --Garrison, Wm. Lloyd, to American Woman Suffrage Association
        meeting in Philadelphia, ii, 816;
      to Third Decade Convention, Rochester, iii, 123;
      to Concord Convention, iii, 368
    --Geddes, George, to M. J. Gage, i, 64
    --_Greeley_, Horace, to Susan B. Anthony, i, 628;
      Cleveland National Convention, i, 125;
      Davis, Paulina W., i, 520;
      Marsh, Rev. John, i, 503;
      May, S. J., on woman's rights, i, 653.
      Severance, Mrs. C. M., i, 125
    --_Griffing_, Josephine S., to Catharine A. F. Stebbins, ii, 874;
      to Greeley, ii, 36
    --Grimké, Angelina, to Wm. Lloyd Garrison, i, 397
    --Grimké, Sarah M., to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, 353
    --Grover, A. J., to Mrs. Stanton, i, 591.

  Letters:
    Hay, Wm., to Susan B. Anthony, i, 631;
      Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 655
    --Higginson, T. W., to S. B. Anthony, ii, 917;
      Cleveland (Nat.) Convention, i, 131
    --Hooker, Isabella B., to Susan B. Anthony, i, 535;
      to Mrs. Dahlgren, iii, 100; Stone, Lucy, i, 566
    --Howitt, Wm., to Lucretia Mott, i, 434
    --Hugo, Victor, to Clemence S. Lozier, iii, 75
    --Johnson, Samuel, National Convention in New York, i, 635
    --Johnson, Wm. H. and Mary, to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, 832
    --Kingman, J. W., to Lucy Stone, ii, 836
    --Kingsley, Henry, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 438
    --Lawrence, Amos A., to Abby Smith, iii, 330
    --Leo, Andre, to Second Decade meeting, ii, 439
    --Livermore, Mary A., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 921.

  Letters: Manderson, C. F., to O. C. Dinsmoor, iii, 688
    --Marsh, J., to Horace Greeley, i, 503
    --Marsh, L. R., to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, 922
    --Martineau, Harriet, to P. W. Davis, i, 229
    --Mott, Lucretia, i, 437
    --Mayo, A. D., to Syracuse Con., i, 851
    --Mendenhall, H. S., to Dr. Avery, iii, 724
    --Meriman, Emelia J., to the Second Decade meeting, ii,  451
    --Mill, John Stuart, to Paulina W. Davis, i, 220, ii, 419;
      to S. N. Wood, ii, 252
    --Miller, Francis, to S. B. Anthony, ii, 536
    --Mills, Chas. D. B., to Mrs. Matilda J. Gage, ii, 424
    --Mott, Lucretia, to Daniel O'Connell, i, 432;
      to Josephine S. Griffing, ii, 873;
      to Salem, Ohio, Convention, i, 812
    --Mott, Lydia, to Susan B. Anthony, i, 630
    --Mott, Mary, to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, 829.

  Letters:
    _New York Tribune_, on, canvass of 1859-'60, i, 677
    --Nichols, Mrs. C. I. H., to Rochester Tem. Convention, i, 847
    --Owen, Robert Dale, to Susan B. Anthony, i, 292
    --Pastoral, i, 81
    --Phelps, Almira L., to Mrs. Hooker, iii, 100
    --Phelps, Elizabeth Stuart, to Am. W. S. Association meeting in
      Cooper In., ii, 831
    --Phillips, Wendell, to S. B. Anthony, iii, 62;
      to Third Decade Convention at Rochester, N. Y., iii, 122
    --Pickler, J. A., to Matilda J. Gage, iii, 668
    --Pomeroy, C. R., to Des Moines Convention, iii, 618
    --Post, Amy, to S. B. Anthony, iii, 48
    --Pugh, Sarah, to Salem, Ohio, Convention, i, 814
    --Rose, Ernestine L., to Susan B. Anthony, i, 98; ii, 423;
        iii, 50, 120;
      to Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, 356
    --Russell, Lucinda, to Harriet S. Brooks, iii, 682.

  Letters: Sanford, R. M., to Cleveland Con., i, 819
    --Sargent, A. A., to Third Decade Con., iii, 121;
      to Omaha Con., iii, 245
    --Sargent, J. T., to E. C. Stanton, ii, 911
    --Saxon, Elizabeth L., to Mrs. Minor, iii, 791
    --Severance, Caroline M., to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, 911
    --Shaw, Sarah B., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 239
    --Smith, Gerrit, to Susan B. Anthony, i, 497; ii, 317, 538, 941;
      Garrison, Wm. L., i, 223, 620;
      Stanton, E. Cady, i, 708, 836;
      St. Louis Convention, ii, 825
    --Somerville, Mary, to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 440
    --Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, to Akron, O., Convention, i, 815;
      Cooper Institute Con., i, 860;
      Greeley, Horace, i, 738;
      Mott, Lucretia, iii, 45;
      Omaha Convention, iii, 244;
      Salem, O., Convention, i, 810;
      Smith, Gerrit, i, 839;
      Syracuse Convention, i, 848
    --Stanton, Harriot, to Nebraska voters, iii, 247
    --Stebbins, Catharine A. F., to Lucretia Mott, iii, 47
    --Stone, Lucy,
      to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 237, 919;
      to Elizabeth C. Stanton, ii, 234;
      to Salem, O., Convention, i, 813.

  Letters:
    Taylor, Mrs. M., to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 438
    --Tenney, Mrs. R. S., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 257
    --Tilton, Theo., to American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, 770
    --Wade, Benjamin F., to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 117,
      to Josephine Sophie Griffing, ii, 35
    --Wallace, Zerelda G., to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 257
    --Wattles, Susan E. to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 255
    --Weber, Helene M., to M. A. Spofford, i, 822
    --Weld, Angelina G., on organizations, i, 540
    --Whiting, N. H., letter to Cooper Institute Convention, i, 861
    --Winder, R. B., to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 817
    --Wright, Elizur, to Paulina W. Davis, i, 217
    --Wright, Henry C., to Garrison, i, 310
    --Wright, Martha C., to Pillsbury, ii, 240.

  Lewis, Ida, iii, 347.

  _Lily, The_, i, 486.

  _Lincoln_ (Kansas) _Beacon_, _Lincoln_ (Kansas) _Register_, iii, 699.

  Lippincott, Sarah J., i, 46
    --Saxe's poems, on, i, 828
    --Washington Convention (Nat.), description of, ii, 359

  List, Charles, address at Worcester National Convention, i, 232.

  Little, Knox, iii, 471
    --sermon to women, i, 728.

  Livermore, Mary A., ii, 777; iii, 268, 274, 279, 388, 561, 565, 570.

  Livingston, William, i, 441.

  LOCKWOOD, Belva A., ii, 522, 240, 443, 523, 537, 585; iii, 64, 177,
    809, 811, 818
    --attempted to vote, iii, 813
    --admitted to U. S. Supreme Court, iii, 141
    --brief to U. S. Senate, on women as lawyers, iii, 106
    --motion to admit Lowry to Supreme Court, iii, 174
    --speech in Dr. Furness' Church, iii, 35
    --women's rights, the way to get, iii, 73.

  Logan, John A., on woman suffrage, iii, 207.

  Longfellow, Samuel, speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, 711

  Lord, Mrs. A., iii, 703.

  Loring, Geo. B., iii, 154.

  Lords, feudal, i, 760, 762.

  Loud, Huldah B., iii, 279.

  Loughary. Mrs. H. A., iii, 774.

  LOUISIANA, Constitutional Convention, iii, 789
    --married women, laws relating to, iii, 799
    --press, iii, 798
    --St. Anna's Asylum, iii, 789
    --schools, physiology in, iii, 797
    --women eligible to school offices, iii, 795
    --women's club, iii, 796.

  Love, Mary F., i, 583, 587, 589 (See Davis, Mary F.).

  Lovering, J. F., iii, 371.

  Lowell, Jas. R., poem "Endurance," iii, 695.

  Lowell, Josephine Shaw, appointed to office, i, 473;
      police matrons, iii, 432
    --Com'r of Charities, made a, iii, 417.

  Lozier, Clemence S., M. D., iii, 405
    --sketch of, iii, 411, 416, 421
    --presided, 425
    --seats for shop girls, 433
    --protest against District Attorney Russell, 436
    --appeal to voters, 437.

  Lukens, Esther Ann, i, 311.

  Lunt's, Bishop, defence of polygamy, i, 776.

  Luther, Martin, will of, i, 358.

  Luther and polygamy, i, 775, 776.

  Lyford, Rev. C. P., on polygamy, i, 778.

  Lynn, Eliza, i, 34.


  M.

  Macaulay, Catharine Sawbridge, i, 32, 790.

  McCarthy, Justin, iii, 864.

  McClellan, Geo. B., ii, 42, 75.

  McClintock, Thomas, i, 539.

  McClintock, Mary Ann, i, 67, iii, 454.

  McCook, Edward, on suffrage, iii, 713.

  McCook, Mrs. Mary, 715
    --tribute, 718.

  McDonald, Joseph E., women to the Supreme Court, iii, 111, 139, 155
    --moves Standing Committee, iii, 190
    --tribute, iii, 553.

  McDowell, Anna E., _Woman's Advocate_, i, 388
    --_Sunday Dispatch_, iii, 446
    --J. Edgar Thomson's will, iii, 468
    --Rev. Knox Little, iii, 471.

  McDowell, Gertrude, iii, 693.

  Mackey, T. J., iii, 828.

  McLaren, Mrs. Duncan, iii, 842
    --portrait, iii, 849; 951.

  McLaren, Charles, Mr. and Mrs., iii, 927.

  McLaren, Walter, iii, 874, 936.

  McRae, Emma M., argument before House committee, iii, 161.

  Madison, James, ii, 632.

  Mahan, Asa, i, 151
    --argument at Cleveland National Convention, i, 133.

  MAINE, iii, 351
    --Bar, admissions to, iii, 355
    --conventions (see Conventions)
    --faithful friends, iii, 365
    --Goddard, Judge, iii, 353
    --Industrial School for girls, iii, 356
    --legislation, iii, 357, 364
    --married women, law, iii, 352
    --"Moral Eminence of Maine," iii, 359
    --suffrage society, first, iii, 352
    --women holding office, Supreme Judicial Court opinion, iii, 361
    --women in office, Gov. Dingley's message, iii, 363
    --women on school committees, iii, 351
    --woman suffrage, progress made, 1873, iii, 357
    --women tax-payers protest, iii, 356.

  "Male" in the Constitution, ii, 91.

  Manderson, Charles F., iii, 678
    --letter to O. C. Dinsmoor, iii, 688.

  Mandeville, Dr., i, 486.

  Manikin, i, 37.

  Mann, Horace, i, 356.

  Mansfield, Arabella A., case of, ii, 606.

  Manufactures in hands of women, i, 291.

  Marcet, Jane, i, 34.

  "Maria" and "Old Betty," ii, 114.

  Marriage amendment act, English, ii, 293.

  Marriage a cause of disfranchisement, ii, 621.

  Marriage and minority disabilities, ii, 603.

  Marriage, "Mrs. Schlachtfeld," on, iii, 723.

  Marriage, what is legal status of, ii, 456.

  MARRIAGE QUESTION:
    Church views, i, 758
    --devils, with, i, 769
    --Greek church, under, i, 773
    --heterogeneous, i, 719
    --law, i, 107
    --law of 1860, i, 686
    --protest, Robert Dale Owen's, i, 295
    --protest, Lucy Stone's, i, 260
    --relations, i, 293
    --Rose, Ernestine L., on, i, 237.

  MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE:
    Anthony, Susan B., on, i, 735
    --bill before New York Legislature, i, 745
    --Blackwell, Antoinette B., on, i, 723
    --drunkenness, for, i, 485
    --Garrison, Wm. Lloyd, on, i, 733
    --Greeley, Horace, on, i, 740
    --Greeley-Owen discussion, i, 296, 746
    --law amended in Massachusetts, i, 211
    --Mott, Lucretia, on, i, 746
    --Phillips, Wendell, on, i, 732
    --Rose, Ernestine L., on, i, 729
    --Stanton, Elizabeth Cady, on, i, 716
    --Stanton, Mrs., letter to Horace Greeley on, i, 738.

  Marriages solemnized by women, iii, 301.

  Marquette, i, 762.

  Marsh, John, letter to Horace Greeley, i, 503.

  Marsh, Luther R., iii, 408
    --letter to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, 922.

  "Martian Statutes," i, 31.

  Martin, John A., ii, 249.

  MARTINEAU, Harriet, i, 34; iii, 854
    --letter to Pauline W. Davis, i, 229
    --letters to Lucretia Mott, i, 437.

  MARYLAND, iii, 814
    --Baltimore Dental Surgery, iii, 817
    --Equal Rights Society, iii, 815.

  Mason, O. P., iii, 683, 691.

  MASSACHUSETTS, i, 201, iii, 265
    --Association, anniversary, iii, 272
    --association, work done, iii, 269
    --conventions (see Conventions)
    --Democratic Convention, action, iii, 278
    --divorce law amended, i, 211
    --Governors, action of, iii, 287
    --Grant campaign, Tremont Temple meeting, iii, 278
    --Harvard Annex, iii, 294
    --Legislative, action, iii, 284
    --Legislature, petition before, i, 258
    --New England Women's Club, iii, 304
    --petitions, iii, 274, 285
    --Philosophy at Concord, School of, iii, 307
    --prohibitionists, alliance with, iii, 280
    --Republican Convention, action, iii, 277, 278
    --school committees, women, iii, 290
    --school suffrage, iii, 280, 288
    --suffrage associations, iii, 273
    --Supreme Court decisions, iii, 290
    --women in the civil service, iii, 306
    --women delegates to Republican Convention, iii, 277
    --women opposed to suffrage, iii, 275
    --women at the polls, iii, 282
    --women, social condition, iii, 294
    --woman suffrage political party, iii, 276
    --woman suffrage ticket, iii, 281.

  Mather, Cotton, iii, 303.

  Maule, Mollie K., iii, 693.

  Maxwell, Lily, iii, 842.

  May, Joseph, iii, 34.

  May, Samuel J., i, 40, 485, 518; ii, 418, 422
    --"Colored," on the word, ii, 215
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 265
    --President Rochester Convention, made, i, 578
    --speech at American Equal Rights Association meeting, ii, 191
    --speech on temperance, i, 478.

  Mayo, A. D., letter to Syracuse Convention, i, 851.

  Medical, iii, 299, 549.

  Medical College, first opened to women, i, 88, 389.

  Medical Education, Harriot K. Hunt on, i, 356.

  Medical profession, i, 37
    --Iowa women, iii, 631.

  Meetings (see Conventions).

  Memorials, ii, 226, 497; iii, 130, 480, 517, 539, 855
    --Democratic Party, iii, 182
    --Gladstone, iii, 883
    --Greenback Convention, iii, 180
    --Ohio Constitutional Convention, i, 105
    --Republican Party, iii, 177
    --Woodhull, Victoria C., ii, 443
    --Legislatures, i, 673.

  Mendenhall, Mrs. H. S., letter to Dr. Avery, iii, 724.

  Meriman, Emelia J., letter to Second Decade meeting, ii, 441.

  Meriwether, Elizabeth A., iii, 27, 154, 822.

  Merrick, Caroline E., iii, 789
    --women as school officers, iii, 795.

  Merrick, Mrs. E. T., speech, Louisiana Constitutional Convention,
    iii, 792.

  Merrill, Catharine, iii, 548.

  Merrimon, Senator, on the Pembina Territory bill, ii, 552-560.

  Merritt, Paulina, T., iii, 540.

  Methodists and women preachers, i, 784.

  MICHIGAN, iii, 513
    --churches, attitude of, iii, 521
    --constitutional amendment, iii, 518;
      lost, iii, 522
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --Episcopal Church bill, iii, 529
    --legislative action, iii, 516
    --local societies, iii, 529
    --memorial, iii, 517
    --Northwestern Association, iii, 516
    --State Suffrage Society, iii, 515
    --University, iii, 525
    --State University, Ann Arbor, opened to girls, iii, 525
    --vote for woman suffrage, iii, 522
    --women's literary clubs and libraries, iii, 513
    --women voting in Sturgis, iii, 514.

  Middlesex society, iii, 270.

  Miles, Nelson A., iii, 779.

  MILL, John Stuart, ii, 341, 378, 727, 833
    --death of, iii, 853
    --Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, 334
    --"Household Suffrage Bill" amendment, ii, 182
    --Letter to Paulina W. Davis, i, 220; ii, 419
    --letter to S. N. Wood, ii, 252
    --women government, on, iii, 77.

  MILL, Mrs. John Stuart, essay, i, 225.

  Miller, Francis, argument, ii, 523
    --Argument Spencer-Webster suit, ii, 595
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 536.

  Mills, Chas. D. B., letter to M. J. Gage, ii, 424; ii, 915.

  Milton, John, i, 779, 780.

  Ministers, charges against, i, 135.

  MINNESOTA, iii, 648
    --Appendix:
      Early friends, iii, 973;
      school officers, 973;
      authors and poets, iii, 974;
      graduates from State University, iii, 974;
      teachers and professors, iii, 975;
      medical profession, benevolent institutions, painters in oil and
        water colors, iii, 976;
      musical clubs, speakers and writers, iii, 977
    --coëducation, iii, 656
    --constitution, bill to amend, iii, 651
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --Evangelists, iii, 657
    --homestead law, iii, 655
    --Kasson Society, iii, 652
    --legislative hearing, iii, 651
    --petitions to Congress, iii, 651
    --property rights of married women, iii, 655
    --Rochester society, iii, 651
    --school officers, voting for, iii, 653
    --school suffrage, iii, 652
    --State association organized, iii, 657
    --teachers, iii, 660
    --temperance question, iii, 655.

  Miner, Myrtilla, iii, 808.

  Minor, Francis, resolutions St. Louis Convention, ii, 407, 717.

  MINOR, Virginia L., Dahlgren's, Mrs., memorial, on, iii, 103
    --delegate to Nat. Democratic Convention, iii, 27
    --labors of, iii, 596
    --sanitary work, iii, 597
    --speeches:
      St. Louis Convention, ii, 409;
      Washington Convention, iii, 257
    --suit, ii, 715
    --Chief-Justice Waite's opinion, ii, 734
    --decision reviewed by Mrs. Gage, ii, 742
    --reviewed by _Central Law Journal_, ii, 748
    --taxes, refused to pay, iii, 607
    --vote, attempted to, iii, 606.

  MISSISSIPPI, iii, 806.

  MISSOURI, i, 194, 594
    --address to voters, iii, 599
    --Church and State, iii, 601
    --colleges and law schools, iii, 594
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --petition to Legislature, iii, 601
    --suffrage movement, facts and incidents, iii, 604
    --taxation, iii, 600
    --Woman Suffrage Association organized, iii, 599;
      division, iii, 603
    --woman's union, iii, 607
    --women in the war, iii, 596.

  Mob Convention, Broadway Tabernacle, i, 546.

  Mobs, i, 467.

  Moody, W. W., iii, 662.

  Morelli, Salvatore, iii, 898.

  Morgan, E. D., i, 687.

  Morgan, John T., on woman suffrage, iii, 210.

  Morgan, Middie, live-stock reporter, iii, 403.

  Morinella, Lucrezia, i, 29.

  Mormonism, see _Polygamy_.

  Morrill, Senator, on Sargent's amendment to Pembina Territory bill,
    ii, 562
    --speech on woman suffrage, ii, 118, 563.

  Morris, Esther, made Justice of Peace, iii, 731.

  Morris, W. H., iii, 691.

  Morrow, Jane, sketch of i, 313.

  Morton, O. P., iii, 114, 553
    --Pembina Territory bill, on the, ii, 549, 569, 571.

  Moss, Charles E., speech, ii, 200.

  "Mother Bickerdyke" iii, 709.

  Mott, James, i, 69, 174, 438.

  MOTT, Lucretia, ii, 177, 184; iii, 456
    --address at Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, 355
    --Bible, on the, i, 143
    --Bible, position of woman, on the, i, 380
    --Cleveland National Convention, at, i, 124
    --dangerous woman, spoken of as a, i, 423
    --divorce, on, i, 746
    --eulogy by Elizabeth Cady Stanton, i, 407
    --Farewell, last Convention, iii, 125
    --funeral, i, 835
    --Furness' church meeting, at, iii, 35
    --home of, i, 411
    --Howitt, William, correspondence, i, 434
    --letter to Lydia Mott, i, 746
    --letter to Josephine Griffing, ii, 873
    --letter to St. Louis Convention, iii, 144
    --letter to Salem, O., Convention, i, 812
    --letter to Saratoga Convention, i, 626
    --Luther's will, on, i, 359
    --marriage of, i, 408
    --marriage, on, i, 79
    --Martineau, Harriet, correspondence, i, 437
    --memorial service, iii, 188
    --ministry, engaged in, i, 412
    --O'Connell, Daniel, correspondence, i, 432
    --portrait, i, 369
    --President of the American Equal Rights Association, made, ii, 174
    --President, meeting in Dr. Furness' church, iii, 35
    --President National Woman's Rights at Syracuse, made, i, 519
    --President Washington National Convention, made, ii, 346
    --Pulpit, on the, i, 73
    --recollections of, by Robert Collyer, i, 409, 414
    --religion and theology, on, i, 422
    --Rochester Convention, at, iii, 123
    --sketch of, i, 407
    --slavery, on, i, 416
    --speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 557
    --Syracuse National Convention, argument, i, 527
    --tribute, Susan B. Anthony's, iii, 189
    --womanhood, her reply to R. H. Dana's lecture, i, 368.

  Mott, Lydia, i, 376, 476, 519, 578, 593, 623, 744
    --letter Susan B. Anthony, i, 630; iii, 409.

  Mott, Mary, letter to Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, 829.

  Mottoes, Washington Convention, 1880, iii, 151
    --Newbury Society, Ohio, 502.

  Moulton, Louise Chandler, i, 49.


  N.

  Nash, Clara H., iii, 358
    --admitted to the Bar, iii, 355.

  Nash, Mary E., iii, 623.

  National Association, officers 1886, iii, 956.

  _National Citizen_, iii, 114, 116, 125.

  Nations, mortality of, ii, 201.

  Neal, Alice Bradley, i, 386.

  Neal, John, ii, 435; iii, 352.

  NEBRASKA, iii, 670
    --campaign, iii, 241
    --canvass of the State, iii, 686
    --Constitutional amendment, iii, 683;
      again defeated, 691;
      convention, 677;
      debate, 678;
      new constitution, 680
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --description of, iii, 671
    --electors, qualifications of, iii, 680
    --Fourteenth Amendment ratified, iii, 675
    --Frontier life, iii, 671
    --legislative action, iii, 672, 674, 675, 676, 683, 695
    --State, made a, iii, 675
    --suffrage societies, first, iii, 681
    --Thayer County Association, iii, 686
    --Woman Suffrage Amendment beaten at the polls, iii, 677
    --woman suffrage bill passed House, beaten in Senate, iii, 672
    --woman suffrage, first work in Lincoln, iii, 675
    --women, leading, iii, 692.

  Negro, civil and political right of, argument, ii, 59.

  Negroes opposed to woman suffrage in Kansas, ii, 232, 238.

  Negro suffrage, ii, 103, 106.

  Nevin, Dr., defence of the clergy, i, 140.

  New England Convention, i, 262.

  NEW HAMPSHIRE, iii, 367
    --married men, bill to protect, iii, 372
    --married women, Judicial decision, iii, 379
    --petitions, iii, 371
    --Republican Convention, iii, 373
    --State Association formed, iii, 370
    --woman suffrage, first organized action, iii, 367
    --women on school committees, iii, 374
    --women voting, iii, 376.

  NEW JERSEY, i, 441; iii, 476
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --Constitution, defects in, i, 451
    --Historical Society, i, 447
    --legislative hearings, iii, 490
    --memorial to Legislature, iii, 480
    --mothers' legal claim to their children, iii, 483
    --property of married women, iii, 484
    --State Society, iii, 479
    --suffrage, progress made, iii, 479
    --Women's Club of Orange, iii, 482
    --Woman's Political Science Club, iii, 481
    --women in the pulpit, iii, 484
    --women as school trustees, iii, 484
    --woman suffrage, celebration of, ii, 846
    --woman suffrage, origin of, i, 447
    --women voted, iii, 476.

  _New Orleans Picayune_, iii, 798.

  Newspapers, women in, i, 43.

  NEW YORK, i, 63, 472, iii, 395
    --appendix, iii, 959
    --Constitutional Convention, ii, 269, 282
    --Constitutional revision commission, iii, 409
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --disfranchisement bill, Attorney-General Russell's opinion,
      iii, 434
    --Lansingburgh taxpayers, iii, 441
    --Legislative hearings, i, 464, 489, 605, 679, 745; iii, 406, 409,
      417, 420;
      disfranchisement bill, iii, 426, 431, 434;
      reports on petitions, i, 612;
      report on woman suffrage, i, 629;
      school suffrage bill passed, iii, 424;
      suffrage, power to extend, iii, 959
    --License Law
    of 1848, repeal, i, 474
    --property rights granted, iii, 438
    --reception at the capitol, iii, 438
    --results, iii, 443.

  _New York Christian Enquirer_ on the Worcester National Convention,
    i, 243.

  _New York Evening Express_, ii, 95.

  _New York Evening Post_, ii, 102.

  _New York Herald_ on Senator Wilson and woman suffrage, ii, 325.

  _New York Independent_ on the New York Constitutional Convention,
    ii, 305.

  _New York Times_, i, 645, 648.

  _New York Tribune_, ii, 101, 103, 304, 491, 820; iii, 46
    --support lost, ii, 269
    --World's Temperance Convention, on the, i, 511
    --woman as a voter, on the, ii, 248
    --Kansas campaign, on the, ii, 232.

  Neyman, Clara, speech at Washington Convention, iii, 258.

  Nichols, Elizabeth Pease, iii, 837, 925-6.

  NICHOLS, Clarina I. Howard, iii, 704
    --Centennial protest, iii, 49
    --education of women, on, i, 356
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 258
    --letter to Rochester Temperance Convention, i, 847
    --portrait, i, 192
    --reminiscences, i, 171
    --speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 561
    --Syracuse National Convention arguments, i, 522
    --tribute, iii, 764
    --work in Vermont, iii, 383.

  Nicholson, Mrs. E. J., iii, 798.

  Nightingale, Florence, ii, 14; iii, 854.

  Nixon, Jennie C., iii, 798.

  NORTH CAROLINA, iii, 825.

  Northcote, Sir Stafford, iii, 873
    --speech on woman suffrage, iii, 887.

  Norton, Caroline, i, 229.

  Norway, iii, 912.

  Nye, Joshua, iii, 359.


  O.

  Obituaries, ii, 905; iii, 891.

  O'Connell, Daniel, letter to Lucretia Mott, i, 432.

  O'Connor, Henry, iii, 617.

  OHIO, i, 101; iii, 491
    --centennial celebration, women decline to take part, iii, 507
    --Constitutional Convention, iii, 565
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --Equal Rights Association, iii, 491
    --Painesville Equal Rights Society, iii, 509
    --Senate Committee report on the suffrage question, i, 870
    --Soldiers' Aid society, first, iii, 491
    --Toledo society, iii, 503, 506
    --women of Oberlin protest against enfranchisement, iii, 494.

  Oliver, Anna, debate upon ordaining, i, 784
    --suit, iii, 440.

  Oliver, Lewise, letters, iii, 40.

  _Omaha Republican_, iii, 682
    --on Omaha Convention, iii, 251.

  OREGON, iii, 767
    --clergy favor woman suffrage, iii, 778
    --constitutional amendment lost, iii, 778
    --Convention at Portland, iii, 773
    --Donation Land Act, iii, 770
    --legislative action, iii, 779
    --married woman's property bill, iii, 775
    --married woman's sole trader bill, iii, 771
    --school offices, women made eligible, iii, 775
    --suffrage organizations formed, iii, 774
    --suffrage society, first, iii, 768
    --Temperance Alliance, iii, 771
    --woman suffrage bill, iii, 771
    --woman suffrage bill passed Legislature, iii, 776.

  Oren, Mrs. Sarah A., iii, 548, 972.

  Organizations, Angelina G. Weld, on, i, 540.

  Orth, Judge, votes woman suffrage in Congress, ii, 483
    --on national platform, iii, 225.

  Orient, iii, 918.

  Orme, Miss, iii, 928, 982.

  Ostrander, Mrs. R., i, 180.

  Otis, James, ii, 291, 644.

  OWEN, Robert Dale, Women's Loyal League, ii, 50
    --"male" in Federal Constitution, ii, 91
    --birthday anniversary, 83rd, i, 619
    --Greeley discussion on divorce, i, 746
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, i, 292
    --sketch of, by Rosamond Dale Owen, i, 293
    --speech at meeting in Philadelphia, ii, 817
    --speech, property rights of married women, i, 296
    --spiritualism, i, 301
    --testimonial, silver pitcher, i, 300.

  Owen, Mrs. Robert Dale, i, 302, 313,
    (see Robinson, Mary).

  Owen, Sarah C., letter to Emily Collins, i, 91
    --speech, i, 78.


  P.

  Pacific Northwest, iii, 767.

  Paddock, A. S., iii, 674.

  Painter, Hetty R., iii, 693.

  Paist, Harriet W., iii, 467.

  Pan-Presbyterians, i, 783.

  Panim, Ivan, i, 773.

  Parasol-makers, ii, 829.

  Parker, Alex., speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 560.

  Parker, Julia Smith, argument before Senate Committee, iii, 156
    (see Smith, Julia, and Abby).

  Parker, Mary S., i, 39.

  Parker Theodore, i, 626; ii, 207
    --sermon "Function of Woman," i, 277.

  Parnell, Stewart, M. P., iii, 71.

  Parnell, Rosina M., iii, 956.

  Parody, woman suffrage in the courts, ii, 599.

  "Pastoral Letter," i, 81, 84.

  Pat and the Locomotive, ii, 188.

  Patridge, Lelia E., ii, 852; iii, 461.

  Patterson, Catherine G., iii, 712.

  Patterson, Jessie, iii, 708.

  Peckham, Lilia, career, iii, 642.

  Peel, Sir Robert, iii, 835.

  Pellet, Sarah, speech at Saratoga Convention, i, 621.

  Pembina Territory bill, U. S. Senate debate on Sargent's amendment,
    ii, 545
    --bill rejected, ii, 582
    (see also Congressional).

  Penn, William, i, 320.

  Pennell, Mrs. Horace, i, 92.

  PENNSYLVANIA, i, 320; iii, 444
    --anti-slavery struggle, i, 323
    --appendix, iii, 961
    --Century Club, iii, 469
    --Citizens' Suffrage Association, iii, 460
    --common law, iii, 961
    --Constitutional Convention, iii, 495
    --Conventions (_see Conventions_)
    --Fugitive Slave law i, 328
    --hall, destruction of, i, 333
    --Legislature recommends a sixteenth amendment, iii, 474
    --literary women, iii, 469
    --medical school controversy, iii, 447
    --petitions to Legislature, iii, 463
    --property law, married women's, iii, 445
    --school officers, women elected, iii, 467
    --school offices, women made eligible, iii, 465
    --statutes and court decisions, iii, 963
    --suffrage association formed in Philadelphia, iii, 457
    --report, annual, iii, 459
    --Swarthmore college, iii, 456
    --temperance work in, i, 344
    --University, attempt to open to women, iii, 474
    --University, clinical instruction, iii, 448
    --Woman's Medical College, i, 389
    --Woman's Medical College, report on hospital clinics, iii, 450
    --woman's rights, first legal argument, iii, 462
    --women sold with cattle, iii, 445.

  Perry, M. Frederica, lawyer, iii, 574.

  Peru, iii, 6.

  Peterson, Myra, iii, 703.

  PETITION to Congress for a XVI. amendment, ii, 851
    --first, sent to New York Legislature, iii, 395
    --Sherman-Dahlgren against woman suffrage, ii, 494
    --Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 78.

  Petitions, i, 262, 308, 315, 489, 588, 625, 629; ii, 91, 282, 283,
    286, 401, 514, 516, 560, 698; iii, 58, 104, 790
    --form of, i, 676
    --New York Legislature report, i, 612;
      against, iii, 571, 841.

  Petitioners, four classes of, ii, 283.

  Phelps, Almira L., letter to Mrs. Hooker, iii, 100.

  Phelps, Elizabeth B., woman's bureau, ii, 431.

  Phelps, Elizabeth Stuart, ii, 831.

  _Philadelphia Press_, ii, 359; iii, 44
    --_Ledger_, iii, 43.

  Philadelphia Anti-Slavery Society, i, 325.

  PHILLIPS, Wendell, ii, 317, 268; i, 469
    --Anti-Slavery Convention, London, i, 54
    --Grimké, Angelina, his opinion of, i, 399
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 230
    --last letter on woman suffrage, iii, 122
    --letter of regret, Saratoga Con., i, 627
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 62
    --letter to Mrs. Stebbins, iii, 522
    --marriage and divorce, on, i, 732
    --Mrs. Eddy's will, iii, 312
    --self-government, on, i, 258
    --speeches:
      Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 572, 637;
      Cooper Institute Convention, i, 701;
      Mozart Hall Convention, i, 674;
      National Convention, Boston, ii, 178;
      New England Convention, i, 273;
      Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 84;
      Worcester, Mass., Convention, i, 227
    --treasurer of Jackson fund, i, 189
    --woman suffrage, apathy, ii, 318
    --World's Temperance Convention, at the, i, 152.

  Philosophy, school of, at Concord, iii, 307.

  Physical culture, ii, 908.

  Physicians and nurses, iii, 298.

  Pickler, J. A., letter to M. J. Gage, iii, 668.

  Pierce, J. D., on woman suffrage, iii, 739.

  Pierce, Wm. S., on woman suffrage, iii, 458.

  Pierpont, Rev. John, iii, 294
    --speech at Broadway Tabernacle, i, 451, 569.

  PILLSBURY, Parker, speeches, i, 427, 671; ii, 173, 176, 201, 375;
    iii, 173, 196, 275, 367, 478, 948
    --appeal for, universal suffrage, ii, 917
    --editor, _The Revolution_, ii, 264
    --Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, 265, 335, 337
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 265; iii, 367, 945.

  Pitkin, Benjamin C, on woman's rights, i, 209.

  Playfair, Lyon, iii, 850.

  Plumb, P. B., the Kansas campaign, ii, 231, 253.

  Plumly, Rush, i, 364.

  Pochin, Henry D., iii, 847.

  Pochin, Mrs., iii, 848, 929.

  Poem, "Endurance," Lowell, iii, 695
    --Frances D. Gage and the Hutchinsons, iii, 38
    --"From Clatsop," iii, 780
    --"Pastoral Letter," i, 84
    --"Ancient Usage," i, 371
    --"The Times That Try Men's Souls," i, 82
    --"Woman's Cause," Lowell, i, 263
    --Tennyson's Princess, iii, 258.

  POLAND, iii, 917.

  Police, women as, iii, 397, 431, 432.

  Political campaigns, Anna E. Dickinson, ii, 43.

  Political disabilities, ii, 315.

  Polygamy, i, 776, 777, 778
    --Miss Couzins on, iii, 223, 128, 130
    --Bishop Lunt's defense of, i, 776.

  Pomeroy, C. R., letter to Des Moines Convention, iii, 618.

  Pomeroy, Senator, S. C., i, 185
    --speeches, ii, 151, 324, 346, 419; iii, 727, 811.

  Poppleton, A. J., speech at Omaha Convention, iii, 241.

  Porter, Albert G., iii, 538, 553.

  Portugal, iii, 901.

  POST, Amy, i, 75
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, iii, 48
    --Third Decade Meeting in Rochester, N. Y., iii, 117
    --tried to vote, ii, 647.

  Potter, T. B., iii, 848.

  Powell, Aaron M., i, 468, 671; ii, 783.

  Pray, Isaac C., speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 571.

  Presidential campaigns:
    --1856, John C. Fremont, i, 633, 641, 643
    --1872, Grant and Wilson, ii, 217, 520
    --1876, Hayes and Tilden, iii, 22, 26, 415
    --1880, Garfield and Hancock, iii, 175, 187, 431.

  Preston, Ann, i, 389, 390
    --address at Westchester, Pa., Convention, i, 360
    --Dean Medical College, iii, 450.

  Pretorius, Emile, letter to Woman's Nat. Loyal League, ii, 86.

  Price, Abby, speech at Syracuse National Convention, i, 532
    --Worcester Convention, i, 218, 242.

  Priestley, celibacy, i, 759, 760.

  Prince, Bradford L., iii, 417.

  Privileges and immunities, ii, 453.

  Progressive friends, i, 141.

  Prohibition Convention, iii, 183.

  Prohibitionists, alliance with, iii, 280.

  Property Bill, i, 64
    --bill, New York, i, 256
    --laws, i, 171
    --rights, Wm. Hay's paper, i, 607
    --rights of married women, iii, 325
    --opinions of Indiana Legislators, i, 299.

  Prostitution, i, 264; iii, 144, 397, 398
    (see, also, Vice).

  Pryor, Margaret, iii, 477.

  Pugh, Sarah, i, 327, 337, 376
    --letter to Salem, O., Convention, i, 814; iii, 19, 34
    --at Third Decade Convention, iii, 125.

  Pulpit, ii, 902
    --charges against, 135.

  Pulte medical college, iii, 511.

  Purvis, Robert, ii, 183, 265, 347, 358, 418; iii, 63, 72.


  Q.

  Quakers, i, 412, 783.

  "Queen's women," i, 794.


  R.

  Ransier, A. J., ii, 542; iii, 829.

  Raymond, Henry J., i, 547, 649.

  Reconstruction, ii, 313.

  Reed, C. A., iii, 768, 773.

  Reed, Thomas B., in Congress, iii, 219, 366.

  Reformation, i, 774.

  Reid, Mrs. Hugo, iii, 836, 838.

  REMINISCENCES:
    --Collins, Emily, i, 88
    --Davis, Paulina W., by "E. C. S.," i, 283
    --Grimké, Angelina, by "E. C. S." i, 392
    --Nichols, Clarina I. H., i, 171
    --Stanton's, Elizabeth C., i, 456; iii, 922
    --Starrett, Helen E., ii, 250
    --Thomas, Mary F., i, 306
    --Way, Amanda, i, 306.

  Remond, Charles L., i,, 214, 220, 225.

  Republican Party, iii, 279.

  Republicans, treachery of, ii, 322.

  Reports (see Woman Suffrage).

  Resolutions:
    i, 71, 219, 254, 535, 537, 542, 570, 574, 580, 593, 633, 641, 644,
      646, 673, 694, 706, 708, 716, 723, 787, 808, 814, 816, 817, 820,
      821, 823, 825, 827, 833, 834, 855;
    ii, 57, 84, 154, 171, 190, 213, 358, 384, 388, 396, 407, 420, 436,
      493, 521, 533, 537, 583, 584, 780, 809, 810, 818, 826, 837, 843,
      859;
    iii, 5, 19, 61, 69, 74, 124, 128, 152, 252, 256, 493, 566, 619, 641,
      676, 707, 708, 780.

  Retrospect, iii, 51.

  Revelation, i, 647.

  Revolution, 1776, i, 747
    --Arnett, Hannah, i, 441
    --battle, first, i, 203
    --girls, two, with a drum and fife, i, 204
    --spy, female, i, 323
    --women in the, i, 201, 321, 444.

  _Revolution, The_, i, 46; ii, 317, 319, 321, 324, 333, 340, 344, 345,
    372, 381, 382, 400, 401, 407, 411, 426, 431; iii, 397, 398, 478,
    752, 802
    --editorial correspondence, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, ii, 362, 367
    --establishment of, iii, 401
    --founded, when, ii, 264.

  RHODE ISLAND, iii, 339
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --legislation, iii, 346
    --State Association, organized, iii, 340,
      address, iii, 345;
      work done, iii, 343
    --women represented, iii, 349
    --Women's Board of Visitors, iii, 345
    --women on school boards, iii, 341.

  Richards, David M., iii, 715, 716, 719, 721.

  Richardson, Susan Hoxie, iii, 560.

  Ricker, Marilla M., iii, 106
    --first woman to cast a vote, ii, 586
    --prison reform, on, iii, 578.

  Riddle, Albert G., iii, 106
    --speech at Washington Convention, ii, 421
    --speech before Congressional Committee, ii, 448
    --Spencer-Webster suit, argument, ii, 587.

  Roberts, Mrs. Marshall O., iii, 400.

  Roberts, William H., iii, 777.

  Robinson, Charles, i, 191.

  Robinson, Emily, i, 103.

  Robinson, Harriett Hanson, iii, 125, 196, 222, 227, 229, 265.

  Robinson, Lelia J., application to the bar, iii, 307
    --Supreme Court decision, iii, 308.

  Robinson, Lucius (Gov.), defeat of, iii, 423
    --vetoes school suffrage bill, iii, 418.

  Robinson, Mary, sketch of, i, 293.

  _Rochester Democrat and Chronicle_ on Miss Anthony's trial, ii, 715.

  _Rochester Evening Express_ on Miss Anthony's trial, ii, 714.

  _Rocky Mountain News_, iii, 715.

  Roebling, Mrs., iii, 440.

  Roebuck's flattery of woman, i, 537.

  Rogers, Nathaniel P., i, 61, iii, 367.

  Roland, Pauline, i, 234.

  Rome, "The City of God," i, 794.

  Root, H. K., speech at Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 560.

  Root J. P., on the Kansas campaign, ii, 258.

  ROSE, Ernestine L., i, 38, 52, 619, 624, 626, 636; ii, 390; iii, 514
    --biography, i, 95
    --debate, Cleveland National Convention, i, 133
    --English women, on, i, 645
    --Equal Rights Association, on the, ii, 397
    --_Letters_:
      to Susan B. Anthony, i, 99, iii, 50;
      to Mrs. J. F. Griffing, ii, 356;
      to Rochester Convention, iii, 120
    --marriage, on, i, 237
    --marriage and divorce, on, i, 729
    --portrait of, i, 97
    --propagandist, _Albany Register_ charges, i, 608
    --resolutions, i, 707
    --_Speeches_:
      Broadway Tabernacle, i, 562, 661;
      Cooper Institute Convention, i, 692;
      New York Legislature, i, 607;
      Philadelphia Convention, i, 376;
      Rochester Convention, i, 579;
      Syracuse Convention, i, 537;
      Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 60, 64, 73;
      Worcester Convention, i, 237
    --tribute to Frances Wright, i, 692
    --Westchester, Pa., Convention, at, i, 357
    --women in colleges, on, i, 144; ii, 208
    --in London, 1883, iii, 940.

  Ross, E. G., letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 423.

  Ross, James, i, 449.

  Ross, Laura J., ii, 374;
    (see Wolcott, Laura Ross).

  Russell, Leslie W., iii, 434
    --defeat of, iii. 437.

  Russell, Lucinda, correspondence, iii, 682
    --sketch of, iii, 692.

  Russia, iii, 915.


  S.

  Sacrilegious child, Cardinal Antonelli's, i, 788.

  Safe deposit companies, iii, 402.

  St. Chrysostom's description of woman, i, 758.

  St. John, Gov., J. P., ii, 258. iii, 706.

  St. Paul, quotations, iii, 720.

  Salic law, i, 774.

  Sanborn, Frank B., ii, 765.

  Sandford, Arch-Deacon, iii, 848.

  Sanford, Rebecca M., i, 77
    --letter to Cleveland Convention, i, 819.

  Sandige, John M., iii, 791.

  Sanitary Commission, ii, 13.

  SARGENT, A. A., iii, 108
    --California Constitution, on the, iii, 760
    --District of Columbia suffrage bill, on the, ii, 483
    --letter to Omaha Convention, iii, 245
    --letter to Rochester Convention, iii, 121
    --Pembina Territory bill, amendment, ii, 545;
      bill rejected, ii, 582
    --Pembina Territory bill, on the, ii, 546, 555, 564, 567
    --resolution, woman suffrage, iii, 70
    --speech in San Francisco, on woman's rights, ii, 483
    --speech in Senate, iii, 9
    --woman suffrage, joint resolution, iii, 75
    --minister at Berlin, iii, 944.

  Sargent, Elizabeth, M. D., iii, 763.

  Sargent, J. T., letter to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, 911
    --speech at New England Convention, i, 270.

  Saunders, Alvin, on woman suffrage, iii, 226, 674.

  Savage, John, i, 38.

  Saxe, Dana, and Grace Greenwood, i, 828.

  Saxon Elizabeth L., iii, 180, 197, 241, 690, 791
    --argument before Senate committee, iii, 157.

  Scatcherd, Mrs. Oliver, iii, 875, 878, 923, 929, 936.

  Schell, Augustus, favors woman suffrage, iii, 422.

  Schenck, Elizabeth T., iii, 750, 754.

  School of Design for Women, i, 390; iii, 399.

  School officers, bill passed New York Legislature, iii, 417;
    vetoed by Gov. Robinson, iii, 418.

  School suffrage (see Suffrage Gained).

  Schurz, Carl, i, 42; ii, 370; iii, 46.

  SCOTLAND (see Great Britain, iii, 833).

  Scott, Thomas A., ii, 5.

  Scovill, James M., ii, 420; iii, 477.

  Sears, Judge, in Kansas campaign, ii, 240, 253.

  See, Rev. Isaac M., trial of, i, 780; iii, 485.

  Segur, Rose L., iii, 103.

  Selden, H. R., Miss Anthony's counsel, ii, 629, 647, 652, 654, 679,
    680, 689;
    appeal to Congress, 698.

  Seneca Falls Convention, i, 67.

  Severance, Caroline M., address at Broadway Tabernacle, i, 569
    --New England Convention, i, 262
    --letter to Mrs. E. C. Stanton, ii, 911.

  Sewall, Samuel E., iii, 269.

  Seward, Wm. H., on self-government, ii, 76, 77; iii, 85
    --on woman's rights, i, 457.

  Sewall, May Wright, iii, 226, 534, 557, 259.

  Seymour, Horatio, thirty pieces of silver, i, 473.

  Shattuck, Harriette R., iii, 226, 257.

  Shaw, Sarah B., letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 239.

  Shelly, Kate, heroism of, iii, 633.

  Sherman-Dahlgren petition against woman suffrage, ii, 494.

  Shields, M. F., iii, 719.

  Sholes, C. L., report on rights of women in Wisconsin, i, 315;
    iii, 640.

  Shuman, Andrew, iii, 561.

  Silk Culture, iii, 762.

  Simpson, Bishop, favors woman suffrage, iii, 460, 616.

  Sixteenth Amendment, ii, 333, 350, 351, 352, 353, 400, 420, 422,
    425, 436; iii, 112.

  Sixteenth Amendment, reasons for a, iii, 235.

  Sixteenth Amendment, renewed appeal, iii, 58
    --press comments, iii, 67.

  Sketches, _see Biography_.

  Slave law, fugitive, Pennsylvania, i, 328.

  Slavery, Angelina Grimké's speech, i, 334
    (see, also, Anti-Slavery).

  Slavery sustained by the North, ii, 542.

  Slavery and the war, ii, 77.

  Slavonic countries, iii, 915.

  Smith, Elizabeth Oakes, iii, 117, 128, 328, 826
    --Massachusetts Constitutional Convention, at the, i, 253
    --speech at Syracuse Convention, i, 522
    --Worcester Convention, at, i, 231.

  SMITH Gerrit, home of, i, 471
    --letter to
      Susan B. Anthony, i, 497; ii, 317, 538, 941;
      Wm. Lloyd Garrison, i, 223, 620;
      St. Louis Convention, ii, 825;
      Elizabeth Cady Stanton, i, 708, 836
    --speech at Syracuse National Convention, i, 526
    --petition for woman suffrage, refused to sign, ii, 317.

  Smith, Mrs. Gerrit, petition, ii, 98.

  Smith, Hannah Whitehall, speech at Philadelphia Convention, iii, 230.

  Smith, Julia and Abby, iii, 76, 98, 328, 336.

  Smith, Sidney, iii, 834.

  Snow, Lucy and Lavinia, iii, 365.

  Social relations, Channing's report, i, 233.

  Sojourner Truth, i, 115, 567; ii, 193, 222, 224, 926; iii, 458, 531.

  Soldiers, women as, ii, 18, 869.

  Somerville, Mary, i, 790
    --letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 440.

  Song, "A Hundred Years Hence," iii, 38.

  Song, "Kansas Suffrage," ii, 934.

  Sorosis, iii, 402, 571.

  South, what the, can do, ii, 929.

  SOUTH CAROLINA, iii, 828.

  Southwick, Thankful, i, 341.

  Southworth, Mrs. E. D. E. N., iii, 813.

  SPAIN, iii, 901.

  Spencer, Herbert, i, 26.

  SPENCER, Sarah Andrews, iii, 35, 66, 97, 103
    --argument before House Committee, iii, 166
    --before Senate Judiciary Committee, ii, 543
    --before D. C. Committee, iii, 12
    --delegate Rep. Nat. Convention, iii, 26
    --resolutions, iii, 152
    --speeches, ii, 539
    --suit, ii, 587
    --Chief-Justice Cartter's opinion, ii, 597.

  Spider-crab, Theodore Tilton, ii, 93.

  Sprague, Homer B., ii, 425.

  Stanford, Leland, iii, 764.

  Stansfeld, M. P., James, iii, 872
    --speech, iii, 886.

  Stanton, Edwin M., and Mrs. J. S. Griffing, ii, 33.

  STANTON, Elizabeth Cady, i, 61, 67, 79; ii, 322, 360, 361, 381, 382,
    383, 391, 417, 418, 428, 430, 456, 582; iii, 7, 35, 40, 195, 222,
    529, 560, 630, 644, 811
    --Abolitionists, and the, ii, 264
    --address to New York Legislature, i, 595
    --appeal to women of New York State, i, 676
    --appeal to women of the Republic, ii, 51
    --appeal for Woman's Rights, i, 858
    --argument before Senate committee, iii, 228
    --"Bloomer," in a, i, 128
    --California visit, iii, 756
    --call, loyal women, ii, 53
    --candidate for Congress, ii, 180
    --children i, 457
    --civil rights bill for women, ii, 541
    --"copperheads," ii, 320
    --divorce for drunkenness, argument, i, 485
    --editorial correspondence in _The Revolution_, ii, 362, 367
    --eulogy: Lucretia Mott, i, 407
    --Equal Rights Association, ii, 173, 174
    --eternal punishment, on, iii, 196
    --Fifteenth Amendment, on the, ii, 333
    --girls and boys at school, on, ii, 541
    --Grant and Wilson campaign, in, ii, 520
    --Greeley, Horace, and, ii, 287
    --Hurlbut, Judge, i, 39
    --Kansas campaign, i, 200; ii, 253, 254, 261, 262, 263
    --lecture, "Education of Girls," iii, 536
    --lectures in Omaha, iii, 675
    --lecturing tour, Ohio, iii, 491
    --Letters:
      to Akron, O., Convention, i, 815;
      to _The Ballot Box_, iii, 64;
      to Cooper Institute Convention, i, 860;
      to Gerrit Smith, i, 839;
      to Gen. Hawley, iii, 28;
      to Horace Greeley, i, 735;
      to the _National Citizen_, iii, 147;
      to Omaha convention, iii, 244;
      to Salem, O., convention, i, 810;
      to Syracuse convention i, 848;
      to Washington convention, iii, 261
    --London visit, 1882-3, iii, 922
    --"male" in the constitution, on the word, ii, 91
    --manhood suffrage, on, iii, 566
    --marriage and divorce, on, i, 716, 738
    --Michigan campaign iii, 521
    --"Negro's hour," ii, 94
    --Newport Con., ii, 403
    --Oregon, Mo., visit, iii, 609
    --portrait, i, 721
    --President Albany convention, i, 592
    --President Loyal League, made, ii, 66
    --press comments on Rochester and Seneca Falls conventions,
        her reply to, i, 806
    --reception, Sorosis, Chicago, iii, 571
    --reconstruction, on, ii, 214
    --Reminiscences: i, 456, 836; iii, 922;
      of Angelina Grimké, i, 392;
      of Paulina Wright Davis, i, 283
    --resolutions before Congress affecting women, on, ii, 92
    --resolutions, Washington convention, ii, 542
    --sermon, St. Louis, iii, 148
    --Sixteenth Amendment, urges a, ii, 350
    --Smith, Gerrit, refusing to sign petition for woman suffrage, on,
      ii, 317
    --Speeches:
      Cooper Institute, i, 716;
      Congressional committee, before, ii, 411;
      Furness' Church, in, iii, 35;
      Legislature, claiming woman's rights, ii, 271;
      Milwaukee, iii, 641;
      National protection for National citizens, iii, 80;
      New York Legislature, i, 679;
      New York National convention, ii, 154;
      Rochester Convention, iii, 117;
      Rochester Temperance Convention, i, 481, 493;
      Senate Judiciary Committee, before, ii, 506;
      suffrage, question of, ii, 185;
      Washington Convention, ii, 495;
      Washington Nat. Convention, ii, 348;
      Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 87
    --testimonial ii, 533
    --Train, G. F., and _The Revolution_, criticism, ii, 264
    --tribute from _Leavenworth Commercial_ (Kansas), ii, 263
    --view of, an objective, i, 456
    --Wadleigh, Senator, on, iii, 93
    --western trip, ii, 367
    --Wyoming visit, iii, 734.

  Stanton Harriot, letter to Nebraska voters, iii, 247, 933.

  Stanton, Theodore, iii, 262, 895, 928.

  Starrett, Helen Ekin, reminiscences Kansas campaign, ii, 250, 348.

  Stearns, O. P., iii, 528.

  Stearns, Sarah Burger, iii, 527, 649.

  Stebbins, Catharine A. F., ii, 26, 514
    --before House committee, iii, 162
    --letter to Lucretia Mott, iii, 47
    --vote, attempts to, iii, 523.

  Steck, Amos, iii, 714.

  Steele, William, iii, 319.

  Stephens, Alexander H., reception, iii, 98, 830.

  Stevens, Louisa B., iii, 633.

  Stevens, Thaddeus, ii, 354, 632.

  Stevenson, Emily Pitts, iii, 752.

  Stevenson, Sarah Hackett, iii, 579.

  Stewart's Home for Working Women, iii, 420.

  Stewart, Senator, on the Pembina Territory bill, ii, 548, 558, 559,
    564, 573, 579.

  Stone, Dr. James A. B., address at St. Louis, ii, 821; iii, 525.

  STONE, Lucy, i, 473, 619, 626; ii, 56; iii, 268, 279, 513, 722, 724,
    818
    --Constitutional Convention at Albany, ii, 284
    --husband, and her, i, 164
    --husband's name, refusing to take her, i, 261
    --Kansas, in, i, 200
    --Kansas campaign, in, ii, 232
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 237, 919
    --letter to Salem, O., Convention, i, 813
    --letters to E. Cady Stanton, ii, 234
    --letter to _The Una_, i, 501
    --marriage of, under protest, i, 260
    --meetings held in New Jersey, iii, 479
    --petitions, iii, 104
    --National Convention, Broadway Tabernacle, i, 631
    --Philadelphia National Convention, at, i, 375
    --portrait, ii, 761
    --report, American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, 803
    --scripture, on, i, 650
    --speeches:
      Broadway Tabernacle Convention, i, 554, 565, 632;
      American Woman Suffrage Association meeting in Cooper Institute,
        ii, 829;
      in Steinway Hall, ii, 811;
      in Detroit, ii, 837;
      in St. Louis, ii, 823, 827;
      in Washington, ii, 858;
      Cincinnati, i, 165;
      Cleveland, i, 163;
      Concord, iii, 271;
      Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 64;
      Worcester, i, 233
    --suffrage, negro, first, on, ii, 383
    --Syracuse National Convention, i, 524
    --taxes, refused to pay, i, 450.

  Story, Judge, on the Constitution, ii, 477, 478, 588.

  Strahan, Robert H., iii, 417.

  Strong, Rev. A. H., iii, 155
    --on subordination of women, i, 787.

  Stuart, Abby H. H., iii, 787.

  Stuart, Mary A., iii, 158, 817.

  Studwell, Edwin A., ii, 398.

  SUFFRAGE GAINED:
    _Full_ suffrage, Isle of Man, iii, 870, 982;
    Utah Territory, ii, 426, 432;
    Washington Territory, iii, 777;
    Wyoming Territory, ii, 426, 432; iii, 730.

  SUFFRAGE GAINED:
    _Municipal_ suffrage:
      Canada, iii, 832,
      England, iii, 845;
      Madras, iii, 983;
      Scotland, iii, 871, 983.

  SUFFRAGE GAINED:
    _School_ suffrage: Canada, iii, 831;
      Colorado, iii, 718;
      Dakota, iii, 633;
      England, iii, 850;
      Kansas, i, 185, iii, 701, 710;
      Kentucky, i, 869, iii, 821;
      Massachusetts, iii, 288;
      Michigan, iii, 515, 530;
      Minnesota, iii, 652, 653, 654;
      Nebraska, iii, 675;
      New Hampshire, iii, 375, 376;
      New York, iii, 424;
      Oregon, iii, 775;
      Scotland, iii, 851;
      Vermont, i, 171, iii, 304.

  Suits (see Trials).

  SUMNER, Charles, ii, 35, 81, 168, 169
    --ballot, on the, ii, 95
    --equal rights to all, ii, 322
    --Fourteenth Amendment, opposed, ii, 323
    --voted for, ii, 324
    --letter, Woman's National Loyal League anniversary, ii, 86
    --"male," and the word, ii, 91
    --petition, presents, under protest, ii, 96
    --petitions, asks for, ii, 93
    --rebuked by Senator Cowan, ii, 113
    --speech in U. S. Senate on presentation of petition of the Woman's
      Nat. League, ii, 78
    --Taxation without Representation, on, ii, 114.

  Sunday-school teachings, i, 786.

  Sunderland-Gage controversy, i, 543.

  Sunderland, Mrs. H. E., iii, 564.

  Sutherland, Julia K., iii, 6.

  Swank, Emma B., i, 307
    --sketch of, i, 313

  Sweet, Ada, pension agent, iii, 6.

  Swisshelm, Jane Grey, i, 386; iii, 650, 813
    --_Saturday Visitor_, i, 46
    --letter, "Borders of Monkeydom," i, 807
    --speech, Washington Convention, iii, 61.

  SWITZERLAND, iii, 909, 911.


  T.

  Taney, Justice, ii, 639.

  Tax, society, anti, iii, 413
    --Susan A. King, iii, 420
    --protest, Harriet K. Hunt's, i, 259
    --Report of N. Y. State Assessors, iii, 412
    --representation, without, ii, 114, 169, 274, 475; iii, 289, 397
    --Lucy Stone refused to pay, i, 450.

  Taylor, Helen, ii, 425; iii, 852, 923, 940.

  Taylor, Mrs. Mentia, letter to Mrs. P. W. Davis, ii, 438
    --Mrs. P. A., iii, 848.

  Taylor, R. B., in Kansas campaign, ii, 231.

  Tea, Anti, Leagues, i, 202.

  Telegrapher, Hattie Hutchinson, age ten years, iii, 805.

  Teller, Willard, iii, 715.

  TEMPERANCE conventions:
    --Albany, i, 489
    --Dayton, Ohio, i, 118
    --Half World's, i, 506
    --Lawrence, Kansas, ii, 231
    --Pennsylvania, i, 348
    --World's, i, 152
    --press comments, i, 854
    --daughters of, i, 474
    --New York, Brick Church meeting, i, 499
    --New York, Metropolitan Hall meeting, i, 490
    --New York Woman's State Society, i, 484
    --Woman Suffrage, and, ii, 819.

  TENNESSEE, iii, 822.

  Tennessee campaign, Miss Carroll, ii, 3-9.

  Tenney, Mrs. R. S., letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 257.

  TEXAS, iii, 801
    --Constitutional Convention, iii, 801
    --Legislative action, iii, 802
    --women in government offices, iii, 804.

  Theological discussion, i, 647.

  Thirteenth Amendment, ii, 77, 313, 663.

  Thomas', Mrs. Abel C., farm, iii, 469.

  Thomas, Julia J., and Greek prize, iii, 6.

  Thomas, Mary F., ii, 860
    --reminiscences of, i, 306
    --sketch of, i, 314
    --speech, Winchester, Ind., convention, i, 308.

  Thompson, Geo., speech, i, 56.

  Thompson, Mary A., iii, 97, 775.

  Thomson, J. Edgar, will of, iii, 468.

  Thornton, J. Quinn, iii, 773.

  Tilden, Samuel J., i, 473; iii, 417.

  Tillotson, Mary A., iii, 103.

  TILTON, Theodore, ii, 117, 376
    --Beecher colloquy, ii, 167
    --Fifteenth Amendment, and the, ii, 327
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 230
    --letter to American Woman Suffrage Association, ii, 770
    --speech at Nat. Convention in New York, ii, 154.

  Tod, Isabella M., iii, 866, 888, 938.

  Toucey, Sinclair, ii, 419.

  Train, Geo. Francis, ii, 381, 431
    --Constitutional Convention at Albany, before, ii, 284
    --Kansas campaign, in, ii, 243, 254, 264.

  Tracts, prize, i, 379.

  TRIALS and Decisions, ii, 586, 934
    --Allen, Jane, case of, ii, 592
    --Anthony, Susan B. (see Anthony)
    --Bly, Mrs., ii, 671
    --Bradwell, Myra (see Bradwell)
    --Burnham, Carrie, suit, ii, 600
    --Gardner, Nannette B., ii, 587
    --Huntington, Sarah M. T., ii, 628
    --Inspectors of election, ii, 691
    --jury convicts, ii, 696
    --pardoned by President Grant, ii, 715
    --sentenced, ii, 698
    --trial, motion for new, ii, 696
    --Mansfield, Arabella A., case of, ii, 606
    --Minor, Virginia L., ii, 715
    --Chief-Justice Waite's opinion, ii, 734
    --opinion reviewed by Mrs. Gage, ii, 742
    --reviewed by _Central Law Journal_, ii, 748
    --parody, ii, 599
    --Ricker, Mrs. M. M., ii, 586
    --Spencer, Sarah Andrews, suit, ii, 587
    --Chief-Justice Cartter's opinion, ii, 597
    --Van Valkenburg, Ellen Rand, suit, ii, 600
    --Waite, Catharine V., suit, ii, 601; iii, 571
    --Webster, Sarah E., ii, 587; iii, 571
    --5,000 women householders and Lord Coleridge, iii, 884.

  Truman, James, on Women in dentistry, iii, 452.

  Trumbull, Lyman, ii, 498.

  Tudor, Mrs. Fenno, reception, iii, 197.

  TURKEY, iii, 919.

  Turner, Eliza Sproat, iii, 451.

  Turner, Jennie, iii, 407.

  Tyler, Moses Coit, ii, 813.

  Tyler, W. S., iii, 497.

  Tyndale, Sarah, tribute, i, 218.

  Tyndale, Sharon, ii, 371.


  U.

  UNA, Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, i, 46, 246.

  Uncle Tom's Cabin, i, 102.

  Underhill, Sarah E., i, 308
    --sketch of, i, 313

  United States a nation? Is the, ii, 529.

  Updegraff, W. W., Kansas campaign, ii, 250.

  Upham, Hon. Charles W., i, 210.

  Underwood, John C., iii, 823
    --tribute, ii, 538, 640.

  UTAH, ii, 325.


  V.

  Van Cleve, Charlotte O., iii, 653.

  Van Lew, Elizabeth, postmaster at Richmond, iii, 824.

  Van Pelt, Maggie, journalist, iii, 629.

  Van Valkenburg, Ellen Rand, ii, 600.

  Van Voorhis, John, ii, 692-697.

  Vassar College, iii, 398.

  Vaughan, Mary C., speech on temperance, i, 476.

  VERMONT, i, 171; iii, 383
    --homestead law, i, 172
    --St. Andrew's letter, iii, 384, 389
    --school suffrage, iii, 393
    --University opens to women, iii, 389
    --woman suffrage amendment, Reed's report, iii, 385
    --_Vermont Watchman_, iii, 386.

  Vest, Senator, on woman suffrage, iii, 199, 203.

  Vice, legalization of, i, 795, 796; iii, 145, 397.

  Vicksburg, naval attack on, ii, 11.

  VIRGINIA, iii, 823
    --Woman Suffrage Association, iii, 823.

  Voltaire, i, 658.

  Voris, A. C., ii, 837.

  Vote, first woman to cast a, ii, 586
    --first woman to claim the right, iii, 815
    --Mrs. Gage attempted to, iii, 406
    --woman earned her right to, ii, 89
    --in Scotland, iii, 871
    --reports of voting in New York, iii, 429
    --voted with Miss Anthony, list of, ii, 647
    --voted in New Jersey, i, 448; iii, 476
    --voting in 1776, i, 33
    --persons entitled to, ii, 272.

  Voted, 1867, Lily Maxwell, iii, 981.

  Voters, qualification of, T. W. Higginson's speech, i, 249.


  W.

  Wade, Benjamin, F., ii, 9
    --letter to Susan B. Anthony, ii, 117;
      J. S. Griffing, ii, 34
    --speech, ii, 123
    --remarks to Anna Ella Carroll, ii, 9
    --letters to Miss Carroll, ii, 866, 867.

  Wadsworth, L. A., iii, 352.

  Wait, Anna C., iii, 696, 709.

  Waite, Catharine V., ii, 601; iii, 571.

  Waite, Chas. B., iii, 569.

  Waite, Jessie T., argument before House committee, iii, 161
    --report of National Convention, iii, 254-260.

  Waite, M. R., iii, 505
    --Supreme Court opinion, ii, 734-742.

  Waldo, Peter, ii, 27.

  Walker, Dr. Mary, ii, 20, 813; iii, 103.

  Wall, Sarah E., ii, 636; iii, 310.

  Wallace, W. D., iii, 540, 966.

  Wallace, Zerelda G., iii, 536-7, 539-40, 551
    --argument before Senate com., iii, 155
    --letter to S. B. Anthony, iii, 257.

  Walling, Mrs. M. C., speech in U. S. Senate, ii, 327.

  Walter, Cornelia, iii, 303.

  War, woman's patriotism in, ii, 1, 863; iii, 596, 631.

  Warn Kate, iii, 398.

  Warner, Esther L., iii, 693.

  Warren, Mercy, Otis, i, 31; ii, 201.

  Washington Conventions (see Conventions)
    --(see also District of Columbia).

  _Washington Evening Star_, iii, 97.

  _Washington Sunday Chronicle_, ii, 599.

  Washington, George, letter to ladies of Trenton, N. J., i, 447.

  WASHINGTON Territory, iii, 786
    --women enfranchised, iii, 776.

  Watterson, Henry, ii, 861, 862; iii, 182.

  Wattles, John O., i, 189.

  Wattles, Susan E., ii, 255; iii, 697.

  Way, Amanda M., iii, 533
    --legislative hearing, iii, 539
    --reminiscences, i, 306
    --sketch of, i, 311.

  Weber, Helene Marie, i, 41
    --letter to M. A. Spofford, i, 825.

  Webster, Rev. D. L., i, 114.

  Webster, Sarah E., suit, ii, 587
    --Chief-Justice Cartter's opinion, ii, 597.

  Weed, Thurlow, i, 720.

  Weld, Angelina Grimké, on organizations, i, 540
    --speech, Loyal Women's Convention, ii, 54
    --speech, Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 60; iii, 282.

  Weld, Theodore, i, 392.

  Wells, Charlotte Fowler, i, 45; ii, 435.

  Wendt, Mathilda F., iii, 405.

  Wendte, W. C., ii, 855.

  Wenthworth, Elizabeth R., iii, 643.

  Wesley, John, on witchcraft, i, 765.

  Wesley, Susannah, i, 790.

  Weston, Hannah and Rebecca, i, 203.

  WEST VIRGINIA, iii, 824.

  Wheatly, Phillis, colored, i, 205.

  Wheeler, L. May, iii, 659.

  Whipple, E. P., views of George Eliot, i, 791.

  White, Andrew D., iii, 398, 528.

  White, Bessie Heagen, pharmacy, iii, 820.

  White, Laura R., architect, iii, 820.

  White, Richard Grant, on the word "citizen," ii, 567.

  Whitehead, Wm. A., paper on woman suffrage, i, 447.

  Whiting, Lilian, iii, 303.

  Whiting, N. H., i, 861.

  Whitman, Sarah Helen, ii, 433.

  Whittier, John G., i, 83; iii, 520.

  Wife ownership, i, 772.

  Wigham, Eliza, iii, 852.

  WILBOUR, Charlotte B., iii, 396
    --organized Sorosis, iii, 403
    --President New York City Society, iii, 405
    --remarks at Washington Convention, ii, 421, 424
    --Corresponding Secretary Loyal League, ii, 80.

  Wilbur, Hervey Backus, iii, 421.

  Wilcox, Hamilton, ii, 346; iii, 441, 959.

  Wildman, John R., iii, 457.

  Willard, Emma, i, 36.

  Willard, Frances E., iii, 104, 578, 587, 660.

  Willard, Judge John, i, 750.

  Will of Bridget Smith, i, 563.

  Williams, George, iii, 774.

  Williams, Nellie, i, 48.

  Williams, Sarah Langdon, iii, 503
    --_The Ballot-Box_, iii, 51.

  Williams, Senator, ii, 108.

  Willing, Mrs. J. F., ii, 368.

  Willis (see Olympia Brown).

  Wilson, Elizabeth, i, 103.

  Wilson, Hannah, iii, 697.

  Wilson, Henry, ii, 113, 128, 322, 390; iii, 267.

  Winchell, Charlotte, S., career of, iii, 653.

  WISCONSIN, i, 178, 290; iii, 638
    --Conventions (see Conventions)
    --legislation, iii, 638
    --Shole's report, i, 315
    --report of David Noggle, i, 867
    --married women, rights of, iii, 638
    --Milwaukee Female College, iii, 643
    --State Association, iii, 645
    --State University, iii, 643
    --statutes, modification of, iii, 639
    --suffrage amendment, iii, 644
    --temperance question, iii, 645
    --women as lawyers, iii, 648
    --voters, iii, 640.

  Wise, Mary E., ii, 869.

  Witchcraft, i, 759, 764, 765, 766, 767, 768, 769.

  Wives in Russia, i, 773.

  Wives, sale of, i, 792.

  Wizards, i, 766.

  Wolcott, Laura Ross, graduated medical college i, 389
    --organized Wisconsin State Society, ii, 374
    --sketch of, iii, 638
    --National Convention, Milwaukee, iii, 184.

  Wollstonecraft, Mary, eulogy of, i, 126-7
    --"Rights of Women," i, 34.

  Wollstenholme, Mrs. Almy, with Mrs. Jacob Bright, iii, 893.

  WOMAN, advice of men, warned against, ii, 268
    --Anglo-Saxon laws, i, 863
    --army, in the, i, 290
    --bar, admissions to, iii, 307, 355
    --British Parliament, in, i, 30
    --census enumerators, first appointments, iii, 174
    --church poll, at the, i, 781
    --civil service, in, iii, 306
    --clinical instruction, Pennsylvania University, iii, 448
    --coeducation, statistics, iii, 496
    --colleges, and the, ii, 541
    --colleges, in, i, 144, iii, 6
    --college in Evanston, Illinois, iii, 578
    --congress organized in New York, iii, 411
    --degradation of, i, 791, 794
    --emancipation, i, 29
    --employment of, in insane asylums, iii, 421
    --employments, varied capacity for, iii, 406, 572
    --excluded as delegates, Anti-slavery Convention, London, i, 60
    --chronological table of successive steps in England, iii, 980
    --history of, in three pictures;
      under Hindoo laws, i, 863;
      under Anglo-Saxon laws, i, 863, 864;
      under Signs of the Times, i, 865, 866
    --illiteracy of, iii, 372
    --inventions by, iii, 632
    --jury, on, iii, 731;
      list of the first grand, iii, 738
    --Kansas, of, i, 642
    --labor performed in Christian countries, i, 792
    --laborer, unpaid, i, 28
    --legal disabilities, removed of, iii, 893
    --legal rights, i, 107
    --list of names of friends in California, iii, 977-80;
      list of names of friends in Minnesota, iii, 973-80
    --Loyal League, ii, 3;
      address to Abraham Lincoln, ii, 67;
      anniversary of, ii, 80;
      letters in response to a call for a meeting, ii, 875;
      petition, ii, 78;
      platform, ii, 891;
      press comments, ii, 893;
      resolutions, ii, 84;
      secretary's report, ii, 80
    --married, act relative to rights of, i, 618
    --married, laws regarding, iii, 291
    --married, and their legal status, ii, 642
    --married, property rights of, iii, 325
    --marry, will the coming, iii, 723
    --national protection, claim, ii, 531
    --naval heroines, ii, 21
    --official position, first appointed to, in New York, iii, 417
    --Ohio, protest against enfranchisement, iii, 494
    --outrages, 1880, in Ireland, i, 794
    --pharmacy, 379, 820, 980
    --physician, first, i, 260
    --physicians in insane asylums, as, iii, 473
    --politics, in, ii, 277, 304
    --preachers, as, i, 784
    --professions, in the, iii, 706
    --property rights, i, 38, 64, 146, 256, 296, 770
    --property rights granted, iii, 438
    --public affairs, why meddle in, i, 109
    --revolution, in the, i, 31, 201, 321, 444
    --Roman law, under i, 754
    --school of design, Philadelphia, i, 390
    --school boards, on, iii, 892, 981
    --school officers, bill passed New York Legislature, iii, 417;
      vetoed by Gov. Robinson, iii, 418
    --school officers, made so in Illinois, iii, 575
    --science and literature, degraded in, i, 790
    --sermon to, Rev. Knox Little's, i, 782
    --Sin, Original, i, 756
    --slaves, legislated for as, i, 772
    --social evolution of, iii, 226
    --social relations, i, 233
    --sold with cattle in Pennsylvania, iii, 445
    --soldiers, as, ii, 18, 889
    --sphere, i, 76, 93, 148, 265, 317, 522, 660, 662, 694, 713, 716;
      ii, 62, 163, 779
    --spy, anecdote, i, 323
    --subordination, i, 780;
      Evarts in the Beecher-Tilton trial upon, i, 789;
      sermon by Rev. A. H. Strong, i, 787
    --Supreme Court opened to, iii, 138;
      Senator Hoar's speech, iii, 139
    --torture of, i, 26, 766, 768
    --type-setters, i, 585
    --wardens, iii, 893
    --work, statistics, i, 267
    --work done by, iii, 54
    --work and wages, i, 78, 589
    --working, of Boston, ii, 389
    --working, seats in shops, iii, 433.

  WOMAN SUFFRAGE, (see Suffrage Gained);
    --appeals, i, 588, 856, 858; ii, 168, 247, 364
    --arguments in favor of, ii, 349
    --Bible argument, ii, 374;
      Bible, and the, i, 380, 535
    --complaints, 1869, the, ii, 323
    --debate between Anna Dickinson and R. L. Collier, iii, 567
    --Democratic National Convention, letters and delegates, iii, 22
    --discussion at Woman's National Loyal League, ii, 59
    --England, Gen. Butler's report in, ii, 465, 466, 467
    --essay, in _Westminster Review_, i, 225
    --Equal Rights Association organized, ii, 173
    --Fifth Avenue conference, ii, 427
    --Kansas, report of Judiciary Franchise Committee, i, 194
    --_National Association_ organized, ii, 400;
      address to President Hayes, iii, 129;
      appeal, Mrs. Hooker's, to women of the United States, ii, 485;
      appeal to women, Grant and Wilson Presidential campaign, ii, 517;
      Congressional Committee grant hearings, iii, 75;
      constitution and officers, ii, 401, iii, 955-6;
      letter to Berlin Congress, ii, 404;
      delegates to Berlin, ii,  406
    --New York and Boston wings, ii, 406
    --New York City society, iii, 405
    --opponents, iii, 570
    --organ, need of an, i, 378
    --periods, most trying, ii, 319
    --petitions in many States, one year's work, i, 869
    --power of legislature to extend suffrage, iii, 959-6
    --presidential suffrage iii, 966
    --principles, mode of disseminating, i, 379
    --progress made, ii, 905
    --"Fair Play," from Rev. Wm. H. Channing, i, 611
    --Second Decade celebration, ii, 427
    --Third Decade Celebration, iii, 117
    --subscriptions, ii, 923
    --sympathizers, celebrated, iii, 233.

  _Woman's Journal_, Lucy Stone editor, ii, 819, 820; iii, 268, 274,
    297, 388.

  "Woman's Kingdom," _Chicago Inter-Ocean_, Mrs. Harbert, editor,
    iii, 583.

  _Woman's Review, English_, Caroline Ashurst Biggs, editor, iii, 120,
    970.

  _Women's Suffrage Journal_, Lydia E. Becker, editor, iii, 850, 852,
    880, 981.

  _Woman's Tribune_, Mrs. Colby, editor, iii, 695.

  Wood, Bradford R., i, 500.

  Wood, Rev. Jeremiah, i, 690.

  Wood, S. N., i, 200
    --Kansas campaign, ii, 230, 232, 233, 234, 236, 250, 251, 252, 254.

  Woodall, William, iii, 877.

  Woodhull, Victoria C., memorial to Congress, ii, 443
    --memorial supported in a speech by A. G. Riddle, ii, 448
    --memorial, House majority report, iii, 461
    --memorial, House minority report, ii, 464
    --speech before Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives,
      ii, 444.

  Woolson, Abba G., ii, 832.

  Wooster, Wilder M., iii, 691.

  Worden, Mrs., i, 462.

  Wright, Elizur, letter to Paulina W. Davis, i, 217.

  WRIGHT, Frances, i, 44, 52
    --editor, _Free Enquirer_, i, 296
    --Owen, Robert Dale, and, i, 293
    --portrait, i, 1
    --sketch of, i, 35
    --tribute, ii, 429;
      tribute, Mrs. Rose's, i, 692.

  Wright, Henry C., letter to Garrison, i, 310.

  WRIGHT, Martha C., i, 67, 69, 376, 429, 462, 519, 522, 535, 744
    --May Anniversary, ii, 545
    --President Cincinnati Convention, made, i, 163
    --President N. Y. State Society, i, 623; presided, 628-31
    --thanks Rev. Sam'l Longfellow, i, 716
    --portrait, i, 640
    --Equal Rights Association, on the, ii, 175
    --letter to Pillsbury, ii, 240
    --speech at Cooper Institute Convention, i, 689
    --tribute, ii, 582-3.

  WYOMING, iii, 726
    --act to protect property rights of married women, iii, 728
    --election, first, iii, 729
    --election under woman suffrage, first, iii, 738
    --jury, women on, iii, 731;
      list of the first grand, iii, 738
    --press, iii, 745
    --school law, iii, 728
    --Sunday laws enforced, iii, 734
    --suffrage bill signed by Gov. Campbell, iii, 731
    --territory organized, iii, 729
    --women granted citizenship, iii, 726
    --woman suffrage act, Legislature votes to repeal, iii, 741;
      bill vetoed, iii, 741
    --woman suffrage respected, iii, 744.


  Y.

  Yocum, A. P., iii, 691.

  Yount, A. K., iii, 718.




[Transcriber's Notes:

The transcriber made changes as below indicated to the text to
correct obvious errors:

   1. p.  23 forgotton --> forgotten
   2. p.  83 petioned --> petitioned
   3. p. 136 neccessarily --> necessarily
   4. p. 143 Universiy --> University
   5. p. 146 engergertic --> energetic
   6. p. 151 presidental --> presidential
   7. p. 170 in ever --> in every
   8. p. 217 committe --> committee
   9. p. 218 therefere --> therefore
  10. p. 274 nnd --> and  (Footnote #120)
  11. p. 291 certan --> certain  (Footnote #141)
  12. p. 298 their is no need (left as published)
  13. p. 347 Footnote marker for #177 missing in original text
  14. p. 351 iniative --> initiative
  15. p. 369 suffers form --> suffers from
  16. p. 384 iniative --> initiative
  17. p. 399 mora --> more (Footnote #209)
  18. p. 429 enconnter --> encounter
  19. p. 444 thorougly --> thoroughly
  20. p. 445 enfrancisement --> enfranchisement
  21. p. 447 Text for footnote #259 missing
  22. p. 449 Hopsital --> Hospital
  23. p. 450 neccessarily --> necessarily
  24. p. 465 elegible --> eligible
  25. p. 479 Historcal --> Historical (Footnote #276)
  26. p. 496 Table header text in footnote #291 replaced with legends
             to shorten table width
  27. p. 509 auxilary --> auxiliary
  28. p. 509 disappoinments --> disappointments
  29. p. 510 Footnote marker missing; placement assumed
  30. p. 517 Februay --> February
  31. p. 533 iniative --> initiative
  32. p. 571 handsomly --> handsomely
  33. p. 606 Sufirage --> Suffrage (Footnote #386)
  34. p. 621 Yonrs --> Yours
  35. p. 629 ef --> of (Footnote #420)
  36. p. 631 hnndred --> hundred
  37. p. 633 minature --> miniature
  38. p. 644 introducd --> introduced
  39. p. 660 St. Panl --> St. Paul
  40. p. 674 Footnote #459 points to two places
  41. p. 697 dilligent --> diligent
  42. p. 724 benificent --> beneficent
  43. p. 727 universites --> universities
  44. p. 740 transcient --> transient
  45. p. 743 connot --> cannot
  46. p. 751 Feburary --> February
  47. p. 769 seige --> siege
  48. p. 770 jonrnalist --> journalist
  49. p. 780 npon --> upon
  50. p. 797 objectionabie --> objectionable
  51. p. 808 origininally --> originally
  52. p. 809 Josophine --> Josephine (Footnote #525)
  53. p. 827 distinguised --> distinguished
  54. p. 887 uuhappily --> unhappily
  55. p. 943 bycicles --> bicycles
  56. p. 967 at al. --> et al.
  57. p. 978 bïennial --> biënnial
  58. p. 978 legislatuere --> legislature
  59. p. 985 and following, Index punctuation standardized
  60. p. 988 Snpreme --> Supreme
  61. p. 994 pseeches --> speeches
  62. p. 1000 Stan-  --> Stanton
  63. p. 1005 (Convention)s --> (Conventions)
  64. p. 1007 Covention --> Convention
  65. p. 1007 Scatcherd..629... --> Scatcherd..929..
  66. p. 1009 Suffbage --> Suffrage

End of Transcriber's Notes]