History of Woman Suffrage/Volume 3/Chapter 30
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.[1] 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:
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 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. Mr. Hoar: No, sir.
Mr. Mr. Jones of Florida: My resolution involves no debate. It is merely a resolution of inquiry.
Mr. 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 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. 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. 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 Mr. Vest: Yes, sir; I move to refer the matter to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims.
Mr 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 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. Morril: 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 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.[2] 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. Millsof 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
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.[3]
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.[4]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
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,[5]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.[6]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[7]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[8]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[9] 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 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.
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 ment 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 them selves 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:
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[10]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[11]held its convention September 12, 13, 14. The National[12]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 custoday 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.
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 poli tical 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,[14] 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,[15]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.
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.[16]
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 Phœbe 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.
[17]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 redegree 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,[18] and reports[19] 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, Zerelda G. Wallace. Yours, etc.,
After several other speakers,[20] 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:
Yours, etc., Zeredla G. Wallace.
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 Phœbe 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 orable 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.
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.[22]
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:
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[23] 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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. 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Robeson, and Mr. Reed were present.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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, Phœbe 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.
- ↑ For full reports of the American convention see the Woman's Journal, edited by Lucy Stone and published in Boston.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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 de-
cided 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 Phœbe 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.
- ↑ A private letter was received from Mrs. Ellen Clark Sargent, enclosing a check for $50.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ Mrs. Spofford, the treasurer, reported that $5,000 were spent in Nebraska in the endeavor to carry the amendment in that State.
- ↑ Short speeches were made by Mrs. Rogers, Mrs. Lockwood, Mrs. McKinney, Mrs. Loder and others.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.
- ↑ 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.