XXXII. CONNECTICUT…

XXXII. CONNECTICUT

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

While Connecticut has always been celebrated for its puritanical theology, political conservatism and rigid social customs, it was nevertheless the scene of some of the most hotly contested of the anti-slavery battles. While its leading clergymen and statesmen stoutly maintained the letter of the old creeds and constitutions, the Burleighs, the Mays, and the Crandalls strove to illustrate the true spirit of religion and republicanism in their daily lives by "remembering those that were in bonds as bound with them."

The example of one glorious woman like Prudence Crandall,[158] who suffered shameful persecutions in establishing a school for colored girls at Canterbury, in 1833, should have been sufficient to rouse every woman in Connecticut to some thought on the basic principles of the government and religion of the country. Yet we have no record of any woman in that State publicly sustaining her in that grand enterprise, though no doubt her heroism gave fresh inspiration to the sermons of Samuel J. May, then preaching in the village of Brooklyn, and the speeches and poems of the two eloquent reformers, Charles C. and William H. Burleigh. The words and deeds of these and other great souls, though seeming to slumber for many years, gave birth at last to new demands for another class of outraged citizens. Thus liberty is ever born of the hateful spirit of persecution. One question of reform settled forever by the civil war, the initiative for the next was soon taken. In The Revolution of January 16, 1868, we find the following well-considered report on woman's enfranchisement, presented by a minority of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments to the legislature of Connecticut at its session of 1867:

The undersigned members of the committee believe that the prayer of the petitioners ought to be granted. It would be much easier for us to reject the petition and silently to acquiesce in the opinions of the majority upon the subject to which it relates, but our attention was challenged and an investigation invited by the bold axioms upon which the cause of suffrage for woman was claimed to rest, and the more we have examined the subject the more convinced we have become that the logic of our institutions requires a concession of that right. It is claimed by some that the right to vote is not a natural right, but that it is a privilege which some have acquired, and which may be granted to others at the option of the fortunate holders. But they fail to inform us how the possessors first acquired the privilege, and especially how they acquired the rightful power to withhold that privilege from others, according to caprice or notions of expediency. We hold this doctrine to be pernicious in tendency, and hostile to the spirit of a republican government; and we believe that it can only be justified by the same arguments that are used to justify slavery or monarchy--for it is an obvious deduction of logic that if one thousand persons have a right to govern another thousand without their consent, one man has a right to govern all.

Mr. Lincoln tersely said, "If slavery is not wrong nothing is wrong." So it seems to us that if the right to vote is not a natural right, there is no such thing as a natural right in human relations. The right to freedom and the right to a ballot both spring from the same source. The right to vote is only the right to a legitimate use of freedom. It is plain that if a man is not free to govern himself, and to have a voice in the taxation of his own property, he is not really free in any enlightened sense. Even Edward I. of England said, "It is a most equitable rule that what concerns all should be approved by all." This must rightfully apply to women the same as to men. And Locke, in his essay on civil government, said, "Nothing is more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to the same advantages of nature, and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal, one with another, without subordination or subjection." Talleyrand said, as an argument for monarchy, "The moment we reject an absolutely universal suffrage, we admit the principle of aristocracy." The founders of this nation asserted with great emphasis and every variety of repetition, the essential equality of human rights as a self-evident truth. The war of the Revolution was justified by the maxim, "Taxation without representation is tyranny"; and all republics vindicate their existence by the claim that "Governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." Yet woman, in Connecticut, is governed without her consent, and taxed without representation.

Lord Camden, one of England's ablest jurists, long ago declared, "My position is this--taxation and representation are inseparable. The position is founded in a law of nature--nay more, it is itself an eternal law of nature." Our forefathers held to this principle, and fought seven years to establish it. They maintained their favorite theory of government against immense odds, and transmitted to their posterity the great work of putting it logically into practice. It is acknowledged by this legislature that "taxation without representation is tyranny," and that "governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." If these phrases are anything more than the meaningless utterances of demagogues, anything more than the hypocritical apologies of rebellious colonies in a strait--then we submit that a prima facie case for woman's right to vote has already been made out. To declare that a voice in the government is the right of all, and then give it to less than half, and that to the fraction to which the theorist himself happens to belong, is to renounce even the appearance of principle.

It is plain to your committee that neither the State nor the nation can have peace on this suffrage question until some fair standard shall be adopted which is not based on religion, or color, or sex, or any accident of birth--a test which shall be applicable to every adult human being. In a republic the ballot belongs to every intelligent adult person who is innocent of crime. There is an obvious and sufficient reason for excluding minors, state-prison convicts, imbeciles and insane persons, but does the public safety require that we shall place the women of Connecticut with infants, criminals, idiots and lunatics? Do they deserve the classification? It seems to your committee that to enfranchise woman--or rather to cease to deprive her of the ballot, which is of right hers, would be reciprocally beneficial. We believe that it would elevate the character of our office-holders; that it would purify our politics; that it would render our laws more equitable; that it would give to woman a protection against half the perils which now beset her; that it would put into her hands a key that would unlock the door of every respectable occupation and profession; that it would insure a reconstruction of our statute laws on a basis of justice, so that a woman should have a right to her own children, and a right to receive and enjoy the proceeds of her own labor. John Neal estimates that the ballot is worth fifty cents a day to every American laborer, enabling each man to command that much higher wages. Does not gentlemanly courtesy, as well as equal justice, require that that weapon of defense shall be given to those thousands of working women among us who are going down to prostitution through three or four half-paid, over-crowded occupations?

It is said that woman is now represented by her husband, when she has one; but what is this representation worth when in Connecticut, two years ago, all of the married woman's personal property became absolutely her husband's, including even her bridal presents, to sell or give away, as he saw fit--a statute which still prevails in most of the States? What is that representation worth when even now, in this State, no married woman has the right to the use of her own property, and no woman, even a widow, is the natural guardian of her own children? Even in Connecticut, under man's representation, a widow whose husband dies without a will is regarded by law as an encumbrance on the estate which she, through years of drudgery, has helped to acquire. She can inherit none of the houses or land, but has merely the use of one-third, while the balance goes to his relatives--rich, perhaps, and persons whom she never saw. Does not this suggest reasons why woman should wish to represent herself?

It is said that women do not desire the ballot. This is by no means certain. It can be ascertained only by taking a vote. It is not proved by the fact that they have not yet generally clamored for the right, nor by the fact that some protest against it. In Persia, it is a law of society that virtuous women shall appear in public with their faces covered, and instead of murmuring at the restraint, they are universal in upholding it, and wonder at the immodesty and effrontery of English women who appear upon the streets unveiled. Custom hardens us to any kind of degradation. When woman was not admitted to the dinner-table as an equal with man, she undoubtedly thought the exclusion was perfectly proper, and quite in the nature of things, and the dinner-table became vile and obscene. When she was forbidden to enter the church, she approved the arrangement, and the church became a scene of hilarity and bacchanalian revel. When she was forbidden to take part in literature, she thought it was not her sphere, and disdained the alphabet, and the consequence was that literature became unspeakably impure, so that no man can now read in public some of the books that were written before woman brought chastity and refinement into letters. The Asiatics are probably not in favor of political liberty, or the American Indians in favor of civilization; but that does not prove that these would be bad for them, especially if thousands of the most enlightened did desire and demand the change. It is assumed that women are not in favor of this right; how can this be better ascertained than by submitting to them the question to vote upon--"yes" or "no."

If this legislature shall be averse to trusting woman to give her opinion even on the question of her own enfranchisement, we recommend that an amendment, striking the word "male" from the State constitution, be submitted to the qualified electors of the State. Can there be any possible danger in trusting those who have trusted us? They, not we, are the law-makers. An assembly is elected only because it would be inconvenient for all the citizens to vote upon every statute. But when any change in the fundamental law is seriously asked, it should be remitted to the people without hesitation, especially when that proposed change will render our logic consistent, and our institutions harmonious; when it will enforce the democratic doctrine that, in society, every human being has a right to do anything that does not interfere with the rights of others, and when it will establish equality in place of partiality, and vindicate the principle of All Rights for All. We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution: [Here follows a resolution submitting to the people an amendment of the constitution giving women the right to vote equally with men.]

The members of the committee who signed this early declaration in favor of the rights of women should be remembered with honor. They are Henry Ashley, William Steele and J. D. Gallup, jr. The resolution recommended received 93 votes in the House of Representatives, against 111 in opposition. So strong an expression in favor of it at that time is a noteworthy fact in the history of the cause.

The petitions that called out this able report were secured through the influence of Frances Ellen Burr, who may be said to have been the pioneer of woman suffrage in Connecticut. She had made several attempts, through conversations with influential friends, to organize a State society many years before. From the inauguration of the State association until the present time Miss Burr has been one of its most efficient members, and has done more to popularize the question of woman suffrage throughout the State than any other person. Her accomplishments as a writer and speaker, as a reporter and stenographer, as well as her connection with the Hartford Times (a journal that has a very large circulation in the State), edited by her brother, have qualified her for wide and efficient influence. Her niece, Mrs. Ella Burr McManus, edits a column in that paper, under the head of "Social Notes." She is also an advocate of suffrage for women, and makes telling points, from week to week, on this question. In issuing the first numbers of The Revolution, the earliest words of good cheer came from Frances Ellen Burr.[159]

The general rebellion among women against the old conditions of society and the popular opinions as to their nature and destiny, has been organized in each State in this Union by the sudden awakening of some self-reliant woman, in whose soul had long slumbered new ideas as to her rights and duties, growing out of personal experiences or the distant echoes of onward steps in other localities. In Connecticut this woman was Isabella Beecher Hooker, who had scarcely dared to think, and much less to give shape in words, to the thoughts that, like unwelcome ghosts, had haunted her hours of solitude from year to year. Elizabeth Barrett Browning describes a hero as one who does what others do but say; who says what others do but think; and thinks what others do but dream. The successive steps by which Mrs. Hooker's dreams at last took shape in thoughts, words and actions, and brought her to the woman suffrage platform, are well told by herself:

My mind had long been disturbed with the tangled problem of social life, but it involved so many momentous questions that I could not see where to begin nor what to do. I could only protest in my heart, and leave the whole matter for God[160] to deal with in his wisdom. Thus matters stood until the year 1861, when Anna Dickinson, then a girl of nineteen, came to Hartford to speak in behalf of the Republican party, particularly on its hostility to the extension of slavery. I shall never forget the dismay--I know not what else to call it--which I felt at the announcement of her first speech in one of our public halls, lest harm should come to the political cause that enlisted my sympathies, and anxiety about the speaker, who would have to encounter so much adverse criticism in our conservative and prejudiced city. It was certainly a most startling occurrence, that here in my very home, where there had been hardly a lisp in favor of the rights of women, this girl should speak on political subjects, and that, too, upon the invitation of the leaders of a great political party. Here was a stride, not a mere step; and a stride almost to final victory for the suppressed rights of women.

My husband and I, full of anxiety and apprehension, but full, too, of determination to stand by one who so bravely shook off her trammels, went to hear this new Joan of Arc, and in a few minutes after she began we found ourselves, with the rest of the large audience, entranced by her eloquence. At the close of the meeting we went with many others to be introduced and give her the right hand of fellowship. She came home with us for the night, and after the family retired she and I communed together, heart to heart, as mother and daughter, and from this sweet, grand soul, born to the freedom denied to all women except those known as Quakers, I learned to trust as never before the teachings of the inner light, and to know whence came to them the recognition of equal rights with their brethren in the public assembly.

It was she who brought me to the knowledge of Mrs. John Stuart Mill, and her remarkable paper on "The Enfranchisement of Women," in The Westminster Review. She told me, too, of Susan B. Anthony, a fearless defender of true liberty and woman's right of public speech; but I allowed an old and ignorant prejudice against her and Mrs. Stanton to remain until the year 1864, when, going South to nurse a young soldier who was wounded in the war, I met Mrs. Caroline Severance from Boston, who was residing in South Carolina, where her husband was in the service of the government, who confirmed what Miss Dickinson had told me of Miss Anthony, and unfolded to me the whole philosophy of the woman suffrage movement.

She afterwards invited me to her home near Boston, where I joined Mr. Garrison and others in issuing a call for a convention, which I attended, and aided in the formation of the New England Woman Suffrage Association. At this meeting, which I will not attempt to describe, I met Paulina Wright Davis, whose mere presence upon the platform, with her beautiful white hair and her remarkable dignity and elegance, was a most potent argument in favor of woman's participation in public affairs. I sought an introduction to her, and confessing my prejudice against Mrs. Stanton and Miss Anthony, whom I had never yet seen, she urged me to meet them as guests at her home in Providence; and a few weeks later, under the grand old trees of her husband's almost ducal estate, we went over the whole subject of man's supremacy and woman's subjection that had lain so many years a burden upon my heart, and, sitting at their feet, I said: "While I have been mourning in secret over the degradation of woman, you have been working, through opposition and obloquy, to raise her to self-respect and self-protection through enfranchisement, knowing that with equal political rights come equal social and industrial opportunities. Henceforth, I will at least share your work and your obloquy."

In September, 1869, just one year from that time, after spending several weeks in correspondence with friends all over the State, and making careful preliminary arrangements, I issued a call for the first woman suffrage convention that was ever held in Connecticut, at which a State society was formed. To my surprise and satisfaction, the city press each day devoted several columns to reports of our proceedings, and the enthusiasm manifested by the large audiences was as unexpected as it was gratifying. The speakers were worthy of the reception given them, and few occasions have gathered upon one platform so notable an assemblage of men and women.[161] The resolutions which formed the basis of the discussions were prepared and presented by Mr. Hooker:

Resolved, That there is no consideration whatever that makes the right of suffrage valuable to men, or that makes it the duty or the interest of the nation to concede it to men, that does not make it valuable to women, and the duty and interest of the nation to concede it to women.

Resolved, That the ballot will bring to woman a higher education, larger industrial opportunities, a wider field for thought and action, a sense of responsibility in her relations to the public welfare, and, in place of mere complaisance and flattery, the higher and truer respect of men.

Resolved, That political affairs, involving nearly all those questions that relate to the welfare of the nation and the progress of society towards a perfect Christian civilization, ought to interest deeply every intelligent mind and every patriotic heart; and, while women love their country and the cause of Christian progress no less than men, they ought to have the same opportunity with men to exert a political power in their behalf.

Resolved, That in the alarming prevalence of public dishonesty and private immorality, which the present forces on the side of public and private virtue are proving wholly unable to control, it is our firm conviction that women, educated to the responsibilities of a participation with men in political rights, would bring to the aid of virtuous men a new and powerful element of good, which cannot be spared, and for which there can be no substitute.

Resolved, That in advocating the opening to woman of this larger sphere, we do not undervalue her relations as a wife and mother, than which none can be more worthy of a true woman's love and pride; but it is only by a full development of her faculties and a wide range for her thought that she can become the true companion of an intelligent husband, and the wise and inspiring educator of her children; while mere domestic life furnishes no occupation to the great number of women who never marry, and a very inadequate one to those who, at middle age, with large experience and ripe wisdom, find their children grown up around them and no longer needing their care.

Resolved, That all laws which recognize a superior right in the husband to the children whom the wife has borne, or a right on the part of the husband to the property of the wife, beyond the right given to her in his property, and all laws which hold that husband and wife do not stand in all respects in the relation of equals, ought to be abrogated, and the perfect equality of husband and wife established.

Resolved, That this equality of position and rights we believe to have been intended by the Creator as the ultimate perfection of the social state, when he said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let THEM have dominion"; and to have been a part of our Savior's plan for a perfect Christian society, in which an Apostle says, "there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female."

The Hartford Courant, in its description of the convention, said:

After a speech by Mr. Garrison, the Hutchinsons sang some of the religious songs of the Southern negroes with excellent taste, and then, led by them, the whole audience united in the chorus; and as the melody rose strong and clear a pathos fell upon the assembly that brought tears to many eyes. The tableau upon the stage was striking and memorable. There stood the family of singers, with the same cheerful, hopeful courage in their uplifted faces with which for twenty years they have sung of the good time almost here, of every reform; there stood William Lloyd Garrison, stern Puritan, inflexible apostle, his work gloriously done in one reform, lending the weight of his unwearied, solid intellect to that which he believes is the last needed; there was Mrs. Paulina Wright Davis, a Roman matron in figure, her noble head covered with clustering ringlets of white, courageous after a quarter of a century of unsullied devotion, though she had just confessed that sometimes she was almost weary; there was Miss Anthony, unselfish, patient, wise and practical; the graceful Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, the poet of the movement; the tall and elegant Mrs. Celia Burleigh; the benevolent Dr. Clemence Lozier; Mrs. Isabella B. Hooker, with spiritual face and firm purpose, just taking her place in the reform that has long had her heart and deep conviction, and many others of fine presence and commanding beauty--matrons, with gray hair and countenances illuminated with lives of charity; young women, flushed with hope; and as the grand Christian song went on, many a woman, leaning against a supporting pillar, gave way to the tears that would come, tears of hope deferred, tears of weary longings, tears of willing, patient devotion--e'en though it be a cross that raiseth me--and then the benediction, and the assembly dispersed, touched, it may be, into a moment's sympathy. * * *

At the closing evening session the opera house was completely filled by an audience whose attendance was a compliment. * * * The chairman, Rev. N. J. Burton, said: "Has not this convention been a success? I say, emphatically, it has. We have had the very best of audiences at every session, and we have provided speakers as good as the audience. We have not given you even one poor speech. I thank the audience and the speakers, one and all. I feel like thanking everybody, myself included, as chairman. In Stewart's store in New York they told me 1,500 persons were employed, all guided by one brain up-stairs, and that one brain giving the store a national reputation. This convention has been inspired and managed by one person--Mrs. Hooker of this city." After speculating as to the possible oratorical power of Mrs. H., had she received the advantages and enjoyed the practice of her brother, who spoke the previous evening, he said: "But of course Mrs. Hooker couldn't vote, nor be a member of the legislature, or even a justice of the peace. Insufferable nonsense! If such women don't vote before I die--well, like Gough's obstinate deacon, I won't die till they do."

On motion of Franklin Chamberlin, esq., the thanks of the convention were tendered to Mrs. Hooker for her efforts. At her request the chairman said that she was wholly surprised by this reference to herself. She would only say, "Thank God for our success," to which the chairman added, "Amen and Amen." He then introduced Mrs. Elizabeth Cady Stanton, daughter of the late Judge Cady of Albany, wife of the Hon. Henry B. Stanton of New York, and editor of The Revolution. She is perhaps fifty, and in general appearance much resembles Mrs. Davis. She is apparently in robust health, dresses in black, with just enough of white lace, and, with her gray hair loosely gathered, and her strong, symmetrical and refined face and perfect self-possession, is a noble-looking woman. Her address, or oration, was before her, but she was not hampered by it. Her voice is clear, her gesticulation simple, and her general manner not surpassed by Wendell Phillips. Rough notes of an oration so finished can only indicate the main drift of her thoughts. * * * The eloquent peroration was heard in profound silence, followed by enthusiastic applause. * * * The chairman read the constitution and offered it for signatures, and the officers of the Connecticut Woman Suffrage Association were chosen.[162]

In The Revolution of November 11, 1869, Mrs. Stanton giving a description of the convention, refers to the liberality of the governor, Marshall Jewell, and the genial hospitalities of his noble wife:[163]

In company with Mrs. Howe and Miss Anthony, we were entertained at the governor's mansion, a fine brick building in the heart of the town. It has a small pond on one side, and eight acres of land, laid out in gardens, walks and lawns, with extensive greenhouses and graperies. The house is spacious, elegantly and tastefully furnished, with all the comforts and luxuries that wealth can command. With a conservatory, library, pictures, statuary, beautiful (strong-minded) wife and charming daughters, the noble governor is in duty bound to remain the happy, genial, handsome man he is to-day. Though the governor, owing to his pressing executive duties, did not honor our convention with his presence, we feel assured, in reading over his last able message, that he feels a deep interest in the education and elevation of women. In speaking of their school system, he calls attention to the low wages of female teachers, and the injustice of excluding girls from the scientific schools and polytechnic institutions in the State. He says:

I would especially call the attention of the legislature to the importance of furnishing to women such educational facilities as will better fit them for the industrial pursuits which the true progress of the times is opening to them.

On the rights of married women, he says:

While our laws with regard to married women have been amended from time to time for several years past, so as to secure to them in a more ample manner their property, held before or acquired after marriage, yet we are still considerably behind many of our sister States, and even conservative England, in our legislation on the subject. I would recommend to your favorable consideration such an amendment of our laws as will secure to a married woman all her property, with the full control of it during her married life, and free from liability for any debts, except those contracted by herself or for which she has voluntarily made herself responsible, with the same right on the part of the husband to an interest in her property, on his surviving her, that she now has, or that it may be best to give her, in his.

On the subject of divorce the governor says:

I recommend a revision of our laws with regard to divorce. According to the report of the State librarian there were in the State last year 4,734 marriages and 478 divorces. Discontented people come here from other States, to take advantage of what is called our liberal legislation, to obtain divorces which would be denied them at home. As the sacredness of the marriage relation lies at the foundation of civilized society, it should be carefully guarded. Under our present laws the causes of divorce are too numerous, and not sufficiently defined, and too wide a discretion is given to the courts. I think the law of 1849 should be modified, and so much of the statute as grants divorces for "any such misconduct as permanently destroys the happiness of the petitioner, and defeats the purposes of the marriage relation," should be repealed. I would also suggest that the law provide that no decree of divorce shall take effect till one year after it is granted.

In conversation with the governor on this point in his message he stated the singular fact that the majority of the applications for divorce were made by women. If this be so, we suggested that the laws of Connecticut should stand as they are until the women have the right of suffrage, that they may have a voice in a social arrangement in which they have an equal interest with man himself. If Connecticut, with its blue laws, disloyal Hartford convention, and Democracy, has, nevertheless, been a Canada for fugitive wives from the yoke of matrimony, pray keep that little State, like an oasis in the desert, sacred to sad wives, at least until the sixteenth amendment of the federal constitution shall give the women of the republic the right to say whether they are ready to make marriage, under all circumstances, for better or worse, an indissoluble tie. We have grave doubts as to the sacredness of a relation in which the subject-class has no voice whatever in the laws that regulate it. We shall never know what "laws lie at the foundation of all civilized society" until woman's thought finds expression in the State, the church and the home. It is presumption for man longer to legislate alone on this vital question, when woman, too, should have a word to say in the matter.

The morning after the convention we had a pleasant breakfast under Mr. and Mrs. Hooker's hospitable roof, where Boston and New York amicably broke bread and discussed the fifteenth amendment together. All the wise and witty sayings that passed around that social board, time fails to chronicle.

In 1877 Governor Hubbard called the attention of the legislature to the wrongs of married women, in the following words:

There has been for the last few years in this State much slip-shod and fragmentary legislation in respect to the property rights of married women. The old common law assumed the subjugation of the wife, and stripped her of the better part of her rights of person and nearly all her rights of property. It is a matter of astonishment that Christian nations should have been willing for eighteen centuries to hold the mothers of their race in a condition of legal servitude. It has been the scandal of jurisprudence. Some progress has been made in reforming the law in this State, but it has been done, as I have already said, by patch-work and shreds, sometimes ill-considered, and often so incongruous as to provoke vexatious litigation and defy the wisdom of the courts. The property relations of husband and wife do not to-day rest on any just or harmonious system. Not only has the husband absolute disposal of all his own property freed from all dower rights, but he is practically the owner during coverture of all his wife's estate not specially limited to her separate use; and after her death has, in every case, a life use in all her personal, and in most cases in all her real property, by a title which the wife, no matter what may have been his ill-deserts, is powerless to impair or defeat; whereas, on the other hand, the wife has during the husband's life no more power of her own right to sell, convey, or manage her own estate than if she were a lunatic or slave, and in case of his death has a life use in only one-third part of the real estate of which he dies possessed, and no indefeasible title whatever in any of his personal estate. As a consequence, a husband may strip his wife, by mere voluntary disposition to strangers, of all claim on his estate after his death, and thus add beggary to widowhood.

I am sure this cannot seem right to any fair-minded man. Neither is it strange that some of our countrywomen, stung by the injustice of the law towards their sex, should be demanding, as a mode of redress, a part in the making of the laws which govern them. I am confident there is manhood enough in our own sex to right this obvious wrong to which I have alluded.

I therefore recommend that the law on this subject be so recast that, in all marriages hereafter contracted, the wife shall hold her property and all her earnings for personal services not rendered to her husband or minor children, as a sole and separate estate, with absolute power of disposition in her own name, and that the surviving wife shall have, by law, the same measure of estate in the property of the deceased husband, as the surviving husband shall be allowed to have in the property of his deceased wife. This will reduce their property relations to a principle of equality, and, in my judgment, is demanded by the most obvious dictates of justice and equity. Those who are not satisfied with this can make a different law for themselves by ante-nuptial settlements.

I am not unmindful that the husband alone is liable in the first instance for the support of the family; but this is much more than neutralized by the fact that, in most cases, the wife's whole life is spent in the toilsome and unpaid service of the household, and that the whole drift of her estate, in consequence of her more unselfish and generous nature, is towards the husband's pockets, in spite of all the guards of the law and every consideration of prudence.

Calling attention to this stirring appeal, the Hartford Times, Democratic, used the following language:

Another notable feature of the message is its outspoken and manly call for a reformation in our laws concerning the property rights of married women. Here as in other points it is a model message. The governor's experience as a lawyer has brought him often face to face with this disgraceful one-sidedness of our laws on this subject, and in some terse sentences he shows up the injustice more effectively than has ever been done in any of the so-called women's rights conventions.[164]

The following editorial from the Springfield Republican, gives a good digest of the new law passed upon Governor Hubbard's recommendation:

Connecticut has taken a great leap forward in the reform of the property relations of married persons. The law had been long neglected in that State, the obvious right of a married woman to property acquired before marriage, which is now secured in most States by constitutional provision, having been there denied. In Massachusetts, the modification of the former inequalities has gone on by piecemeal, till it is said that in some respects the woman is now the more favored party.

The new Connecticut statute also puts the burden of the family maintenance on the man, as under most circumstances the real bread-winner. It simply lays down the principle of absolute equality in the rights and privileges of the husband and wife, with the above exception. In all marriages hereafter contracted, neither husband nor wife shall acquire any right to or interest in any property of the other, whether held before the marriage or acquired after the marriage, except as provided in this law. The separate earnings of the wife shall be her sole property. She shall have the same right to make contracts with third persons as if she were not married, and to convey her real and personal estate. Her property is liable for her debts and not for his; his is not liable for her debts, except those contracted for the support of the family. Purchases made by either party shall be presumed to be on the private account of the party, but both shall be liable where any article purchased by either shall have in fact gone to the support of the family, or for the joint benefit of both, or for the reasonable apparel of the wife, or for her reasonable support while abandoned by her husband. It shall, however, be the duty of the husband to support his family, and his property, when found, shall be first applied to satisfy any such joint liability. The wife shall be entitled to indemnity for any money of her own used to pay such claims. We have used almost the precise language of the first and second sections of the act.

On the death of either, the survivor shall be entitled to the use for life of one-third the estate of the deceased, which right cannot be defeated by will. If the deceased leaves no children or representatives of children, the survivor is entitled to one-half instead of one-third. When either party gives a legacy to the other, the latter may choose between its rights under the will, and those under the statute. Abandonment without cause may defeat this provision, and a marriage contract may supersede it entirely. Parties already married may contract to surrender their present rights for those secured by this statute, such contracts to be recorded in the probate court.

Thus we have a new and clear statute framed in accordance with a simple principle of reform, for which the Republican has long done battle--the equality of married persons in their rights and responsibilities of property. The adoption of the reform is due deeply to the general agitation of the rights of women, the efforts of Mrs. Isabella Beecher Hooker, the Smith girls' cows, and perhaps some flagrant instance of injustice to rich wives by tyrant husbands near the capital. But the great occasion and immediate cause, without which this generation might have pleaded for it in vain, was the perception of the justice of it by Governor Hubbard, and his open advocacy of it in his message. Lawyers have one answer for all reforms regarding property or civil contracts--they are impossible. But here was undeniably the best lawyer in the State who said, and threw the weight of his first State paper on the proposition, that this thing was possible, and, if he said it was possible, there was no man who could gainsay it. The legislature took the reform on its own sense of justice and on the assurance of Richard D. Hubbard, that it would work.

On June 6, 1870, at a second hearing[165] before the Joint Committee on Woman Suffrage, in the capitol at New Haven, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford of the Universalist church, Mrs. Benchley and Mrs. Russell were the speakers. During that session of the legislature Mrs. Hanaford acted as chaplain both in the Senate and House of Representatives, and received a check for her services which she valued chiefly as a recognition of woman's equality in the clerical profession.

Mrs. Hooker was ably sustained in her new position by her husband, a prominent lawyer of the State. Being equally familiar with civil and canon law, with Blackstone and the Bible, he was well equipped to meet the opponents of the reform at every point. While Mrs. Hooker held meetings in churches and school-houses through the State, her husband in his leisure hours sent the daily press articles on the subject. And thus their united efforts stirred the people to thought and at last roused a Democratic governor of the State to his duty on this question. From the many able tracts issued and articles published in the journals we give a few extracts. In answer to the common objections of "free love" and "easy divorce," in the Evening Post of January 17, 1871, Mr. Hooker said:

The persons who advocate easy divorce would advocate it just as strongly if there was no woman suffrage movement. The two have no necessary connection. Indeed one of the strongest arguments in favor of woman suffrage is, that the marriage relation will be safer with women to vote and legislate upon it than where the voting and legislation are left wholly to the men. Women will always be wives and mothers, above all things else. This law of nature cannot be changed, and I know of nobody who desires to change it. The marriage relation will therefore always be more to woman than to man, and we, who would give her the right to vote, have no fear to trust to her the sanctity and purity of that relation. It is the opponents of woman suffrage who distrust the fidelity of woman to her divine instincts and dare not let her vote. Our little State has been two hundred years under male legislation, and yet a long memorial from hundreds of clergymen and other Christian men went up to our legislature two years ago, representing our legislation on divorce as demoralizing and as fatal to the best interests of the marriage relation. It really seems as if the incompetency for the management of public affairs which by mere assumption is charged in advance upon women, has been proved with regard to men by an actual experience of many years. The true idea is for man and woman to share together the responsibilities and duties of legislation, and until this is done I have no hope for any real progress towards purity in the administration of our public affairs. We who favor woman suffrage speak confidently on this subject because the reform works so well wherever it has been tried, in England, Sweden, Austria and Wyoming Territory.

No rational man can suppose for a moment that with woman suffrage established in England and on the continent of Europe, we in this country, which so specially stands on equal representation, are going to refuse it. It must be set down as one of the certain things of the future. And when it has come, and women vote, it will excite no more attention or comment than the voting of our colored people.

Now if woman suffrage is to come, is it worth while to be making the impression that the women of our country are not to be trusted with it, and that the marriage relation is to be imperiled by it? Above all, is it manly or just to be charging corrupt motives on nine-tenths of those who advocate the reform? The notoriety which to some extent its advocates must get is almost universally painful to the women who are the subjects of it. One noble woman, whose whole soul is in this cause, and the purity of whose motives in this, as in everything else, I have had good opportunity to learn, said to me, on reading Dr. Bushnell's remark in his book on woman suffrage, that these women were only trying to make themselves men: "Cruel, cruel words! If so noble a man as Dr. Bushnell so utterly fails to comprehend a woman's nature, shall not she be allowed to speak for herself, and no testimony be taken but hers?"[166]

Much might be said in regard to the most famous women of Connecticut, the historic "Maids of Glastonbury," celebrated for their resistance to taxation. After the death of Abby, July 23, 1878, Mrs. Elizabeth Oakes Smith, in a beautiful tribute to the sisters, said:

Many years ago they took a stand akin to that of the illustrious Hampden, which has made his name a synonym for patriotism as well as just and manly opposition to unconstitutional revenue exaction. "The tax may be a small matter for an English gentleman to pay, but it is too much for a British freeman to pay," was the ground of his noble resistance, and this view precipitated that great Revolution which more than all other modern movements consolidated and strengthened the rights of the British subject. These two women deserve to stand upon a platform side by side with the great Hampden. Other women have paid their taxes under protest, but Abby and Julia Smith have done more than protest; they have suffered loss as well as inconvenience, their property having been seized and sold again and again because of their honest conviction that taxation without representation was as unjust to women as to men. Their steadfastness has been the more remarkable because, by their social position, their learning and their wealth, they might be supposed to be indifferent to the ballot-box, as so many thus situated claim to be. Abby and her sister were no ordinary women. The family originally consisted of five sisters, all more or less accomplished. The father was a man of learning, a graduate of Yale and a clergyman. The mother was familiar with French and Italian, and no mean astronomer. Thus parented, it is not surprising that the Glastonbury sisters were of marked individualism as well as superior scholarship. They were more or less acquainted with Hebrew, Greek and Latin, and have made a translation of the Bible from these sources, giving its original meaning.

The maids of Glastonbury planted themselves upon the right of the sex to suffrage, from purely philosophic and statesman-like grounds. They had no other disabilities of which to complain--no other grievance--no social ostracism, as is so often charged, and most unjustly, against other advocates of the doctrine. They were unmarried, studious, upright, simple-minded gentlewomen, and were much esteemed and honored in the community in which they lived. They occupied the old homestead, doing their own work, their interests well cared for in the person of Mr. Kellogg, an intelligent tenant of theirs, as well as friend and neighbor.

The Hartford Post, in a tender mention of the life and death of Abby, with a brief sketch of the family, thus bears honorable testimony to her worthiness:

In the death of Miss Smith the cause of woman suffrage has met with a severe loss, as her firm resistance to what she believed to be the unjust treatment of women greatly encouraged her companions in the contest; her sister has lost her chief support, and the community in which she lived a faithful friend and a worthy exponent of the virtues of truthfulness, firmness, and adherence to the right as she understood it.

The Hartford Times said:

A notable woman who died last week was Miss Abigail H. Smith, of Glastonbury, Conn., one of the two sisters who resisted the collection of their taxes on the ground that they had no voice in the levy. It will be remembered that their cows were seized and some of their personal property sold two years ago. Of course there were friends who were willing and anxious to pay the taxes, but the plucky old ladies were fighting for a principle, and they would allow no one to stand in the way. The notoriety, which they neither sought nor avoided, undoubtedly did a great deal to call public attention to the anomalous condition of woman under the law. It would be very hard for any man to argue successfully that he possessed any stronger natural claim to the suffrage than was possessed by these shrewd, honest, energetic old ladies.

Many encouraging letters were written the sisters during their many trials, of which the following is a fair specimen:

Near BOSTON, January 14, 1874.

MY DEAR MADAM: The account of your hardships is interesting, and your action will be highly beneficial in bringing the subject to public notice, and in leading to the correction of a great injustice. The taxation of the property of women, without allowing them any representation, even in town affairs, is so unfair that it seems only necessary to bring it to public view to make it odious and to bring about a change. Therefore you deserve the greater honor, not only because you have suffered in a good cause, but because you have set an example that will be followed, and that will lead to happy results.

Your case has its parallel in every township of New England. In the town where this is written a widow pays into the treasury $7,830 a year, while 600 men, a number equal to half the whole number of voters, pay $1,200 in all. Another lady pays $5,042. Yet neither has a single vote, not even by proxy. That is, each one of 600 men who have no property, who pay only a poll-tax, and many of whom cannot read or write, has the power of voting away the property of the town, while the female owners have no power at all. We have lately spent a day in celebrating the heroism of those who threw overboard the tea; but how trifling was the tea-tax, and how small the injustice to individuals compared with this one of our day! The principle, however, was the same--that there should be no taxation where there is no representation. And this is what we ought to stand by. Please to accept the sympathy and respect of one of your fellow citizens. No doubt you will have the same from all in due time; or, at any rate, from all who love to see fair play.

Very truly yours, AMOS A. LAWRENCE.

Miss Abby H. Smith, Glastonbury, Conn.

A marked evidence of the advance of public sentiment was manifested by a decision of the Supreme Court in 1882, by which the women of Connecticut were held to have the right to practice law. The opinion of Chief-Justice Park concerning the legality of the admission of Miss Mary Hall of Hartford to the bar, giving her the right to practice in the courts of the State, is as follows:

This is an application by a woman for admission to the bar of Hartford county. After having completed the prescribed term of study she has passed the examination required and has been recommended by the bar of the county to the Superior Court for admission, subject to the opinion of the court upon the question whether, as a woman, she can legally be admitted. The Superior Court has reserved the case for our advice.

The statute with regard to the admission of attorneys by the court is the 29th section of chapter 3, title 4, of the General Statutes, and is in the following words: "The Superior Court may admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established by the judges of said court; and no other person than an attorney so admitted shall plead at the bar of any court of this State, except in his own cause."

It is not contended, in opposition to the application, that the language of this statute is not comprehensive enough to include women, but the claim is that at the time it was passed its application to women was not thought of, while the fact that women have never been admitted as attorneys, either by the English courts or by any of the courts of this country, had established a common-law disability, which could be removed only by a statute intended to have that effect.

It is hardly necessary to consider how far the fact that women have never pursued a particular profession or occupied a particular official position, to the pursuit or occupancy of which some governmental license or authority was necessary, constitutes a common-law disability for receiving such license or authority, because here the statute is ample for removing that disability if we can construe it as applying to women; so that we come back to the question whether we are by construction to limit the application of the statute to men alone, by reason of the fact that in its original enactment its application to women was not intended by the legislators that enacted it. And upon this point we remark, in the first place, that an inquiry of this sort involves very serious difficulties. No one would doubt that a statute passed at this time in the same words would be sufficient to authorize the admission of women to the bar, because it is now a common fact and presumably in the minds of legislators, that women in different parts of the country are, and for some time have been, following the profession of law. But if we hold that the construction of the statute is to be determined by the admitted fact that its application to women was not in the minds of the legislators when it was passed, where shall we draw the line? All progress in social matters is gradual. We pass almost imperceptibly from a state of public opinion that utterly condemns some course of action to one that strongly approves it. At what point, in the history of this change, shall we regard a statute, the construction of which is to be affected by it, as passed in contemplation of it? When the statute we are now considering was passed, it probably never entered the mind of a single member of the legislature that black men would ever be seeking for admission under it. Shall we now hold that it cannot apply to black men? We know of no distinction in respect to this rule between the case of a statute and that of a constitutional provision. When our State constitution was adopted in 1818 it was provided in it that every elector should be "eligible to any office in the State," except where otherwise provided in the constitution. It is clear that the convention that framed, and probably all the people who voted to adopt the constitution, had no idea that black men would ever be electors, and contemplated only white men as within any possible application of the provision, for the same constitution provided that only white men should be electors. But now that black men are made electors, will it do to say that they are not entitled to the full rights of electors in respect to holding office, because an application of the provision to them was never thought of when it was adopted? Events that gave rise to enactments may always be considered in construing them. This is little more than the familiar rule that in construing a statute we always inquire what particular mischief it was designed to remedy. Thus, the Supreme Court of the United States has held that in construing the recent amendments of the federal constitution, although they are general in their terms, it is to be considered that they were passed with reference to the exigencies growing out of the emancipation of the slaves, and for the purpose of benefiting the blacks (Slaughter-house Cases, 16 Wall., 67; Strauder vs. West Virginia, 100 U. S. Reps., 306). But this statute was not passed for the purpose of benefiting men as distinguished from women. It grew out of no exigency caused by the relation of the sexes. Its object was wholly to secure the orderly trial of causes and the better administration of justice. Indeed, the preamble to the first statute providing for the admission of attorneys, states its object to be "for the well-ordering of proceedings and pleas at the bar."

The statute on this subject was not originally passed in its present form. The first act with regard to the admission of attorneys was that of 1708, which was as follows: "That no person, except in his own cause, shall be admitted to make any plea at the bar without being first approved by the court before whom the plea is to be made, nor until he shall take in the said court the following oath," etc. (Col. Records, 1706 to 1716, page 48). This act seems to have contemplated an approval by the court in each particular case in which an attorney appeared before it. The first act with regard to the general admission of attorneys appears in the revision of 1750, and is as follows: "That the county courts of the respective counties in this colony shall appoint, and they are hereby empowered to approve, nominate and appoint attorneys in their respective counties, as there shall be occasion, to plead at the bar; * * and that no person, except in his own case, shall make any plea at the bar in any court but such as are allowed and qualified attorneys, as aforesaid." Thus the statute stood until the revision of 1821; when, for the first time, it took essentially its present form. Up to this time the word "person" had been used in this statute only in the clause that "no person" should be allowed to practice before the courts except where formally admitted by the court, a use of the word which, of course, could not be regarded as limited to the male sex, as women would undoubtedly have been held to be included in the term. The language of the statute as now adopted was as follows: "The county courts may make such rules and regulations as to them shall seem proper relative to the admission and practice of attorneys; and may approve of, admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys, such persons as are qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established; * * and no person not thus admitted, except in his own cause, shall be admitted or allowed to plead at the bar of any court." The statute in this form passed through the compilations of 1835 and 1838, the revision of 1849 and the compilation of 1854, and appears, with a slight modification, in the revision of 1866. The county courts had now been abolished, and the power to admit attorneys, as well as to make rules on the subject, had been given to the Superior Court; the expression, "such persons," being preserved, and the provision that "no person" not thus admitted should be allowed to plead, being omitted.

The statute finally took its present form in the revision of 1875. It retains the provision that the Superior Court may make rules for the admission of attorneys, and provides that the court "may admit and cause to be sworn as attorneys such persons as are qualified therefor agreeably to the rules established," and restores the provision, dropt in the revision of 1866, that "no person other than an attorney so admitted shall plead at the bar of any court in this State, except in his own cause."

These changes, though not such as to affect the meaning of the statute at any point of importance to the present question, are yet not wholly without importance. The adoption by the legislature of the revision of the statutes becomes, both in law and in fact, a reenactment of the whole body of statutes; and though in determining the meaning of a statute, we are not to regard it as then enacted for the first time, especially if there be no change in its phraseology, yet, where there is such a change, it follows that the attention of the revisers had been particularly directed to that statute, as of course also that of the legislature, and that with the changes made it expresses the present intent of both. Thus, in this case, it is clear that the revisers gave particular thought to the phraseology of the statute we are considering, and put it in a form that seemed to them best with reference to the present state of things, and decided to leave the words "such persons" to stand with full knowledge that they were sufficient to include women, and that women were already following the profession of law in different parts of the country. The legislators must be presumed to have acted with the same consideration and knowledge. It would have been perfectly easy, if either had thought best, to insert some words of limitation or exclusion, but it was not done. Not only so, but a clause omitted in the revision of 1866 was restored, providing that no "person" not regularly admitted should act as an attorney--a term which necessarily included women, and the insertion of which made it necessary, if the word "persons" as used in the first part of the statute should be held not to include women, to give two entirely different meanings to the same word where occurring twice in the same statute and with regard to the same subject matter.

The object of a revision of statutes is, that there may be such changes made in them as the changes in political and social matters may demand, and where no changes are made it is to be presumed that the legislature is satisfied with it in its present form. And where some changes are made in a particular statute, and other parts of it are left unchanged, there is the more reason for the inference from this evidence that the matter of changing the statute was especially considered, that the parts unchanged express the legislative will of to-day, rather than that of perhaps a hundred years ago, when it was originally enacted.

But this statute, in the revision of 1875, is placed immediately after another with regard to the appointment of commissioners of the Superior Court, the necessary construction of which, we think, throws light upon the construction of the statute in question. That act was passed in 1855, after women had begun, with general acceptance, to occupy a greatly enlarged field of industry and some professional and even public positions; and it has been held by the Superior Court, very properly we think, as applying to women, a woman having three years ago been appointed commissioner under it. Its language is as follows: "The Superior Court in any county may appoint any number of persons in such county to be commissioners of the Superior Court, who, when sworn, may sign writs and subpoenas, take recognizances, administer oaths and take depositions and the acknowledgement of deeds, and shall hold office for two years from their appointment." Here the very language is used which is used in the statute with regard to attorneys. In one it is, "any number of persons," in the other, "such persons as are qualified." These two statutes are placed in immediate juxtaposition in the revision of 1875 and deal with kindred subjects, and it is reasonable to presume that the revisers and legislature intended both to receive the same construction. It would seem strange to any common-sense observer that an entirely different meaning should be given to the same word in the two statutes, especially when in giving the narrower meaning to the word in the statute with regard to attorneys, we are compelled to give it a different meaning from that which the same word requires in the next line of the same statute.

We are not to forget that all statutes are to be construed, as far as possible, in favor of equality of rights. All restrictions upon human liberty, all claims for special privileges, are to be regarded as having the presumption of law against them, and as standing upon their defense, and can be sustained if at all by valid legislation, only by the clear expression or clear implication of the law.

We have some noteworthy illustrations of the recognition of women as eligible or appointable to office under statutes of which the language is merely general. Thus, women are appointed in all parts of the country as postmasters. The act of congress of 1825 was the first one conferring upon the postmaster-general the power of appointing postmasters, and it has remained essentially unchanged to the present time. The language of the act is, that "the postmaster-general shall establish post-offices and appoint postmasters." Here women are not included, except in the general term "postmasters," a term which seems to imply a male person; and no legislation from 1825 down to the present time authorizes the appointment of women, nor is there any reference in terms to women until the revision of 1874, which recognizes the fact that women had already been appointed, in providing that "the bond of any married woman who may be appointed postmaster shall be binding on her and her sureties." Some of the higher grades of postmasters are appointed by the president, subject to confirmation by the Senate, and such appointments and confirmations have repeatedly been made. The same may be said of pension agents. The acts of congress on the subject have simply authorized "the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint all pension agents, who shall hold their offices for the term of four years, and shall give bond," etc. At the last session of congress a married woman in Chicago was appointed for a third term pension agent for the State of Illinois, and the public papers stated that there was not a single vote against her confirmation in the Senate. Public opinion is everywhere approving of such appointments. They promote the public interest, which is benefitted by every legitimate use of individual ability, while mere justice, which is of interest to all, requires that all have the fullest opportunity for the exercise of their abilities. These cases are the more noteworthy as being cases of public offices, to which the incumbent is appointed for a term of years, upon a compensation provided by law, and in which he is required to give bond. If an attorney is to be regarded as an officer, it is in a lower sense.

We have had pressed upon us by the counsel opposed to the applicant, the decisions of the courts of Massachusetts, Wisconsin and Illinois, and the United States Court of Claims, adverse to such an application. While not prepared to accede to all the general views expressed in those decisions, we do not think it necessary to go into a discussion of them, as we regard our statute, in view of all the considerations affecting its construction, as too clear to admit of any reasonable question as to the interpretation and effect which we ought to give it.

In this opinion Carpenter and Loomis, Js., concurred; Pardee, J., dissented.

In 1884, the State society held a spirited and successful convention.[167] Julia Smith gave an extemporaneous talk to the great delight of the audience, who applauded continually; Mrs. Crane, a fine elocutionist, gave a reading from Carlyle; Mrs. Hooker closed with a brief resume of the work the society had accomplished.

We are also indebted to Frances Ellen Burr for many facts, as the following letter will show:

HARTFORD, September 17, 1885.

MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: I have received your letter of inquiry. As to that petition in 1867, I was one of the signers, and, probably had something to do with getting the other signatures, though I have nothing but my memory to depend on as to that; but I was pretty much alone here in those days, on the woman suffrage question. Who the other signers were I made an attempt to find out in the secretary of state's office the other day, but found that it would take days, instead of the few hours I had at my command. I find in my journal a reference to Lucy Stone and Mr. Blackwell addressing the committee in the House of Representatives, and that was the committee that made the report afterwards published in The Revolution. Mr. Croffut made the opening address on the day of the hearing. He was always ready to aid us in whatever way he could, and I felt grateful to him, for a helping hand was doubly appreciated in those days. I find by the journal of the House for that year that the vote on the question was 93 yeas to 111 nays. The name of Miss Susie Hutchinson heads one petition, with 70 others. How many other petitions there were that year I do not know, but I believe there have been several every year since, besides a number of individual petitions. Since that time the House has voted favorably on the question twice, at least, but I believe we have never had a majority in the Senate.

You ask when I first wrote or spoke for the ballot. My first venture in that line was in 1853. I was then at the age of twenty-two, living with my sister in Cleveland, O., and had never given any attention to the subject of woman suffrage, and cared nothing about it any further than the spirit of rebellion--born with me--against everything unjust, might be said to have made me a radical by nature. In the fall of that year a woman's rights convention met in Cleveland, and I attended it alone, none of the rest of the family caring to go. In my old journal I find this entry:

October 7, 1853. Attended a woman's rights convention which has met here. Never saw anything of the kind before. A Mr. Barker spent most of the morning trying to prove that woman's rights and the Bible cannot agree. The Rev. Antoinette L. Brown replied in the afternoon in defense of the Bible. She says the Bible favors woman's rights. Miss Brown is the best-looking woman in the convention. They appear to have a number of original and pleasing characters upon their platform, among them Miss Lucy Stone--hair short and rolled under like a man's; a tight-fitting velvet waist and linen collar at the throat; bombazine skirt just reaching the knees, and trousers of the same. She is independent in manner and advocates woman's rights in the strongest terms:--scorns the idea of woman asking rights of man, but says she must boldly assert her own rights, and take them in her own strength. Mrs. Ernestine L. Rose, a Polish lady with black eyes and curls, and rosy cheeks, manifests the independent spirit also. She is graceful and witty, and is ready with sharp replies on all occasions. Mrs. Lucretia Mott, a Philadelphia Quaker, is meek in dress but not in spirit. She gets up and hammers away at woman's rights, politics and the Bible, with much vigor, then quietly resumes her knitting, to which she industriously applies herself when not speaking to the audience. She wears the plain Quaker dress and close-fitting white cap. Mrs. Frances D. Gage, the president, is a woman of sound sense and a good writer of prose and poetry. Mrs. Caroline Severance has an easy, pleasing way of speaking. Mr. Charles Burleigh, a Quaker, appears to be an original character. He has long hair, parted in the middle like a woman's, and hanging down his back. He and Miss Stone seem to reverse the usual order of things.

My first speech in public, I find by my old journal--which serves me better than I thought it would--was given in Music Hall in this city in November, 1870. This meeting was held under the auspices of the State association, and was presided over by the Rev. Olympia Brown. I find that in the winter of 1871 I made addresses in various parts of the State. The journal also tells of a good deal of trotting about to get signatures to petitions, for I had more time to do that thing then than I have now.

The first woman suffrage meeting ever held in Hartford, and the first, probably, in Connecticut, was the one you and Mrs. Stanton held in Allyn Hall in December, 1867. Our State Suffrage Association was organized in October, 1869. The signers[168] to the call for that convention were quite influential persons.

In my hunt through the journals of the two legislative houses I found in the House journal for 1878 that Mr. Pratt of Meriden had presented the petition of Mr. and Mrs. Isaac C. Lewis. Mr. Clark of Enfield, presented the petition of Lucy A. Allen; Mr. Gallagher of New Haven presented several petitions that year, one of them being headed by Mr. Henry A. Stillman of Wethersfield, followed by 532 names, and another by Mrs. D. F. Connor, M. D. Mr. Broadhead of Glastonbury presented the petition of the Smith sisters. This unique petition Miss Mary Hall, who was with me in the secretary's office, chanced to light upon, and she copied it. It is a document well worth handing down on the page of history, and runs as follows:

The Petition of Julia E. Smith and Abby H. Smith, of Glastonbury, to the Senate of the State of Connecticut:

This is the first time we have petitioned your honorable body, having twice come before the House of Assembly, which the last time gave a majority that we should vote in town affairs; but it was negatived in the Senate.

We now pray the highest court in our native State that we may be relieved from the stigma of birth. For forty years since the death of our father have we suffered intensely for being born women. We cannot even stand up for the principles of our forefathers (who fought and bled for them) without having our property seized and sold at the sign-post, which we have suffered four times; and have also seen eleven acres of our meadow-land sold to an ugly neighbor for a tax of fifty dollars--land worth more than $2,000. And a threat is given out that our house shall be ransacked and despoiled of articles most dear to us, the work of lamented members of our family who have gone before us, and all this is done without the least excuse of right or justice. We are told that it is the law of the land made by the legislature and done to us, two defenceless women, who have never broken these laws, made by not half the citizens of this State. And it was said in our Declaration of Independence that "Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

For being born women we are obliged to help support those who have earned nothing, and who, by gambling, drinking, and the like, have come to poverty, and these same can vote away what we have earned with our own hands. And when men meet to take off the dollar poll-tax, the bill for the dinner comes in for the women to pay. Neither have we husband, or brother, or son, or even nephew, or cousin, to help us. All men will acknowledge that it is as wrong to take a woman's property without her consent as to take a man's without his consent; and such wrong we suffer wholly for being born women, which we are in no wise to blame for. To be sure, for our consolation, we are upheld by the learned, the wise and the good, from all parts of the country, having received communications from thirty-two of our States, as well as from over the seas, that we are in the right, and from many of the best men in our own State. But they have no power to help us. We therefore now pray your honorable body, who have power, with the House of Assembly, to relieve us of this stigma of birth, and grant that we may have the same privileges before the law as though we were born men. And this, as in duty bound, we will ever pray.

JULIA and ABBY SMITH.

Glastonbury, Conn., January 29, 1878.

The story of the Smith sisters, from 1873 and on, will be handed down as one of the most original and unique chapters in the history of woman suffrage. Abby Smith, with my friend Mrs. Buckingham, attended with me the first meeting of the Woman's Congress, in New York, in October, 1873. While there, she said she should, on her return, address her town's people on woman suffrage and taxation, as they had not been treated fairly in the matter of their taxes. She did so on the fifth of November, addressing the Glastonbury town meeting in the little red-brick town-house of that place--a building that will always hereafter be connected with the names of Abby and Julia Smith. Several years after, wishing to address them again, she was refused entrance there, so she and Julia addressed the people from an ox-cart that stood in front. This was after their continued warfare against "taxation without representation" had aroused the opposition of their townsmen, but that first speech in 1873 was the beginning of their fame. Abby sent it to me for publication in the Times of this city, but the editor not having room for it sent it to the Courant, which gave it a place in its columns, thus (unwittingly) setting a ball in motion that ran all round the country, and even over the ocean. The simplicity and uniqueness of the story of "Abby Smith and her cows," gave a boom to the cause of woman suffrage as welcome as it was unexpected. The Glastonbury mails were more heavily laden than ever before in the history of this hitherto unknown town, for letters came pouring in from all quarters to the sisters. The fame did not rest entirely on Abby and her cows; Julia and her Bible came in for an important share, and the newspaper articles in regard to them were a remarkable blending of cows and Biblical lore, dairy products and Greek and Hebrew. Many of the articles were wide of the facts, being written with a view to make a bright and readable column. For instance, a Chicago paper got up a highly colored article in which it said that Abby Smith's mother--Hannah Hickok--was such an intense student that her father had a glass cage made for her to study in. The only vestage of truth in this story was that, lacking our modern facilities for heating, Mr. Hickok had an extra amount of glass put into the south side of his daughter's room that the sun might give it a little more heat in cold weather. Hannah Hickok seems to have had a mental equipment much above that of the average woman of that day; she had a taste for literature, and was something of a linguist, and wrote, moreover, at different times, quite an amount of readable verse. She had a taste for mathematics, and also for astronomy, and made for her own use an almanac, for these were not so plenty then as now; she could, on awakening, tell any hour of the night by the position of the stars. Evidently Hannah Hickok Smith was not an ordinary woman; and it is quite as evident that her daughters were equally original, though in a different direction. Women who have translated the Bible are not to be met with every day--nor men either, for that matter, but Julia Smith not only did this, but translated it five times,--twice from the Hebrew, twice from the Greek, and once from the Latin; and thirty years later, or after the age of eighty, published the translation; and then, to crown the list of marvels, married at the age of eighty-five.

One point more, and the one nearest my heart. You ask me about my "dear friend Mrs. Buckingham." I can give no details of her suffrage work, but her heart was in it, and her name should be handed down in your History. She was at one time chairman of the executive committee of our State association, and she would, if she had thought it necessary, have spent of her little income to the last cent to help along the cause. She made public addresses and wrote many suffrage articles and letters that were published in different papers, but she made no noise about it; her work was all done with her own characteristic gentleness. Generous to a fault, winning and beautiful as the flowers she scattered on the pathway of her friends, she passed on her way; and one memorable Easter morning she left us so gently that none knew when the sleep of life passed into the sleep of death; we only knew that the glorious light of her eyes--a light like that which "never shone on sea or land"--had gone out forever.

"She died in beauty like the dew Of flowers dissolved away; She died in beauty like a star Lost on the brow of day."

The Hartford Equal Rights Club[169] was organized in March, 1885, and holds semi-monthly meetings. Its membership is not large, but what it lacks in numbers it makes up in earnestness. Its proceedings are reported pretty fully and published in the Hartford Times, which has a large circulation, thus gaining an audience of many thousands and making its proceedings much more important than they would otherwise be. It is managed as simply as possible, and is not encumbered with a long list of officers. There are simply a president, Mrs. Emily P. Collins;[170] a vice-president, Miss Mary Hall; and a secretary, Frances Ellen Burr, who is also the treasurer. Debate is free to all, the platform being perfectly independent, as far as a platform can be independent within the limits of reason. Essays are read and debated, and many interesting off-hand speeches are made. It is an entirely separate organization from the Connecticut State Suffrage Association, founded in 1869. But its membership is not confined to the city; it invites people throughout the State, or in other States, to become members--people of all classes and of all beliefs. Opponents of woman suffrage are always welcome, for these furnish the spice of debate. Among the topics discussed has been that of woman and the church, and upon this subject Mrs. Stanton has written the club several letters.

Last spring (1885) a number of the members of the club were given hearings before the Committee on Woman Suffrage in the legislature in reference to a bill then under consideration, which was exceedingly limited in its provisions. The House of Representatives improved it and then passed it, but it was afterwards defeated in the Senate. Some of the meetings of the club have been held in Hartford's handsome capitol, a room having been allowed for its use, and a number of members of the House of Representatives have taken part in the discussions. Mrs. Collins, president of the club, is always to be depended upon for good work, and Miss Hall, its vice-president, is active and efficient. She is in herself an illustration of what women can become if they only have sufficient confidence and force of will. She is a practicing lawyer, and a successful one.

FOOTNOTES:

[158] The life of William Lloyd Garrison, Vol. 1.: The Century Company, New York.

[159] She was soon followed by Mrs. Middlebrook and Mrs. Lucy R. Elms, with warm benedictions. The latter called some meetings in her neighborhood in the autumn of 1868, and entertained us most hospitably at her beautiful home.

[160] Those who leave the tangled problem of life to God for solution find, sooner or later, that God leaves it to them to settle in their own way.--[E. C. S.

[161] Among them were Paulina Wright Davis, Dr. Clemence Lozier, Mary A. Livermore, Julia Ward Howe, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Susan B. Anthony, Celia Burleigh, Caroline M. Severance, Rev. Olympia Brown, Frances Ellen Burr, Charlotte B. Wilbour, William Lloyd Garrison, Henry Ward Beecher, Nathaniel I. Burton, John Hooker, the Hutchinsons, with Sister Abby and her husband, Ludlow Patton.

[162] President, Rev. N. J. Burton, Hartford. Vice-presidents, Brigadier-general B. S. Roberts, U. S. A., New Haven; Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe, Hartford; Rev. Dr. Joseph Cummings, Middletown; Rev. William L. Gage, Hartford; Rev. Olympia Brown, Bridgeport. Secretary, Miss Frances Ellen Burr. Executive Committee, Mrs. Isabella B. Hooker, Mrs. Lucy Elmes, Derby; Mrs. J. G. Parsons and Miss Emily Manning, M. D., Hartford. Treasurer, John Hooker.

[163] On her departure for St. Petersburg, where her husband was minister plenipotentiary, Mrs. Jewell left a check of $200 for the State society. She was an honored officer of the National Suffrage Association until the time of her death, in 1883.

[164] Mrs. Hooker writes us that the act passed upon Governor Hubbard's recommendation was prepared at his request by Mr. Hooker, and was essentially the same that had been unsuccessfully urged by him upon the legislature eight years before. She then goes on to say: "What part our society had in our bringing about so beneficent a change in legislation, cannot be better set forth than in two private letters from Samuel Bowles of the Springfield Republican, and Governor Hubbard. While these gentlemen were friends of Mr. Hooker and myself, yet, as politically opposed to each other, their united testimony is exceedingly valuable, and since they have both passed on to a world of more perfect adjustments, I feel that nothing would give them greater satisfaction than to be put upon record here as among the earliest defenders of the rights of women.

"SPRINGFIELD, Mass., March 28, 1877.

"MY DEAR MRS. HOOKER:--I return your letters and paper as you desired. It is an interesting story, and a most gratifying movement forward. I am more happy over the bill passed, than I am sorry over the bill that failed. We shall move fast enough. The first great step is this successful measure in Connecticut--the establishment in practice of the principle of equal, mutual, legal rights, and equal, mutual, legal responsibilities, for which I have been preaching and praying these twenty years. We owe the success this year, first to the right of the matter; second, to the agitation of the whole question which has disseminated the perception of that right; third, to you and your husband in particular; and fourth, to the fact that you had in Connecticut this year a governor who was recognized as the leading lawyer of the State, a genuine natural conservative who yet said the measure was right and ought to go. It is this last element that has given Connecticut its chief leadership. It is a bigger thing than it seems at first to have an eminent conservative lawyer on the side of such legislative reform. I hate very much to take your husband's side against you, and yet now that I am over fifty years old, I find I more and more sympathize with his patience and philosophy with the slow-going march of reform. But with such things going forward in national politics, and such a sign in the heavens as this in Connecticut, we ought all to be very happy--and I believe I am, in spite of debts, hard work, fatigue and more or less chronic invalidism. At any rate I salute you both with honor and with affection."

"Very faithfully yours, SAMUEL BOWLES.

"This letter I enclosed to Governor Hubbard and received the following reply:

"EASTER, April 1, 1877.

"MY GOOD FRIEND:--It was a 'Good Friday' indeed that brought your friendly missive. And what a dainty and gracious epistle Sam. Bowles does know how to write! He is a good fellow, upon my word, full of generous instincts and ideas. He ought to be at the head of the London Times and master of all the wealth it brings. Add to this, that the Good Physician should heal him of his 'chronic invalidism' and then--well what's the use of dreaming? Thank yourself, and such as you for what there is of progress in respect of woman's rights amongst us. I do believe our bill is a 'great leap forward' as Bowles says in his editorial. 'Alas!' says my friend ----, 'it has destroyed the divine conception of the unity of husband and wife.' As divine, upon my soul, as the unity of the lamb and the devouring wolf. * * * But enough of this. I salute you my good friend, with a thousand salutations of respect and admiration. I do not agree with you in all things, but I cannot tell you how much I glorify you for your courage and devotion to womanhood. I am a pretty poor stick for anything like good work in the world, but I am not without respect for it in others. And so I present myself to yourself and to your good and noble husband whom I take to be one of the best, with every assurance of affection and esteem. Thanking you for your kind letter, I remain, dear madam,

"Yours very truly, R. D. HUBBARD."

[165] At the various hearings Mrs. Anna Middlebrook, Mr. and Mrs. Joseph Sheldon, Julia and Abby Smith, Rev. Olympia Brown, Mr. and Mrs. Hooker were the speakers.

[166] See Appendix for Mr. Hooker's article, "Is the Family the Basis of the State?"

[167] At the convention of March 17 and 18, 1884, the speakers were Mrs. Hooker, Susan B. Anthony, the Rev. Charles Stowe, Julia Smith Parker, Mrs. Emily Collins, Abigail Scott Duniway, Miss Leonard, Mrs. C. G. Rogers, the Rev. Dr. A. J. Sage, Mrs. Ellis, Miss Gage, the Rev. J. C. Kimball, the Rev. Mr. Everts of Hartford, Mary Hall and F. E. Burr. The officers elected at this meeting were: Isabella B. Hooker, President: F. Ellen Burr, Secretary; Mary Hall, Assistant-secretary; John Hooker, Treasurer. _Executive Committee_; Mrs. Ellen Burr McManus, Mrs. Emily P. Collins, Mrs. Amy A. Ellis, Mrs. J. G. Parsons Hartford; Mrs. Susan J. Cheney, South Manchester; Mrs. John S. Dobson, Vernon Depot; Judge Joseph Sheldon, Charles Atwater, James Gallagher, New Haven.

[168] John Hooker, Isabella B. Hooker, the Rev. N. J. Burton, Rachel C. Burton, Franklin Chamberlin, Francis Gillette, Eliza D. Gillette, Frances Ellen Burr, Catharine E. Beecher, Esther E. Jewell, Calvin E. Stowe, Harriet Beecher Stowe and others, Hartford; Joseph Cummings, Middletown, President of Wesleyan University; Thomas Elmes, Lucy R. Elmes, Derby; Charles Atwater, New Haven; Thomas T. Stone, Laura Stone, Brooklyn. The officers elected for the Association were: President, the Rev. N. J. Burton, Hartford; Secretary, Frances Ellen Burr; _Executive Committee_, Isabella B. Hooker; Mrs. Lucy R. Elmes, Derby; Mrs. J. G. Parsons, Miss Emily Manning, M. C., Hartford; Mr. Charles Atwater, New Haven; Mr. Ward Cheney, Mrs. Susan J. Cheney, South Manchester; Mrs. Virginia Smith, Hartford. Treasurer, William B. Smith, Hartford. There was a long list of vice-presidents, which I presume you do not care for, nor for the other names that were added as changes had to be made in the years that followed.

[169] A member of the club says: "We receive more of our life and enthusiasm from Frances Ellen Burr than all other members combined; indeed, the chief part of the work rests on her shoulders."

[170] See Mrs. Collins's Reminiscences, chapter V., Vol. I.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXIII. RHODE ISLAND

Senator Anthony in North American Review--Convention in Providence--Work of State Association--Report of Elizabeth B. Chace--Miss Ida Lewis--Letter of Frederick A. Hinckley--Last Words from Senator Anthony.

Rhode Island, though one of the smallest, is, in proportion to the number of its inhabitants, one of the wealthiest states in the Union. In political organization Rhode Island, in colonial times, contrasted favorably with the other colonies, nearly all of which required a larger property qualification, and some a religious test for the suffrage. The home of Roger Williams knew nothing of such narrowness, but was an asylum for those who suffered persecution elsewhere. Nevertheless this is now, in many respects, the most conservative of all the States.

In the November number of the North American Review for 1883, Senator Anthony, in an article on the restricted suffrage in Rhode Island, stoutly maintains that suffrage is not a natural right, and that in adhering to her property qualification for foreigners his State has wisely protected the best interests of the people. In his whole argument on the question, he ignores the idea of women being a part of the people, and ranks together qualifications of sex, age, and residence. He quite unfairly attributes much of Rhode Island's prosperity--the result of many causes--to her restricted suffrage. His position in this article, written so late in life, is the more remarkable as he had always spoken and voted in his place in the United States Senate (where he had served nearly thirty years) strongly in favor of woman's enfranchisement. And the Providence Journal, which he owned and controlled, was invariably respectful and complimentary towards the movement.

While such a man as Senator Anthony, one of the political leaders in his State, regarded suffrage as a privilege which society may concede or withhold at pleasure, we need not wonder that so little has been accomplished there in the way of legislative enactments and supreme-court decisions. Nevertheless that State has shared in the general agitation and can boast many noble men and women who have taken part in the discussion of this subject.

The first woman suffrage association was formed in Rhode Island in December, 1868. In describing the initiative steps, Elizabeth B. Chace in a letter to a friend, says:

In October 1868, while in Boston attending the convention that formed the New England society, Paulina Wright Davis[171] conceived the idea that the time had come to organize the friends of suffrage in Rhode Island. After consultation with a few of the most prominent friends of the cause, a call was issued for a convention, to be held in Roger Williams Hall, Providence, December 11th, signed by many leading names. No sooner did the call appear than, as usual, some clergyman publicly declared himself in opposition. The Rev. Mark Trafton, a Methodist minister, gave a lecture in his vestry on "The Coming Woman," who was to be a good housekeeper, dress simply, and not to vote. This was published in the Providence Journal, and called out a gracefull vindication of woman's modern demands from the pen of Mrs. Sarah Helen Whitman, the poet, and Miss Norah Perry, a popular writer of both prose and verse. The convention was all that its most ardent friends could have desired, and resulted in forming an association.[172] The audience numbered over a thousand, at the different sessions, and among the speakers were some of the ablest men in the State. Though the friends were comparatively few in the early days, yet there was no lack of enthusiasm and self-sacrifice. Weekly meetings were held, tracts and petitions circulated; conventions[173] and legislative hearings were as regular as the changing seasons, now in Providence, and now in Newport, following the migratory government.

Mrs. Davis was president of the association for several successive years in which her labors were indefatigable. Finally failing health compelled her to resign her position as president of the association.[174] Since then her able coadjutor Elizabeth B. Chace, has been president of the Rhode Island Suffrage Association, and with equal faithfulness and persistence, carried on the work. She steadily keeps up the annual conventions and makes her appeals to the legislature. Among the names[175] of those who have appeared from year to year before the Rhode Island legislature we find many able men and women from other States as well as many of their own distinguished citizens.

In this State an effort was made early to get women on the board of managers for schools, prisons and charitable institutions. In a letter to Mrs. Davis, John Stuart Mill says:

I am very glad to hear of the step in advance made by Rhode Island in creating a board of women for some very important administrative purpose. Your proposal that women should be empanneled on every jury where women are to be tried seems to me very good, and calculated to place the injustice to which women are subjected at present by the entire legal system in a very striking light.

In 1873 an effort was made to place women on the Providence School Board, with what success the following extracts from the daily papers show. The Providence Press of April 25, 1873, says:

A shabby trick was perpetrated by the friends of John W. Angell, which was certainly anything but "angelic," and which ought to consign the parties who committed it to political infamy.

Yesterday, for the first time in the history of this city, women were candidates for political honors--in the fifth ward, Mrs. Sarah E. H. Doyle, and in the fourth ward, Mrs. Rhoda A. F. Peckham, were candidates for positions on the school committee; both, however, failed of an election. Mrs. Doyle received the unanimous nomination of the large primary meeting of the National Union Republican party, and Mrs. Peckham was run as an outside candidate against the regular nominee. These ladies would undoubtedly have made excellent members of the committee, and unlike a great portion of that body, would have been found in their places at the meetings, and we should have been glad to have seen the experiment tried of women in the position for which their names were presented. When the polls opened in the fifth ward, instead of Mrs. Doyle's name being on the ballots for the place to which she had been nominated there appeared the name of John W. Angell, esq., and until about 11 o'clock A. M. he had the field to himself. At that hour, however, Mrs. Doyle's friends appeared with the "regular" nomination, and from that time to the close of the polls she received 145 votes; Mr. Angell, notwithstanding his several hours' start in the race, only winning by a majority of 38. From this fact it is clear that had Mrs. Doyle's name been in its proper place at the opening of the polls she would have beaten her opponent handsomely. Mrs. Peckham's opponent obtained but 23 majority in a poll of 349. It is evident from the vote yesterday, that if they have but a fair show, women will at the next election be successful as candidates for the school committee. Had the intelligent ladies of the fifth ward been allowed to vote, Mrs. Doyle would have led even the gubernatorial vote of that ward.

The Providence Journal makes the following comment:

We are sorry to observe that the two estimable and admirably qualified ladies whose names were presented for school committee in this city, failed of success. Their influence in official connection with the schools could not have been other than salutary. The treatment accorded Mrs. Doyle in the fifth ward was wofully shabby. Without her solicitation, the Republican caucus unanimously nominated her for a member of the school committee. Being a novice in political proceedings, she naturally enough supposed that the party that desired her services so much as to place her in nomination, would make provision for electing their candidate. There was not gallantry enough in the ward, however, for that duty, and it was not until 11 o'clock on election day that any tickets bearing the name of Mrs. Doyle were to be found in the ward-room; but a ticket with the names of two men was on hand at sunrise, and the time lost in procuring tickets for the regular nominee proved fatal to her success. Mrs. Doyle has now learned something of the ways of politicians, and is not likely to put her trust again in the faithfulness of ward committees.

At a meeting of the State association, held in Providence, on Thursday, May 18, 1871, the following preamble and resolutions were, after a full and earnest discussion, unanimously adopted:

WHEREAS, It is claimed, in opposition to the demand that the elective franchise shall be given to women, that they are represented in the government by men, so that they do not need the ballot for their protection, inasmuch as all their rights are secured to them by the interest of these men in their welfare; and, whereas, in February last, in view of the appalling facts frequently coming to our notice, consequent upon the mismanagement of poor-houses and asylums for the insane, this association did earnestly petition our State legislature to enact a law providing for the appointment of women in all the towns in our State to act as joint commissioners with men in the care and control of these institutions; and, whereas, in utter disregard of our request, the Committee on State Charities, to whom it was referred, in reporting back our petition to the House of Representatives, did recommend that the petitioners be given leave to withdraw, and the House, without (so far as we could learn) one word of protest from any member thereof, did so dispose of our petition; therefore,

Resolved, That this association do most solemnly declare, that so far from being represented in our legislature, the rights of the women of this State were in this instance trampled under foot therein, and the best interests of humanity, in the persons of the poorest and most unfortunate classes, were not sufficiently regarded, under this system of class legislation.

Resolved, That, despairing of obtaining for women even the privileges which would enable them to look after the welfare of the destitute and the suffering, with any power or authority to improve their condition, until equal rights in the government itself are guaranteed to all without regard to sex, we will henceforth make use of this treatment we have received as a new argument in favor of the emancipation of women from the legal status of idiots and criminals, and, with this weapon in our hands, we will endeavor to arouse the women of our State to a keener sense of their degraded condition, and we will never abate our demand until an amendment to the constitution is submitted to the people granting suffrage to the women of Rhode Island.

Resolved, That this preamble and these resolutions be offered for publication to the daily papers of this city.

ELIZABETH B. CHACE, President.

SUSAN B. P. MARTIN, Secretary.

For several years the philanthropic women of Rhode Island made many determined efforts to secure some official positions in the charitable institutions of the State, with what success the following report by Elizabeth B. Chace, at the annual meeting of the American Association, in Philadelphia, in 1876, will show:

The Rhode Island Woman Suffrage Association, while holding its monthly meetings through the year, circulating petitions to the legislature, and, in other ways, constantly endeavoring to revolutionize the entire sentiment of the State on the question of woman suffrage, still has less progress to report than its friends would have desired. Our last annual meeting, as usual, drew together a large audience. Among our speakers from abroad was William Lloyd Garrison, who, in a speech of almost anti-slavery force and fervor, appeared to send conviction into many minds. Our home speakers included a clergyman of Providence and one of our ablest lawyers, and an ex-legislator who had never stood on our platform before.

As usual, our petitions went into the legislature. They were referred to the Judiciary Committee, before whom we had a hearing, at which three Providence lawyers gave us their unqualified support and earnest advocacy. One of these men set forth in the strongest light the injustice of our laws in regard to the property of married women and their non-ownership of their minor children. The committee made no report to the legislature, and so our petitions lie over until the next session, when we hope for some evidence of progress. In the meantime we intend to very much increase their number. For many years we have been begging of our law-makers to permit women to share in the management of the penal, correctional and charitable institutions of the State; we have, however, only succeeded in obtaining an advisory board of women, which has been in operation for the last six years.

Last spring a majority of these women, having become weary of the service in which they had no power to decide that any improvement should be made in the management of these institutions, resigned their positions on this board, some of them giving through the press their reasons therefor. When the time came for making the new appointments for the year, the governor earnestly urged these women to permit him to appoint them, voluntarily pledging himself to recommend at the opening of the next session of the legislature, that a bill should be passed providing for the appointment of women on the boards of management of all these prisons and reformatories, with the same power and authority with which the men are invested, who now alone decide all questions concerning them. On this condition these women consented to serve on the advisory board a few months longer, with the understanding that, if the legislature fails to make this important provision, their advice will be withdrawn, and the men will be left to take care of thieves, criminals and paupers until they are ready to ask for our help on terms of equality and justice.

In the Providence Journal appeared the following:

Mrs. Doyle seems to have learned by experience that the board, as now constituted under the law, can have no real efficiency. The ladies are responsible for the management of no part of any of the institutions which they are permitted officially to visit. Their reports are not made to the boards which are charged with the responsibility of managing these institutions, and, in the case of the reform school, are not made to the body which elects and controls the board of management. The State ought not to place ladies in such an anomalous position. The women's board should have positive duties and direct responsibilities in its appropriate sphere, or it should be abolished. The following is Mrs. Doyle's letter of resignation:

To His Excellency Henry Lippitt, Governor of the State:

SIR: Please accept my resignation as member of the Board of Lady Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State. The recent action of a part of the board, in regard to the annual report made to the General Assembly, makes it impossible for me to continue longer as a member. Before the report was submitted, it was carefully examined by the members signing it, and was acquiesced in by them, as their signatures testify. Still further, I am confirmed in the opinion that so important a trust as this should be coupled with some power for action; without this we are necessarily confined to suggestions only to the male boards, which suggestions receive only the attention they may consider proper. Believing that this board, as now empowered, can have no efficiency except where its suggestions or criticisms meet the entire approval of the male boards, and failing to see any good which can result from our inspections under such conditions, or any honor to the board thus examining, I respectfully tender my resignation.

SARAH E. H. DOYLE,

Providence, R. I.

Three more ladies of the Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State attest the correctness of the repeated suggestions that the board, as organized under the existing laws, must be comparatively powerless for good. The question now comes, will the Rhode Island General Assembly enact a law which shall give to women certain definite duties and responsibilities in connection with the care and correction of female offenders? We propose to refer to this matter further. We are requested to publish the following communications to his excellency, the governor:

To Henry Lippitt, Governor of Rhode Island:

My appointment on the Women's Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State, which I received from your hands for this year, I am now compelled respectfully to resign. My experience in this board for nearly six years has convinced me that this office, which confers on its holders no power to decide that any improvement shall be made in the government or workings of these institutions, is so nearly useless that I am forced to the conclusion that, for myself, the time spent in the performance of its duties can be more effectively employed elsewhere. That the influence of women is indispensable to the proper management of these institutions I was never more sure than I am at this moment; but to make it effectual, that influence must be obtained by placing women on the boards of direct control, where their judgment shall be expressed by argument and by vote.

A board of women, whose only duties, as defined by the law, are to visit the penal and correctional institutions, elect its own officers and report annually to the legislature, bears within itself the elements of weakness and insufficiency. And if the annual reports contain any exposure of abuses, they are sure to give offense to the managers, to be followed by timidity and vacillation in the board of women itself. Our late report, written with great care and conscientious adherence to the truth, which called the attention of the legislature to certain abuses in one of our institutions, and to some defect in the systems established in the others, has, thus far, elicited no official action, has brought censure upon us from the press, while great dissatisfaction has been created in our own body by the failure of a portion of its members to sustain the allegations to which the entire board, with the exception of one absentee, had affixed their names.

When the State of Rhode Island shall call its best women to an equal participation with men in the direction of its penal and reformatory institutions, I have no doubt they will gladly assume the duties and responsibilities of such positions; and I am also sure that the beneficent results of such cooeperation will soon be manifest, both in benefit to individuals and in safety to the State. But under present circumstances I most respectfully decline to serve any longer on the advisory board of women.

Valley Falls, R. I. ELIZABETH B. CHACE.

GOVERNOR LIPPITT: Dear Sir: When I accepted an appointment on the Ladies' Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State, I did so with the hope that much good might be accomplished, especially toward the young girls at the reform school, in whose welfare I felt a deep interest. To that institution my attention has been chiefly devoted during my brief experience in this office. This experience, however, has convinced me that a board of officers constituted and limited like this can have very little influence toward improvement in an institution whose methods are fixed, and which is under the exclusive control of another set of officers, who see no necessity for change. Those causes render this women's board so weak in itself that I cannot consent to retain my position therein. I therefore respectfully tender to you my resignation.

ABBY D. WEAVER.

Providence, R. I.

GOVERNOR LIPPITT: Please accept the resignation of my commission as a member of the Ladies' Board of Visitors to the Penal and Correctional Institutions of the State, conferred by you in June, 1875.

Yours respectfully,

Westerly, R. I. ELIZA C. WEEDEN.

Early in the year 1880 the State association issued the following address:

To the friends of Woman Suffrage throughout the State of Rhode Island:

In behalf of the Rhode Island Woman Suffrage Association, we beg leave to call your attention to the result of our last year's work, and to our plans for future effort. We went before the General Assembly with petitions for suffrage for women on all subjects, and also with petitions asking only for school suffrage. The former, bearing nearly 2,500 names, was presented in the Senate and finally referred, with other unfinished business, to the next legislature; they will thus be subject to attention the coming year. The latter, bearing nearly 3,500 names, was presented in the House and referred to the Committee on Education. This committee reported unanimously:

Resolved, That the following amendment to the constitution of the State is hereby proposed: Article ----. Women otherwise qualified are entitled to vote in the election of school committees and in all legally organized school-district meetings.

This resolution was adopted in the House by 48 to 11, but rejected in the Senate by 20 to 13.[176] Nineteen members being required to make a majority of a full Senate, the amendment failed by six votes. Had the ballots in the two branches been upon a proposition to extend general suffrage to women, they would have been the most encouraging, and, as it is, they show signs of progress; but a resolve to submit the question of school suffrage to the voters of Rhode Island, ought to have been successful this year. Why was it defeated? Simply for the lack of political power behind it. To gain this, our cause needs a foothold in every part of the State. We need some person or persons in each town, to whom we can look for hearty cooeperation. If our work is to be effective, it must not only continue as heretofore--one of petitioning--but must include also a constant vigilance in securing senators and representatives in the General Assembly, favorable to woman suffrage. We propose the coming year:

First--To petition congress in behalf of the following amendment to our national constitution, viz.:

ARTICLE XVI. Section 1--The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Section 2--Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Second--To secure a hearing and action upon the petitions referred from the last Assembly, for such amendment to our State constitution as shall extend general suffrage to women.

Third--To petition the General Assembly for the necessary legislation to secure school suffrage to women.[177]

The arguments in the various hearings before the legislature with the majority and minority reports, are the same as many already published, in fact nothing new can be said on the question. As none of the women in this State, by trying to vote, or resisting taxation, have tested the justice of their laws, they have no supreme-court decisions to record.

Honorable mention should be made of Dr. William F. Channing, who has stood for many years in Providence the noblest representative of liberal thought. He is a worthy son of that great leader of reform in New England, Rev. William Ellery Channing. In him the advocates of woman's rights have always found a steadfast friend. He sees that this is the fundamental reform; that it is the key to the problems of labor, temperance, social purity and the cooeperative home. Those who have had the good fortune of a personal acquaintance with Dr. Channing have felt the sense of dignity and self-respect that the delicate courtesy and sincere reference of a noble man must always give to woman.

Though Mrs. Channing has not been an active participant in the popular reforms, having led a rather retired life, yet her sympathies have been with her husband in all his endeavors to benefit mankind. She has given the influence of her name to the suffrage movement, and extended the most generous hospitalities to the speakers at the annual conventions. Their charming daughters, Mary and Grace, fully respond to the humanitarian sentiments of their parents, constituting a happy family united in life's purposes and ambitions.

The New York Evening Post of September, 1875, gives the following of one of Rhode Island's brave women, but the State has not as yet, thought it worth while to honor her in any fitting manner:

Yesterday noon Miss Ida Lewis again distinguished herself by rescuing a man who was in danger of drowning in the lower Newport harbor. Miss Lewis first came into prominence in 1866, when she saved the life of a soldier who had set out for a sail in a light skiff. It was one of the coldest and most blustering days ever known in this latitude, yet a girl but 25 years old, impelled by the noblest spirit of humanity, ventured to the assistance of a man who had brought himself into a sorry plight through sheer fool-hardiness. One day, during the autumn of the next year, while a terrible gale was raging, two men sat out to cross the harbor with several sheep. One of the animals fell overboard while the boat was rocked by the heavy sea, and its keepers, in trying to save it, were in imminent peril of swamping their craft. Ida Lewis saw them from the window of her father's lighthouse on Lime Rock, and in a few minutes was rowing them in safety toward the shore. After landing the men, she went back again and rescued the sheep.

These brave deeds, with others of a less striking character, made Miss Lewis' name famous throughout the world, and won for her the title of "the Grace Darling of America"; but in 1869 the newspapers were filled with the story of what was perhaps her greatest exploit. On March 29 two young soldiers set sail from Newport for Fort Adams in a small boat, under the guidance of a boy who pretended to understand the simple rules of navigation. Mrs. Lewis chanced to be looking out of the lighthouse window, and saw a squall strike the boat and overturn it. She called to her daughter, telling her of the casualty. Ida, though ill at the time, rushed out of the house, launched her life-boat and sprang in, with neither hat on her head nor shoes on her feet. By the time she reached the scene of the disaster the boy had perished, and the two soldiers were clinging desperately to the wreck, almost ready to loose their hold from exhaustion. They were dragged into the life-boat, and carried to Lime Rock, and, with careful nursing, were soon sufficiently restored to proceed to Fort Adams.

Miss Lewis' repeated acts of philanthropy have been recognized by gifts at various times, but no national testimonial, so far as we are aware, has yet been offered to her. True generosity, like true virtue, is its own reward, and we of the world are not often disposed to meddle with its quiet enjoyment by its possessor. It seems eminently fitting, however, that among the first to receive the new decoration to be bestowed by congress for heroic deeds in saving life, should be the heroine of Newport harbor.

Writing from Valley Falls September 9, 1885, Elizabeth B. Chace, president of the Rhode Island Association, in summing up the steps of progress, says:

On December 4, 1884, by unanimous consent of our General Assembly the state-house was granted to us for the first time, for a woman suffrage convention. A large number of our best men and women, and some of our ablest speakers[178] were present. An immense audience greeted them and listened with eager interest throughout. The occasion was one of the most pleasant and profitable we have enjoyed in a long time. At the following session of our Legislature, 1885, an amendment to our State constitution was proposed giving the franchise to women, on equal terms with men. It passed both Houses by a large majority vote, but by some technicality, for which no one seemed to blame, it was not legally started on its round to the vote of the people. Hence the proposition to submit the amendment will be again passed upon this year, and with every promise of success. We have strong hopes of making our little commonwealth the banner State in this grand step of progress.

The following letter from Frederick A. Hinckley, makes a fitting mention of some of the noble women who have represented this movement in his State:

PROVIDENCE, R. I., Sept. 14, 1885.

DEAR FRIENDS: You ask for a few words from me concerning salient points in the history of the woman suffrage movement in Rhode Island. As you know, ours is a very small State--the smallest in the Union--and has a very closely compacted population. With us the manufacturing interest overshadows everything else, representing large investments of capital. On the one hand we have great accumulations of wealth by the few; on the other hand, a large percentage of unskilled foreign labor. For good or for ill we feel all those conservative influences which naturally grow out of this two-fold condition. This accounts in the main, for the Rhode Islander's extreme and exceptionally tenacious regard for the institutions of his ancestors. This is why we have the most limited suffrage of any State, many men being debarred from voting by reason of the property qualification still required here of foreign-born citizens. Such a social atmosphere is not favorable to the extension of the franchise, either to men or women, and makes peculiarly necessary with us, the educational process of a very large amount of moral agitation before much can be expected in the way of political changes.

My own residence here dates back only to 1878, though before that from my Massachusetts home I was somewhat familiar with Rhode-Island people and laws. Our work has consisted of monthly meetings, made up usually of an afternoon session for address and discussion, followed by a social tea; of an annual State convention in the city of Providence; and of petitioning the legislature each year, with the appointment of the customary committees and hearings. For many years the centre of the woman movement with us has been the State association, and since my own connection with that, the leader about whom we have all rallied, has been your beloved friend and mine, Elizabeth B. Chace. Hers is that clear conception of, and untiring devotion to principles, which make invincible leadership, tide over all disaster, and overcome all doubt. By her constant appearance before legislative committees, her model newspaper articles which never fail to command general attention even among those who would not think of agreeing with her, and by her persistent fidelity to her sense of duty in social life, she is the recognized head of our agitation in Rhode Island. But she has not stood alone. She has been the centre of a group of women whose names will always be associated with our cause in this locality. Elizabeth K. Churchill lived and died a faithful and successful worker. The Woman's Club in this city was her child; temperance, suffrage, and the interests of working-women were dear to her heart. She was independent in her convictions, and true to herself, even when it compelled dissent from the attitude of trusted leaders and friends, but her work on the platform, in the press, and in society, made her life a tower of strength to the woman's rights cause and her death a lamentable loss. Another active leader in the work here, though not a speaker, who has passed on since my residence in Providence, was Susan B. P. Martin. I think those of us accustomed to act with her always respected Mrs. Martin's judgment and felt sure of her fidelity. What more can be said of any one than that?

It is difficult to speak publicly of one's friends while living. But no history of woman suffrage agitation in Rhode Island would be complete which did not place among those ever to be relied on, the names of Anna Garlin Spencer, Sarah E. H. Doyle, Anna E. Aldrich and Fanny P. Palmer. Mrs. Spencer moved from the State just as I came into it, but the influence of her logical mind was left behind her and the loss of her quick womanly tact has been keenly felt. Mrs. Doyle has long been chairman of the executive committee of the association, Mrs. Aldrich a safe and trusted counsellor, and Mrs. Palmer as member of the Providence school committee, and more recently as president of the Woman's Club, has rendered the cause eminent service.

If final victory seems farther off here than in some of the newer States, as it certainly does, that is only the greater reason for earnest, and ceaseless work. We know we are right, and be it short or long I am sure we have all enlisted for the war.

Always sincerely yours, FREDERIC A. HINCKLEY.

Below is the last utterance of Senator Anthony on this question. In writing to Susan B. Anthony, he said:

UNITED STATES SENATE CHAMBER, WASHINGTON, March 4, 1884.

MY DEAR COUSIN: I am honored by your invitation to address the National Woman Suffrage Association at the convention to be held in this city. I regret that it is not in my power to comply with your complimentary request. The enfranchisement of woman is one of those great reforms which will come with the progress of civilization, and when it comes those who witness it will wonder that it has been so long delayed. The main argument against it is that the women themselves do not desire it. Many men do not desire it, as is evidenced by their omission to exercise it, but they are not therefore deprived of it. I do not understand that you propose compulsory suffrage, although I am not sure that that would not be for the public advantage as applied to both sexes. A woman has a right to vote in a corporation of which she is a stockholder, and that she does not generally exercise that right is not an argument against the right itself. The progress that is making in the direction of your efforts is satisfactory and encouraging.

Faithfully yours, H. B. ANTHONY.

Senator Anthony was one of the ever-to-be-remembered nine senators who voted for woman suffrage on the floor of the United States Senate in 1866. He also made a most logical speech on our behalf and has ever since been true to our demands.

FOOTNOTES:

[171] To Mrs. Davis, a native of the State of New York, belongs the honor of inaugurating this movement in New England, as she called and managed the first convention held in Massachusetts in 1850, and helped to arouse all these States to action in 1868. With New England reformers slavery was always the preeminently pressing question, even after the emancipation of the slaves, while in New York woman's civil and political rights were considered the more vital question.--[E. C. S.

[172] The Revolution of December 17, 1868, says: The meeting last week in Providence, was, in numbers and ability, eminently successful. Mrs. Elizabeth B. Chace, of Valley Falls, presided, and addresses were made by Colonel Higginson, Paulina Wright Davis, Lucy Stone, Frederick Douglass, Mrs. O. Shepard, Rev. John Boyden, Dr. Mercy B. Jackson, Stephen S. and Abbey Kelly Foster. The officers of the association were: President, Paulina Wright Davis. Vice-presidents, Elizabeth B. Chace of Valley Falls, Col. T. W. Higginson of Newport, Mrs. George Cushing, J. W. Stillman, Mrs. Buffum of Woonsocket and P. W. Aldrich. Recording Secretary, Martha W. Chase. Corresponding Secretary, Mrs. Rhoda Fairbanks. Treasurer, Mrs. Susan B. Harris. Executive Committee, Mrs. James Bucklin, Catharine W. Hunt, Mrs. Lewis Doyle, Anna Aldrich, Mrs. S. B. G. Martin, Dr. Perry, Mrs. Churchill, Arnold B. Chace.

[173] Among the speakers at these annual conventions we find Rowland G. Hazard, Rev. John Boyden, Rev. Charles Howard Malcolm, the brilliant John Neal, Portland, Maine, Hon. James M. Stillman Gen. F. G. Lippett, Theodore Tilton, Rev. Olympia Brown, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Elizabeth K. Churchill. For a report of the convention held at Newport during the fashionable season, August 25, 26, 1869, see vol. II., page 403, also The Revolution, September 2, 1869.

[174] Mrs. Chace says in a letter, speaking of Mrs. Davis: "After several years absence in Europe she returned, a helpless invalid, unable to resume her labors. But her devotion in early years will long remain fresh in the memory of those associated with her, who were inspired by her self-sacrifice and enthusiasm." For farther details of Mrs. Davis' earlier labors, see vol. I, pages 215, 283.

[175] Julia Ward Howe, Celia Burleigh, William Lloyd Garrison, Aaron M. Powell, Caroline H. Dall, Mrs. Ednah D. Cheney, Miss Mary F. Eastman, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Rev. Augustus Woodbury Hon. Amasa M. Eaton, Mr. Stillman, Hon. Thomas Davis, Hon George L. Clarke, Rev. Frederick Hinckley, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Hon. A. Payne.

[176] IN THE HOUSE. For the Amendment.--Davis Aldrich, North Smithfield; Thomas Arnold, Warwick; Clark Barber, Richmond; Thos. P. Barnefield, Pawtucket; Frank M. Bates, Pawtucket; John Beattie, Cranston; Amos M. Bowen, Providence; Issac B. Briggs, Jamestown; Albert Buffum, Burillville; John C. Barrington, Barrington; Chas. Capwell, West Greenwich; Geo. B. Carpenter, Hopkinton; Obadiah Chase, Warren; Albert I. Chester, Westerly; Chas. E. Chickering, Pawtucket; John F. Clark, Cumberland; LeBaron B. Colt, Bristol; James Davis, Pawtucket; Benjamin T. Eames, Providence; Henry H. Fay, Newport; Edward L. Freeman, Lincoln; Z. Herbert Gardner, Exeter; John P. Gregory, Lincoln; Henry D. Heydon, Warwick; Edwin Jenckes, Pawtucket; Thos. E. Kenyon, East Greenwich; Israel B. Mason, Providence; B. B. Mitchell, jr., New Shoreham; Francis L. O'Reilly, Woonsocket; Joseph Osborn, Tiverton; Abraham Payne, Providence; James M. Pendleton, Westerly; Wm. A. Pirce, Johnston; Clinton Puffer, Woonsocket; Olney W. Randall, No. Providence; John P. Sanborn, Newport; Wm. P. Sheffield, Newport; Israel R. Sheldon, Warwick; Martin S. Smith, Scituate; Wm. H. Spooner, Bristol; Henry A. Stearns, Lincoln; Simon S. Steere, Smithfield; Joseph Tillinghast, Coventry; Wm. C. Townsend, Newport; Stephen A. Watson, Portsmouth; Stillman White, Providence; Benj. F. Wilbor, Little Compton; Andrew Winsor, Providence--48.

IN THE SENATE. For the Amendment.--Lieut.-Gov. Howard, E. Providence; Ariel Ballou, Woonsocket; Cyrus F. Cooke, Foster; Edward T. DeBlois, Portsmouth; Rodney F. Dyer, Johnston; Anson Greene, Exeter; Daniel W. Lyman, No. Providence; Jabez W. Mowry, Smithfield; Dexter B. Potter, Coventry; Stafford W. Razee, Cumberland; T. Mumford Seabury, Newport; Lewis B. Smith, Barrington; John F. Tobey, Providence--13.

[177] [Signed:] President, Elizabeth B. Chace; Secretaries, Fanny P. Palmer, Elizabeth C. Hinckley; Treasurer, Susan B. P. Martin; Executive Committee, Sarah E. H. Doyle, Susan Sisson, William Barker, Francis C. Frost, Anna E. Aldrich, Frederick A. Hinckley, Susan G. Kenyon, Rachael E. Fry, A. A. Tyng, Arnold B. Chace.

[178] The speakers were Abraham Payne, John Wyman, Matilda Hindman, Frederick A. Hinckley, Rev. Mr. Wendt, Elizabeth B. Chace, William I. Bowditch, Mary F. Eastman, William Lloyd Garrison, jr., Lucy Stone, Susan B. Anthony, Frederick Douglass, Henry B. Blackwell.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXIV. MAINE

Women on School Committees--Elvira C. Thorndyke--Suffrage Society, 1868--Rockland--The Snow Sisters--Portland Meeting, 1870--John Neal--Judge Goddard--Colby University Open to Girls, August 12, 1871--Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash Admitted to the Bar, October 26, 1872--Tax-payers Protest--Ann F. Greeley, 1872--March, 1872, Bill for Woman Suffrage Lost in the House, Passed in the Senate by Seven Votes--Miss Frank Charles, Register of Deeds--Judge Reddington--Mr. Randall's Motion--Moral Eminence of Maine--Convention in Granite Hall, Augusta, January, 1873, Hon. Joshua Nye, President--Delia A. Curtis--Opinions of the Supreme Court in Regard to Women Holding Offices--Governor Dingley's Message, 1875--Convention, Representatives Hall, Portland, Judge Kingsbury, President, February 12, 1876.

The first movement in Maine, in 1868, turned on the question of women being eligible on school committees. Here, as in Vermont, the men inaugurated the movement. The following letter, from the Portland Press, gives the initiative steps:

HIRAM, March 15, 1868.

MR. EDITOR: A statement is going the rounds of the press that the Democrats of Hiram supported a lady for a member of the school committee. I am unwilling that any person or party shall be ridiculed or censured for an act of which I was the instigator, and for which I am chiefly responsible. I am in favor of electing ladies to that office, and accordingly voted for one, without her knowledge or consent; several Democrats as well as Republicans voted with me. I have reason to believe that scores of Democrats voted for the able and popular candidate of the Republicans (Dr. William H. Smith), and but for my peculiar notion I should have voted for him myself, as I always vote with the Republican party. I am in favor, however, of laying aside politics in voting for school committees, and the question of capability should outweigh the question of sex. A few years ago we had a large number of boy schoolmasters, but agents are learning to appreciate teachers of tact, experience and natural qualifications, as well as book-knowledge. Of eleven schools under the care of the writer the past year, but one had a male teacher, and by turning to the reports I find that of forty-nine schools in Hiram during the past two years, forty-two were taught by ladies. Four of these teachers of the past year have taught respectively twenty, twenty-one, twenty-three and thirty schools. I put the question, why should a lady who has taught thirty schools be considered less suitable for the office of school committee than the undersigned, who has taught but two, or scores of men who never taught school at all? Slowly and with hesitation over the ice of prejudice comes that unreasonable reason--"O, 'cause." But regardless of pants or crinoline, the question remains unanswered and unanswerable. It is not deemed improper for the ladies of Hiram to go with their husbands to the town-house to a cattle show and fair, and serve as committees on butter and cheese, but it is considered unreasonable for ladies to serve as superintendents of school committees.

General Washington gave a lieutenant's commission to a woman for her skill and bravery in manning a battery at the battle of Monmouth. He also granted her half-pay during life. It is stated in "Lincoln's Lives of the Presidents" that "she wore an epaulette, and everybody called her Captain Molly." And yet I do not read in history that General Washington was ever impeached. Females have more and better influence than males, and under their instruction our schools have been improving for some years. There is less kicking and cudgeling, and more attention is given to that best of all rules, "The Golden Rule." If they are more efficient as teachers is it not fair to presume that they would excel as committees?

Very respectfully yours,

LLEWELLYN A. WADSWORTH.

The editor of the Press adds to the above his own endorsement, in these words:

We are pleased to have Mr. Wadsworth's explanation of the reform movement in Hiram, which we had been misled into crediting to the Democrats. * * * Go on, Mr. Wadsworth, you have our best wishes. There is nothing in the way of the general adoption of your ideas but a lot of antiquated and obsolete notions, sustained by the laughter of fools.

The same year we have the report of the first suffrage society in that State, which seems to place Maine in the van of her New England sisters, notwithstanding the great darkness our correspondent deplores:

DEAR REVOLUTION: A society has just been organized here called the Equal Rights Association of Rockland. It bids fair to live, although it requires all the courage of heroic souls to contend against the darkness that envelopes the people. But the foundation is laid, and many noble women are catching the inspiration of the hour. When we are fully under way, we shall send you a copy of our preamble and resolutions.

ELVIRA C. THORNDYKE, Cor. Sec'y.

The Hon. John Neal, who was foremost in all good work in Maine, in a letter to The Revolution, describes the first meeting called in Portland, in May, 1870, to consider the subject of suffrage for woman. He says:

DEAR REVOLUTION: According to my promise, I sent an advertisement to all three of our daily papers last Saturday, in substance like the following, though somewhat varied in language:

ELEVATION OF WOMAN.--All who favor Woman Suffrage, the Sixteenth Amendment, and the restoration of woman to her "natural and inalienable rights," are wanted for consultation at the audience room of the Portland Institute and Public Library, on Wednesday evening next, at half-past seven o'clock. Per order

JOHN NEAL.

The weather was unfavorable; nevertheless, the small room, holding from sixty to seventy-five, to which the well-disposed were invited for consultation and organization, was crowded so that near the close not a seat could be had; and crowded, too, with educated and intelligent women, and brave, thoughtful men, so far as one might judge by appearances, and about in equal proportions. Among the latter were Mr. Talbot, United States district-attorney, a good lawyer and a self-convinced fellow laborer, so far as suffrage is concerned; but rather unwilling to go further at present, lest if a woman should be sent to the legislature (against her will, of course!) she might neglect her family, or be obliged to take her husband with her, to keep her out of mischief; just as if Portland, with 35,000 inhabitants and four representatives, would not be likely to find two unmarried women or widows, or married women not disqualified by matrimonial incumbrances or liabilities, to represent the sex; or lest, if she should get into the post-office, being by nature so curious and inquisitive, she might be found peeping--as if the chief distinction between superior and inferior minds was not this very disposition to inquire and investigate; as if, indeed, that which distinguishes the barbarous from the civilized, were not this very inquisitiveness and curiosity; the savage being satisfied with himself and averse to inquiry; the civilized ever on the alert, in proportion to his intelligence, and, like the Athenians, always on the look-out for some "new thing."

And then, too, we had Judge Goddard, of the Superior Court, one of our boldest and clearest thinkers, who could not be persuaded to take a part in the discussion, though declaring himself entirely opposed to the movement. And yet, he is the very man who, at a Republican convention several years ago, offered a resolution in favor of impartial suffrage, only to find himself in a minority of two; but persevered nevertheless, year after year, until the very same resolution, word for word, was unanimously adopted by another Republican convention! Of course, Judge Goddard will not be likely to shrink from giving his reasons hereafter, if the movement should propagate itself, as it certainly will.

We had also for consideration a synopsis of what deserves to be called most emphatically "The Maine Law," in relation to married women, prepared by Mr. Drummond, our late speaker and formerly attorney-general, and one of our best lawyers, where it was demonstrated, both by enactments and adjudications, running from March, 1844, to February, 1866, that a married woman--to say nothing of widows and spinsters--has little to complain of in our State, her legal rights being far ahead of the age, and not only acknowledged, but enforced; she being mistress of herself and of her earnings, and allowed to trade for herself, while "her contracts for any lawful purpose are made valid and binding, and to be enforced, as if she were sole agent of her property, but she cannot be arrested."

Then followed Mr. S. B. Beckett, just returned from a trip to the Holy Land, who testified, among other things, that he had seen women both in London and Ireland who knew "how to keep a hotel," which is reckoned among men as the highest earthly qualification--and proved it by managing some of the largest and best in the world.

And then Mr. Charles Jose, late one of our aldermen, who, half in earnest and half in jest, took t'other side of the question, urging, first, that this was a political movement--as if that were any objection, supposing it true; our whole system of government being a political movement, and that, by which we trampled out the last great rebellion, another, both parties and all parties cooeperating in the work; next, that women did not ask for suffrage--it was the men who asked for it, in their names; that there were no complaints and no petitions from women! As if petitions had not gone up and complaints, too, by thousands, from all parts of the country, from school-teachers and office clerks and others, as well as from the women at large, both over sea and here.

But enough. The meeting stands adjourned for a week. Probably no organization will be attempted, lest it might serve to check free discussion.

J. N.

May 5, 1870.

Mr. W. W. McCann wrote to the Woman's Journal of this suffrage meeting in Portland, in 1870:

Judge Howe's voice, when he addressed the jury of Wyoming as "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury," fell upon the ears of that crowded court-room as a strange and unusual sound. Equally strange and impracticable seemed the call for a "woman suffrage meeting," at the city building, to the conservative citizens of Portland. However, notwithstanding the suspicion and prejudice with which this movement is regarded, quite a large and highly respectable audience assembled at an early hour to witness the new and wonderful phenomenon of a meeting to aid in giving the ballot to woman.

Hon. John Neal, who issued the call for the meeting, was the first to speak. He reviewed the history of this movement, both in this country and in England. He gave some entertaining reminiscences of his acquaintance with John Stuart Mill forty years ago. Mr. Mill was not then in favor of universal suffrage; he advocated the enfranchisement of the male sex only. Mr. Neal claimed the right for women also. He was happy to learn that since then Mr. Mill has thrown all the weight of his influence and his masterly intellect in favor of universal suffrage. He then entered into an elaborate discussion of some of the objections brought against woman suffrage, and, much to the surprise of many present, showed that the rights which women demand are just and reasonable, and ought to be granted. John M. Todd remarked that he was not so much impressed by the logical arguments in favor of suffrage as by the shallow and baseless arguments of the opposition. The friends of woman suffrage are becoming active and earnest in their efforts, and discussion is freely going on through the daily papers.

To-day, the Eastern Argus, a leading Democratic organ of this city, denounces this movement as the most "damnable heresy of this generation." We venture the prediction that its friends, if true to the progressive tendencies of the day, will realize the consummation of their cherished heresy in the proposed sixteenth amendment, which will abolish all distinction of class and sex.

On August 12, 1871, the announcement that Colby University would be opened to girls gave general satisfaction to the women of Maine. A correspondent says:

Hereafter young women will be admitted to this institution on "precisely the same terms as young men." They may take the regular course, or such a course as they may select, taking at least two studies each term. They will room and board in families in the village, and simply attend the required exercises at the college. The next examination for entrance will be on Wednesday, August 30. One young lady has already signified her purpose to enter the regular course. Four New England colleges are now open to women--Bates, at Lewiston; Colby, at Waterville, Me.; Vermont University, at Burlington, Vt., and Wesleyan, at Middletown, Conn. Let's have no more women's colleges established, for the next decade will make them unnecessary, as by that time all the colleges of the country will be opened to them.

October 26, 1872, another advance step was heralded abroad:

On motion of the Hon. James S. Milliken, Mrs. Clara Hapgood Nash, of Columbia Falls, was formally admitted to the bar as an attorney-at-law. During the session of the court in the forenoon, Mrs. Nash had presented herself before the examining committee, Messrs. Granger, Milliken and Walker, and had passed a more than commonly creditable examination. After the opening of the court in the afternoon, Mr. Milliken arose and said: "May it please the court, I hold in my hand papers showing that Mrs. Hapgood Nash, of Columbia Falls, has passed the committee appointed by the court to examine candidates for admission to the bar as attorneys-at-law and has paid to the county treasurer the duty required by the statute; and I now move the court that she be admitted to this bar as an attorney-at-law. In making the motion I am not unaware that this is a novel and unusual proceeding. It is the first instance in this county and this State, and, so far as I am aware, the first instance in New England, of the application of a woman to be formally admitted to the bar as a practitioner. But knowing Mrs. Nash to be a modest and refined lady, of literary and legal attainments, I feel safe in assuring Your Honor that by a course of honorable practice, and by her courteous intercourse with the members of the profession, she will do her full part to conquer any prejudice that may now exist against the idea of women being admitted as attorneys at law." Judge Barrows, after examining the papers handed to him, said: "I am not aware of anything in the constitution or laws of this State prohibiting the admission of a woman, possessing the proper qualifications, to the practice of the law. I have no sympathy with that feeling or prejudice which would exclude women from any of the occupations of life for which they may be qualified. The papers put into my hands show that Mrs. Nash has received the unanimous approval of the examining committee, as possessing the qualifications requisite for an acceptable attorney, and that she has paid the legal duty to the county treasurer, and I direct that she be admitted."

On May 10, 1873, the trustees of the Industrial School for Girls issued the following appeal to the people of the State:

The undersigned, trustees of the Maine Industrial School for Girls, hereby earnestly appeal to the generosity of the State, to the rich and poor alike, for aid to this important movement. Our call is to mothers and fathers blessed with virtuous and obedient children; to those who have suffered by the waywardness of some beloved daughter; and to all who would gladly see the neglected, exposed and erring girls in our midst reclaimed. For six years has this subject been agitated in the State and presented to the consideration of several legislatures; and during that time the objects, plans and practical workings of such an institution, have become familiar to the public mind. The project is now so near consummation that by prompt and liberal response to this appeal, the school can be in active operation by the first of July next.

By the terms of the resolution of the legislature granting State aid of five thousand dollars, the sum of twenty thousand dollars must first be secured from other sources. Of this, five thousand at least has been contributed by two generous ladies in Hallowell. For the balance the trustees confidentially look to the citizens of the whole State as equally to be benefited. Let them send their contributions, whether large or small, freely and at once, to either of the undersigned and the receipt of the same shall be duly acknowledged.[179]

Some of the women tax-payers[180] in Ellsworth, Maine, sent the following protest to the assessors of that city:

We the undersigned residents of the city of Ellsworth, believing in the declaration of our forefathers, that "governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that "taxation without representation is tyranny," beg leave to protest against being taxed for support of laws that we have no voice in making. By taxing us you class us with aliens and minors, the only males who are taxed and not allowed to vote, you make us the political inferiors of the most ignorant foreigners, negroes, and men who have not intellect enough to learn to write their names, or to read the vote given them. Our property is at the disposal of men who have not the ability to accumulate a dollar's worth and who pay only a poll-tax. We therefore protest against being taxed until we are allowed the rights of citizens.

AUGUSTA, March 1, 1872.

EDITORS WOMAN'S JOURNAL: I have never seen a letter in the Woman's Journal written from Augusta, the capital of Maine, and as some things have transpired lately which might interest your readers, I take the liberty of writing a few lines. The bill for woman suffrage was defeated in the House, fifty-two to forty-one. In the Senate the vote was fifteen in favor to eight against. I think the smallness of the vote was owing to the indifference of some of the members and the determination of a few to kill the bill. Some politicians are afraid of this innovation just now, lest the Republican party be more disrupted than it already is. Day after day, when the session was drawing to a close, women went to the state-house expecting to hear the question debated. Wednesday every available place was filled with educated women. The day was spent--if I should say how, my criticism might be too severe. Gentlemen from Thomaston, Biddeford, Burlington and Waldoborough had the floor most of the time during the afternoon. In the evening, while those same women and some of the members of the legislature were attending a concert, the bill was taken up and voted upon, without any discussion whatever. Now, I submit to any fair-minded person if this was right. I have listened to discussions upon that floor this winter for which I should have hung my head in shame had they been conducted by women. The whole country, from Maine to California, calls loudly for better legislation--for morality in politics.

A member of the House said to me yesterday, that he thought that some of the members from the rural districts were not sufficiently enlightened upon the question of woman suffrage, and the bill ought to have been thoroughly discussed. Yes, and perhaps treated with respect by its friends. I saw the member from Calais while a vote was being taken. Standing in his seat, with his hand stretched toward the rear of the House, where it is generally supposed that members sit who are a little slow in voting at the beck of politicians, he said: "Yes is the way to vote, gentlemen! Yes! Yes!" When women have such politicians for champions equal suffrage is secured. But do we want such men? The member from Calais voted against woman's right of suffrage. He is said to be an ambitious aspirant in the fifth congressional district. See to it, women of the fifth district, that you do not have him as an opponent of equal rights in congress. There is a throne behind a throne. Let woman be regal in the background, where she must stand for the present, in Maine.

But I am happy and proud to state that some very high-minded men, and some of the best legislators in the House, did vote for the bill, viz.: Brown of Bangor, Judge Titcomb of Augusta, General Perry of Oxford, Porter of Burlington, Labroke of Foxcroft, and many others; in the Senate, the president and fourteen others, the real bone and marrow of the Senate, voted for the bill. The signs of the times are good. The watchman of the night discerns the morning light in the broad eastern horizon.

[Signed:] PATIENCE COMMONSENSE.

The Portland Press, in a summary of progress in Maine for 1873, says:

Women certainly have no reason to complain of the year's dealings with them, for they have been recognized in many ways which indicate the gradual breaking down of the prejudices that have hitherto given them a position of quasi subjection. Mrs. Mary D. Welcome has been licensed to preach by the Methodists; Mrs. Fannie U. Roberts of Kittery has been commissioned by the governor to solemnize marriages; Clara H. Nash, of the famous law firm of F. C. & C. H. Nash, of Columbia Falls, has argued a case before a jury in the Supreme Court; Miss Mary C. Lowe of Colby University has taken a college prize for declamation. They are the first Maine women who have ever enjoyed honors of the kind. Miss Cameron spoke, too, at the last Congregational conference, and Miss Frank Charles was appointed register of deeds in Oxford county.

It is further to be noted that the legislature voted as follows on the question of giving the ballot to women: Senate--14 yeas, 14 nays; House--62 yeas, 69 nays. Women are rapidly obtaining a recognized position in our colleges. There are now five young women at Colby, three at Bates, and three at the Agricultural College--eleven in all. Bates has already graduated two. In the latter college a scholarship for the benefit of women has been endowed by Judge Reddington. Finally, the first Woman Suffrage Association ever formed in Maine held its first meeting at Augusta last January, and was a great success. Carmel, Monroe, Etna and some other towns have elected women superintendents of schools, but this has been done in other years. For a little movement in the right direction we must credit Messrs. Amos, Abbott & Co., woolen manufacturers of Dexter, who divide ten per cent. of their profits with their operatives.

Clara H. Nash, the lady who, in partnership with her husband, has recently entered upon the practice of law in Maine, says:

Scarcely a day passes but something occurs in our office to rouse my indignation afresh by reminding me of the utter insignificance with which the law, in its every department, regards woman, and its utter disregard of her rights as an individual. Would that women might feel this truth; then, indeed, would their enfranchisement be speedy.

In the Woman's Journal of January 1, 1873, we find the following call:

The people of Maine who believe in the extension of the elective franchise to women as a beneficent power for the promotion of the virtues and the correction of the evils of society, and all who believe in the principles of equal justice, equal liberty and equal opportunity, upon which republican institutions are founded, and have faith in the triumph of intelligence and reason over custom and prejudice, are invited to meet at Granite Hall, in the city of Augusta, on Wednesday, January 29, 1873, for the purpose of organizing a State Woman Suffrage Association, and inaugurating such measures for the advancement of the cause as the wisdom of the convention may suggest.[181]

The Portland Press, in a leading editorial on the "Moral Eminence of Maine," says:

Maine has been first in many things. She has taught the world how to struggle with intemperance, and pilgrims come hither from all quarters of the earth to learn the theory and practice of prohibition. She was among the first to practically abolish capital punishment and to give married women their rights in respect to property. She is, perhaps, nearer giving them political rights, also, than any of her sister commonwealths. If Maine should be first among the States to give suffrage to women, she would do more for temperance than a hundred prohibitory laws, and more for civilization and progress than Massachusetts did when she threw the tea into Boston harbor in 1773, or when she sent the first regiment to the relief of Washington in 1861.

The leaders of the temperance reform in Maine are fully alive to the necessity of woman suffrage as a means to that end. At the meeting of the State Temperance Association of Maine, in Augusta, recently, Mr. Randall said that "as the woman suffrage convention has adjourned over this afternoon in order to attend the temperance meeting, he would move that when we adjourn it be to Thursday morning, as the work at both conventions is intimately connected. If the women of Maine went to the ballot-box, we should have officers to enforce the law." Mr. Randall's motion was carried, and the temperance convention adjourned.

The Woman Suffrage Association assembled Wednesday, January 29, in Granite Hall, Augusta. There was a very large attendance, a considerable number of those present being members of the legislature. Hon. Joshua Nye presided. He made a few remarks relating to the removal of political disabilities from women, and introduced Mrs. Agnes A. Houghton of Bath, who spoke on the "Turning of the Tide," contending that woman should be elevated socially, politically and morally, enjoying the same rights as man. She was followed by Judge Benjamin Kingsbury, jr., of Portland, who declared himself unequivocally in favor of giving woman the right to vote, and who trusted that she would be accorded this right by the present legislature. More than 1,000 persons were in the audience, and great enthusiasm prevailed. The morning session was devoted to business and the election of officers.[182] In order not to conflict with a meeting of the State Temperance Association, no afternoon session was held, and, in return, the State Temperance Society gave up its evening meeting to enable its members to attend the suffrage convention.

Speeches were made by Henry B. Blackwell of Boston, Rev. Ellen Gustin of Mansfield, Mary Eastman of Lowell, and others. Resolutions were passed pledging the association not to cease its efforts until the unjust discrimination with regard to voting is swept away; that in the election of president, and of all officers where the qualifications of voters are not prescribed by the State constitution, the experiment should be tried of allowing women to vote; that in view of the large amount of money which has been expended in Maine for the exclusive benefit of the Boys' Industrial School during the past twenty years, it is the prayer of the ladies of Maine that the present legislature vote the sum asked for the establishment of an Industrial School for girls.

In 1874 we find notices of other onward steps:

EDITORS JOURNAL: Woman's cause works slowly here, though in one respect we have been successful. Our county school-superintendent is a lady. She had a large majority over our other candidate, and over two gentlemen, and she is decidedly "the right person in the right place." She is a graduate from the normal school, the mother of four children, a widow for some six years past, and a lady. What more can we ask, unless, indeed, it be for a very conscientious idea of duty? That, too, she has, and also energy, with which she carries it out. The sterner sex admit that women are competent to hold office. But some say we are not intelligent enough to vote. What an appalling amount of wisdom they show in this idea! It would be "unwomanly" in us to suggest such a word as inconsistency.

Fraternally, M. J. M.

Cairo, Me., April, 1874.

In Searsport a woman was elected one of the two school-superintendents of the town. The following advertisement appears in the local newspaper:

SEARSPORT SCHOOL NOTICE.--The superintending school-committee of Searsport will meet to examine teachers at the town library, April 17 and May 1, 1874, at 1 o'clock P. M.

DELIA A. CURTIS, JOHN NICHOLS, S. S. Com. of Searsport.

Teachers will be expected to discountenance the use of tobacco and intoxicating liquors, and to use their best endeavors to impress on the minds of the children and youth committed to their care and instruction a proper understanding of the evil tendency of such habits; and no teacher need apply for a certificate to teach in this town, the ensuing year, who uses either.

DELIA A. CURTIS.

DEAR JOURNAL: Aroostook, though occupying the extreme northeastern portion of our good State of Maine, and still in the blush of youth, is not behind her sister counties in recognition of woman's fitness for office. The returns of town elections, so far as I have yet seen, give three towns in the county which have elected ladies[183] to serve as members of the school committee.

L. J. Y. W. Houlton, Maine.

In the autumn of 1874 the governor and council requested the opinion of the Supreme Judicial Court on the following questions:

First--Under the constitution and laws of this State, can a woman, if duly appointed and qualified as a justice of the peace, legally perform all acts pertaining to that office?

Second--Would it be competent for the legislature to authorize the appointment of a married woman to the office of justice of the peace; or to administer oaths, take acknowledgment of deeds or solemnize marriages, so that the same may be legal and valid?

The following responses to these inquiries were received by the governor: the opinion of the court, drawn by Chief-justice Appleton, and concurred in by Justices Cutting, Peters, Danforth and Virgin; a dissenting opinion from Justices Walton and Barrows and one from Justice Dickerson. The opinion of the court is given below:

To the questions proposed we have the honor to answer as follows:

Whether it is expedient that women should hold the office of justice of the peace is not an inquiry proposed for our consideration. It is whether, under the existing constitution, they can be appointed to such office, and can legally discharge its duties.

By the constitution of Massachusetts, of which we formerly constituted a portion, the entire political power of that commonwealth was vested under certain conditions, in its male inhabitants of a prescribed age. They alone, and in the exclusion of the other sex, as determined by its highest court of law, could exercise the judicial function as existing and established by that instrument.

By the act relating to the separation of the district of Maine from Massachusetts, the authority to determine upon the question of separation, and to elect delegates to meet and form a constitution was conferred upon the "inhabitants of the several towns, districts and plantations in the district of Maine qualified to vote for governor or senators," thus excluding the female sex from all participation in the formation of the constitution, and in the organization of the government under it. Whether the constitution should or should not be adopted, was especially, by the organic law of its existence, submitted to the vote of the male inhabitants of the State.

It thus appears that the constitution of the State was the work of its male citizens. It was ordained, established, and ratified by them, and by them alone; but by the power of government was divided into three distinct departments: legislative, executive and judicial. By article VI., section 4, justices of the peace are recognized as judicial officers.

By the constitution, the whole political power of the State is vested in its male citizens. Whenever in any of its provisions, reference is made to sex, it is to duties to be done and performed by male members of the community. Nothing in the language of the constitution or in the debates of the convention by which it was formed, indicates any purpose whatever of any surrender of political power by those who had previously enjoyed it or a transfer of the same to those who had never possessed it. Had any such design then existed, we cannot doubt that it would have been made manifest in appropriate language. But such intention is nowhere disclosed. Having regard then, to the rules of the common law as to the rights of women, married and unmarried, as then existing--to the history of the past--to the universal and unbroken practical construction given to the constitution of this State and to that of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts upon which that of this State was modeled, we are led to the inevitable conclusion that it was never in the contemplation or intention of those framing our constitution that the offices thereby created should be filled by those who could take no part in its original formation, and to whom no political power was intrusted for the organization of the government then about to be established under its provisions, or for its continued existence and preservation when established.

The same process of reasoning which would sanction the conferring judicial power on women under the constitution would authorize the giving them executive power by making them sheriffs and major-generals. But while the offices enacted by the constitution are to be filled exclusively by the male members of the State, we have no doubt that the legislature may create new ministerial offices not enumerated therein, and if it deem expedient, may authorize the performance of the duties of the offices so created by persons of either sex.

To the first question proposed, we answer in the negative.

To the second, we answer that it is competent for the legislature to authorize the appointment of married or unmarried women to administer oaths, take acknowledgment of deeds or solemnize marriages, so that the same shall be legal and valid.

JOHN APPLETON, JOHN A. PETERS, JONAS CUTTING, WM. WIRT VIRGIN, CHARLES DANFORTH.

The dissenting opinion was as follows:

We, the undersigned, Justices of the Supreme Judicial Court, concur in so much of the foregoing opinion as holds that it is competent for the legislature to authorize the appointment of women to administer oaths, take the acknowledgment of deeds and solemnize marriages. But we do not concur in the conclusion that it is not equally competent for the legislature to authorize the appointment of women to act as justices of the peace.

The legislature is authorized to enact any law which it deems reasonable and proper, provided it is not repugnant to the constitution of this State, nor to that of the United States. A law authorizing the appointment of women to act as justices of the peace would not, in our judgment, be repugnant to either. We fail to find a single word, or sentence, or clause of a sentence, which, fairly construed, either expressly or impliedly forbids the passage of such a law. So far as the office of justice of the peace is concerned, there is not so much as a masculine pronoun to hang an objection upon.

It is true that the right to vote is limited to males. But the right to vote and the right to hold office are distinct matters. Either may exist without the other. And it may be true that the framers of the constitution did not contemplate--did not affirmatively intend--that women should hold office. But it by no means follows that they intended the contrary. The truth probably is that they had no intention one way or the other; that the matter was not even thought of. And it will be noticed that the unconstitutionality of such a law is made to rest, not on any expressed intention of the framers of the constitution that women should not hold office, but upon a presumed absence of intention that they should.

This seems to us a dangerous doctrine. It is nothing less than holding that the legislature cannot enact a law unless it appears affirmatively that the framers of the constitution intended that such a law should be enacted. We cannot concur in such a doctrine. It would put a stop to all progress. We understand the correct rule to be the reverse of that; namely, that the legislature may enact any law they may think proper, unless it appears affirmatively that the framers of the constitution intended that such a law should not be passed. And the best and only safe rule for ascertaining the intention of the makers of any written law, is to abide by the language which they have used. And this is especially true of written constitutions; for in preparing such instruments it is but reasonable to presume that every word has been carefully weighed, and that none is inserted and none omitted without a design for so doing. Taking this rule for our guide we can find nothing in the constitution of the United States, or of this State, forbidding the passage of a law authorizing the appointment of women to act as justices of the peace. We think such a law would be valid.

C. W. WALTON, WM. G. BARROWS.

The right of women to hold office was affirmed in the message of Governor Dingley, January, 1875:

In response to the questions propounded by the governor and council, a majority of the justices of the Supreme Court have given an opinion that, under the constitution of Maine, women cannot act as justices of the peace, nor hold any other office mentioned in that instrument; but that it is competent for the legislature to authorize persons of either sex to hold any ministerial office created by statute. As there can be no valid objection to, but on the contrary great convenience in, having women who may be acting as clerks in public or private offices authorized to administer oaths and take acknowledgment of deeds, I recommend the passage of an act providing for the appointment of persons of either sex, to perform such official duties. Indeed, if further legislation be necessary to establish that principle, I suggest the justice and expediency of an enabling act recognizing the eligibility of women to office in the same manner as men; for I know of no sufficient reason why a woman, otherwise qualified, should be excluded from any position adapted to her tastes and acquirements, which the people may desire she should fill.

The legislature passed the bill recommended by the governor.

In 1875 the Constitutional Committee, by a vote of six to two, defeated the proposition to so amend the constitution as to make women electors under the same regulations and restrictions as men.

The Maine Woman Suffrage Association held its third annual meeting at Augusta on January 12, 1876, in the hall of the House of Representatives, the use of which had been courteously extended to the association. The hall and galleries were crowded in every part with an intelligent audience, whose close attention through all the sessions showed an earnest interest in the cause.

The meeting was called to order by Judge Kingsbury of Portland, president of the association.[184] Prayer was offered by Miss Angell of Canton, N. Y. Judge Kingsbury made the introductory address. Addresses were also made by H. B. Blackwell, Miss Eastman and Lucy Stone, showing the right and need of women in politics, and the duty of law-makers to establish justice for them. It was especially urged that the centennial celebration would be only a mockery if the Fourth of July, 1876, finds this government still doing to women what the British government did to the colonists a hundred years ago. Rev. Mr. Gage of Lewiston urged the right of women to vote in the interest of civilization itself. In the perilous times upon which we have fallen in the great experiment of self-government, some new force is needed to check growing evils. The influence in the home is that which is needed in legislation, and it can only be had by the ballot in the hand of woman. Mrs. Quinby, from the Business Committee, reported a series of resolutions. After their adoption Mrs. Abba G. Woolson, in an earnest and forcible speech, claimed the right of women to vote, as the final application of the theory of the consent of the governed. She had personally noticed the good effects of the ballot conferred upon the women in Wyoming, and should be glad to have her native State of Maine lead in this matter, and give an illustration of the true republic. Miss Lorenza Haynes, who had been the day before ordained over the Universalist Church in Hallowell, followed with a speech of remarkable wit and brilliancy, to which no report can do justice.

A writer in the Woman's Journal about this time said:

During the early part of the session of our late legislature woman suffrage petitions were numerously signed by the leading men and women throughout the State receiving an earnest and respectful consideration from the people generally, even from those who were not quite ready to sign petitions. Consequently, it seemed an easy matter to get a bill before the legislature, and we were almost certain of a majority in one branch of the House, at least, especially as it was generally understood that our new governor favored the cause; and it is believed yet that Governor Dingley does sympathize with it, even though he failed to mention it in his otherwise admirable message. The petitions were duly presented and referred to a joint committee, where the matter was allowed to quietly drop.

It is neither riches, knowledge, nor culture that constitutes the electoral qualifications, but gender and a certain implied brute force. By this standard legislative bodies have been wont to judge the exigency of this mighty question. More influential than woman, though unacknowledged as such by the average legislator of States and nations, even the insignificant lobster finds earnest champions where woman's claims fail of recognition; which assertion the following incident will substantiate: Being present in the Representatives Hall in Augusta when the "lobster question" came up for discussion (the suffrage question was then struggling before the committee), I was struck by the air of earnestness that pervaded the entire House on that memorable occasion. And why not? It was a question that appealed directly to man's appetite, and there he is always interested. After the morning hour a dozen ready debators sprang to their feet, eloquent in advocating the rights of this important member of the crustacean family. The discussion waxed into something like enthusiasm, when finally an old tar exclaimed with terrific violence: "Mr. Speaker, I insist upon it, this question must be considered. It is a great question; one before which all others will sink into insignificance; one of vastly more importance than any other that will come before this honorable body during this session!"

DIRIGO.

In closing this chapter it is fitting to mention some of our faithful friends in Maine, whose names have not appeared in societies and conventions as leaders or speakers, but whose services in other ways have been highly appreciated.

Rockland is the home of Lucy and Lavinia Snow, who, from the organization of the first society in 1868, have never failed to send good words of cheer and liberal contributions to all our National conventions. Another branch of the worthy Snow family, from the town of Hamlin, has given us equally generous coaedjutors in Mrs. Spofford and her noble sisters in Washington.

As early as 1857, Mrs. Anna Greeley and Miss Charlotte Hill of Ellsworth constituted themselves a committee to inaugurate a course of lyceum lectures in that town, taking the entire financial responsibility. Miss Hill was an excellent violinist and taught a large class of boys and girls, and also played at balls and parties, thus gaining a livelihood. Some of her patrons threatened that if she persisted in bringing such people[185] to that town and affiliated with them, they would no longer patronize her. "Very well" she replied, "I shall maintain my principles, and if you break up my classes I can go back to the sea-shore and dig clams for a living as I have done before." Tradition says the lecture course was a success. She continued her classes and the neighbors danced as ever to her music.

Gail Hamilton, who resides in Maine at least half her time, is one of the most brilliant and pungent American writers. In denouncing the follies and failures of her sex, her critical pen has indirectly aided the suffrage movement by arousing thought upon all phases of the question as to what are the rights and duties of woman, though she stoutly maintains that she is opposed to woman's enfranchisement.

In Portland there has always been a circle of noble men and women, steadfast friends alike of the anti-slavery, temperance and woman suffrage movements. The names of Mr. and Mrs. Oliver Dennett, Miss. Charlotte A. Thomas and Mrs. Ellen French Foster are worthy of mention. That untiring reformer, the Hon. Neal Dow, has clearly seen and declared in the later years of his labors, that suffrage for women is the short path to the advancement of prohibition.

The Hon. Thomas B. Reed has done us great service in congress as leader of the Republican party in the House, and member of the Judiciary Committee. His report,[186] in 1884, on the submission of the sixteenth amendment has had an extended influence. It is an able argument, and as a keen piece of irony it is worthy the pen of a Dean Swift. In the Senate we have a fast friend in William P. Frye, who has always voted favorably in both houses on all questions regarding the interests of woman. In 1878, in presenting Miss Willard's petition of 30,000 for woman's right to vote on the temperance question, he made an able speech recommending the measure.[187]

And in closing, the name of Maine's venerable statesman, Hannibal Hamlin, so long honored by his State in a succession of official positions from year to year, must not be forgotten. As chairman of the Committee on the District of Columbia in 1870 he presided at the first hearing of the National Woman Suffrage Association, listened with respect and courtesy, and at the close introduced the ladies to each member of the committee, and said "he had been deeply impressed by the arguments, and was almost persuaded to accept the new gospel of woman's equality." Mr. Hamlin's vote has always been favorable and we have no words of his recorded in the opposition.

Hon. James G. Blaine has generally maintained a dignified silence on the question. Thus far in his History, a reviewer says, "he has ignored the existence of woman"; but perhaps in his researches he has not yet reached the garden of Eden, nor taken cognizance of the part the daughters of Eve have played in the rise and fall of mighty nations.

Nevertheless in our prolonged struggle of half a century for equal rights for woman, we have found in every State the traditional ten righteous men necessary to save its people from destruction.

FOOTNOTES:

[179] Signed: President, Benj. Kingsbury, Portland; Secretary, E. R. French, S. Chesterville; Treasurer, William Deering Portland; ex officio, Gov. Sidney Perham, Secretary of State Geo. G. Stacy, Superintendent of Schools Warren Johnson; John B. Nealley, S. Berwick; Nelson Dingley, jr., Lewiston; J. S. Wheelright, Bangor; H. K. Baker, Hallowell; Mrs. C. A. L. Sampson, Bath; Mrs. James Fernald, Portland.

[180] Ann F. Greely, Sarah Jarvis, C. B. Grant, E. E. Tinker, A. D. Hight, M. J. Brooks, C. W. Jarvis, E. B. Jarvis, Rebecca M. Avery.

[181] Signed by John Neal, S. T. Pickard, Mrs. Oliver Dennet, Mrs. Eleanor Neal, Portland; J. J. Eveleth, mayor, Joshua Nye, Chandler Beal, William H. Libbey, George W. Quinby, William P. Whitehouse, General Selden Conner. H. H. Hamlen, H. S. Osgood, Mrs. C. A. Quinby, Mrs. W. K. Lancey, Mrs. D. M. Waitt, Mrs. William B. Lapham, Mrs. S. M. Barton, Augusta; Mary A. Ross and fifty others; Rev. W. L. Brown, Mrs. E. A. Dickerson, Mrs. W. H. Burrill, Mrs. N. Abbott, Mrs. Thomas N. Marshall, Miss A. A. Hicks, Belfast; John D. Hopkins, Rev. William H. Savary, C. J. Peck, mayor, A. E. Drinkwater, Mrs. Ann F. Greely, Ellsworth; Mrs. A. H. Savary and twenty others; Mrs. M. C. Crossman, Mrs. S. D. Morison, Mrs. J. Tillson, Mrs. Sarah J. Prentiss, Mrs. Amos Pickard, Bangor; Miss M. Phillips and twelve others; Rev. John W. Hinds, Lewiston; Rev. T. P. Adams, Bowdoinham; A. H. Sweetser and twenty others, Rockland; Rev. W. H. Bolster, Wiscasset; W. T. C. Runnels, Searsport; Rev. M. V. B. Stinson, Kittery; John U. Hubbard, Alfred Winslow, West Waterville; Mrs. M. S. Philbrick, Skowhegan; Mrs. Simeon Conner, Fairfield; George Gifford, Mrs. Mary W. Southwick, H. M. N. Bush, M. A. Bush, A. E. Prescott, Vassalboro; A. R. Dunham and fourteen others; R. C. Caldwell and eight others, Gardiner; Albert Crosby, Mrs. S. G. Crosby, Albion; Noah F. Norton, Mercy G. Norton, Penobscot.

[182] President, Benjamin Kingsbury of Portland; Secretary, Miss Addie Quimby of Augusta; Treasurer, Mrs. W. K. Lancey of Augusta. Among the vice-presidents are the Hon. S. F. Hersey of Bangor, and John Neal of Portland. An Executive Committee was elected, which included John P. Whitehouse, Hon. Joshua Nye, Neal Dow, jr., and other leading citizens.

[183] Miss Louisa Coffin, Dalton; Miss Annie Lincoln, Mapleton; Miss Ada DeLaite, Littleton.

[184] The following officers were elected: President, Hon. Benjamin Kingsbury of Portland; Chairman Executive Committee, Hon. Joshua Nye; Corresponding Secretary, Mr. C. A. Quinby, Augusta; Recording Secretary, Mrs. W. D. Eaton, Dexter; Treasurer, Mrs. W. K. Lancey, Pittsfield.

[185] Those invited were Wendell Philips, Harriet K. Hunt, Caroline H. Dall and Susan B. Anthony.

[186] Mr. Reed's report is published in full in our annual report, of 1884, which can be obtained of Susan B. Anthony, Rochester, N. Y.

[187] See page 104.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us

XXXV. NEW HAMPSHIRE

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

A State that could boast four such remarkable families as the Rogers, the Hutchinsons, the Fosters, and the Pillsburys, all radical, outspoken reformers, furnishes abundant reason for its prolonged battles with the natural conservatism of ordinary communities. Every inch of its soil except its mountain tops, where no man could raise a school-house for a meeting, has been overrun by the apostles of peace, temperance, anti-slavery, and woman's rights in succession.

To the early influence of Nathaniel P. Rogers and his revolutionary journal, The Herald of Freedom, we may trace the general awakening of the true men and women of that State to new ideas of individual liberty. But while some gladly accepted his words as harbingers of a new and better civilization, others resisted all innovations of their time-honored customs and opinions. And when the clarion voices of Foster and Pillsbury arraigned that State for its compromises with slavery, howling mobs answered their arguments with brickbats and curses; mobs that nothing could quell but the sweet voices of the Hutchinson family. Their peans of liberty, so readily accepted when set to music, were obstinately resisted when uttered by others, though in most eloquent speech. Thus with music, meetings and mobs, New Hampshire was at least awake and watching, and when the distant echoes of woman's uprising reverberated through her mountains she gave a ready response.

In 1868, simultaneously with other New England States, she felt the time had come to organize for action on the question of suffrage for women. A call for a convention was issued to be held in Concord, December 22, 23, and signed by one hundred and twenty men and women,[188] some of the most honored and influential classes of all callings and professions. Nathaniel P. White, always ready to aid genuine reformatory movements, was the first to sign the call. As a member of the legislature he had helped to coin into law many of the liberal ideas sown broadcast in the early days[189] by the anti-slavery apostles. Galen Foster, a brother of Stephen, used his influence also as a member of the legislature, to vindicate the rights of women to civil and political equality. This first convention was held in Eagle Hall, Concord, with large and enthusiastic audiences. A long and interesting letter was read from William Lloyd Garrison:

BOSTON, December 21, 1868.

DEAR MRS. WHITE: I must lose the gratification of being present at the Woman Suffrage Convention at Concord and substitute an epistolary testimony for a speech from the platform.

The two conventions recently held in furtherance of the movement for universal and impartial suffrage--one in Boston, the other in Providence--were eminently successful in respect to numbers, intellectual ability, moral strength and unity of action; and their proceedings such as to challenge attention and elicit wide-spread commendation. I have no doubt that the convention in Concord will exhibit the same features, be animated by the same hopeful spirit and produce as cheering results.

The only criticism seemingly of a disparaging tone, I have seen, of the speeches made at the conventions alluded to, is, that there was nothing new advanced on the occasion; as though novelty were the main thing, and the reiteration of time-honored truths, with their latest application to the duties of the hour, were simply tedious! For one, I ask no more light upon the subject; nor am I so vain as to assume to be capable of throwing any additional light upon it. One drop of water is very like another, but it is the perpetual dropping that wears away the stone. The importunate widow had nothing fresh or new to present to the unjust judge, but by her persistent coming she wearied him into compliance with her petition. The end of the constant assertion of a right withheld is restitution and victory. The whole anti-slavery controversy was expressed and included in the Golden Rule, morally, and in the Declaration of Independence, politically; nor could anything new be added to these by the wisest, the most ingenious, or the most eloquent. "Line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little"; that is the essential method of reform. If there is nothing new to be said in favor of suffrage for women, is there anything new to be urged against it? But though the objections are exceedingly trite and shallow, it is still necessary to examine and refute them by arguments and illustrations none the less forcible because exhausted at an earlier period.

The first objection is positively one of the most urgent reasons for granting suffrage to women; for it is predicated on the concession of the superiority of woman over man in purity of purpose and excellence of character. Hence the cry is, that it will not only be descending, but degrading for her to appear at the polls. But, if government is absolutely necessary, and voting not wrong in practice, it is surely desirable that the admittedly purest and best in the nation should find no obstacle to their reaching the ballot-box. Nay, the way should be opened at once, by every consideration pertaining to the public welfare, the justice of legislation, the preservation of popular liberty. It is impossible for a portion of the people, to be wiser and more trustworthy than the whole people, or better qualified to decide what shall be the laws for the government of all. The more minds consulted, the more souls included, the more interests at stake, in determining the form and administration of government, the more of justice and humanity, of security and repose, will be the result. The exclusion of half the population from the polls, is not merely a gross injustice, but an immense loss of brain and conscience, in making up the public judgment. As a nation we have discarded absolutism, monarchy, and hereditary aristocracy; but we have not fully attained even to manhood suffrage. Men are proscribed on account of their complexion, women because of their sex. The entire body politic suffers from this proscription.

The second objection refutes the first; it is based on the alleged natural inferiority of woman to man, and the transition is thus quickly made for her, from a semi-angelic state, to that of a menial, having no rights that men are bound to respect beyond what they choose to allow. In the scale of political power, therefore, one male voter, however ignorant or depraved, outweighs all the women in America! For, no matter how intelligent, cultured, refined, wealthy, intellectually vigorous, or morally great, any of their number may be,--no matter what rank in literature, art, science, or medical knowledge and skill they may reach,--they are political non-entities, unrepresented, discarded, and left to such protection under the laws, as brute force and absolute usurpation may graciously condescend to give. Yet they are as freely taxed and held amendable to penal law as strictly as though they had their full share of representation in the legislative hall, on the bench, in the jury-box, and at the polls. This cry of inferiority is not peculiar in the case of woman. It was the subterfuge and defiance of negro slavery. It has been raised in all ages by tyrants and usurpers against the toiling, over-burdened millions, seeking redress for their wrongs, and protection for their rights. It always indicates intense self-conceit, and supreme selfishness. It is at war with reason and common-sense, and is a bold denial of the oneness of the human race.

The third objection is, that women do not wish to vote. If this were true, it would not follow that they should not be enfranchised, and left free to determine the matter for themselves. It was confidently declared that the slaves at the south neither wished to be free, nor would they take their liberty if offered them by their masters. Had that assertion been true, it would have furnished no justification whatever, for making man the property of his fellow-man, or for leaving the slaves in their fetters. But it was not true. Nor is it true that women do not wish to vote. Tens of thousands are ready to go to the polls and assume their share of political responsibility, as soon as they shall be legally permitted to do so; and they are not the ignorant and degraded of their sex, but women remarkable for their intelligence and moral worth. The great mass will, ere long, be sufficiently enlightened to claim what belongs to them of right. I hope to be permitted to live to see the day when neither complexion nor sex shall be made a badge of degradation, but men and women shall enjoy the same rights and privileges, and possess the same means for their protection and defense.

Very faithfully yours, WM. LLOYD GARRISON.

Mrs. A. S. WHITE.

At the close of this convention a State association was formed with Mrs. Armenia S. White president.[190] This society has been unremitting in its efforts to rouse popular thought, holding annual conventions, scattering tracts, rolling up petitions, and addressing legislatures. Many of the best speakers, from time to time, from other States[191] have rendered valuable aid in keeping up the agitation.

The opposition of a clergyman produced a sensation in Concord.

On last fast-day, 1871, Rev. S.L. Blake of the Congregational church in Concord, preached a sermon in which he came out against the woman's rights convention held there last January, bringing the stale charge of "free-love" against its advocates--a charge that always leaps to the lips of men of prurient imagination--with much similar clap-trap of the Fulton type. Rev. Mr. Sanborn of the Universalist church replied to him the next Sunday evening, an immense audience being in attendance, and completely disproved the baseless allegations of the reverend maligner, to the satisfaction of all. Rev. Mr. Blake has published his discourse in pamphlet form, repeating his disproved charges, whereupon Rev. J.F. Lovering of the Unitarian church came out with a reply, in which he characterized Mr. Blake's charges as "unmitigated falsehoods" and "an insult to every member of the convention," and demanded of the author to "unsay his words."

Brainard Cogswell, in his journal, the Concord Monitor, of July 2, 1870, published the following letter:

Petitions for woman's enfranchisement have been pouring into the New Hampshire legislature, until at last they have been referred to a special committee. On Thursday week this committee gave the petitioners a hearing; and on their invitation, Mrs. Julia Ward Howe, Mrs. Elizabeth K. Churchill and ourself went to Concord to give "the reasons why" women should have the ballot. The members of the legislature came out in force to hear, and our good, tried friends, Nathaniel and Armenia White, learning their intention in advance, opened the spacious Eagle Hall for their convenience, and that of the towns-people who wished to see and to hear. Warm as the evening was, the thermometer up in the nineties, the hall was packed, and great numbers went away that could not gain admittance. Rev. Mr. Blake, a Congregationalist minister of Concord, has done the cause good service by vilifying and abusing it, until he roused quite an interest. It was partly owing to his efforts that we had so grand an audience.

General Wilson, who twenty years ago was famed throughout New Hampshire for his eloquence and oratory, was chairman of the committee, and presided at the meeting, and very handsomely introduced the speakers. Mrs. Howe spoke with more pointed and pungent power than usual, dwelling on the deterioration of American womanhood, showing the cause, and suggesting the remedy. We have never been so impressed by her as on this occasion. Mrs. Churchill read a letter from Rev. Mr. Savage, a Congregationalist clergyman of the State, who advocates woman suffrage, and who, in a late ministerial gathering, took up the gauntlet thrown down by Mr. Blake, and defended the woman's cause and its advocates from the slanders of his brother minister.

The president of the New Hampshire association, in writing from Concord to the Woman's Journal, January 30, 1871, says:

Our second annual meeting was a grand success, if we count by money and numbers. The intense cold on Wednesday and Thursday made our audiences thinner than heretofore, but they were large in spite of the elements, Mrs. Churchill and Mrs. Emma Coe Still, who had never presented the subject here before, were well received. Rev. Dr. Savage of Franklin made an excellent address, and encouraged us by timely suggestions. Stephen S. Foster aroused us, as he always does, with his bold declarations. The resolutions adopted look toward future work, and embody the principles which move us to act.

Lucy Stone, in the Woman's Journal of June 14, 1871, says:

The Select Committee, Harry Bingham, chairman, to whom was referred a bill for the further protection of the rights of married men, reported the bill in a new draft as follows:

Marriages shall not hereafter render the husband liable for the debts contracted by his wife prior to their marriage: Second section--No marriage shall hereafter discharge the wife from liability to pay the debts contracted by her before such marriage, but she, and all property which she may hold in her own right, shall be held liable for the payment of all debts, whether contracted before or after marriage; in the same manner as if she continued sole and unmarried.

This report was signed by eight of the ten members of the committee. The minority, through Mr. Sprague of Swanzey, made a report recommending that the whole subject be postponed to the time when women in New Hampshire have the right to vote. Mr. Sprague moved that the minority report be substituted for the majority, but the motion was lost by an almost unanimous vote. The majority report was sustained in remarks by Messrs. Wadleigh of Milford and Cogswell of Gilman. The latter, hard pushed by an interrogatory concerning his social status, admitted that he was not married, but intended to be soon. The bill reported by the majority was then ordered to a second reading.

If this action should be sustained by the legislature, we can imagine some future suitor for a lady's hand telling her that he shall expect her duly to keep his house and his wardrobe in order, to prepare his meals, to entertain his visitors, to bear his children, and that she will be required by law to pay her own bills; that for this inestimable privilege she shall be called Mrs. John Snooks, and may, perhaps, have the honor of being written in the newspapers, and on her tombstone, as the relic of Mr. John Snooks. Could any woman withstand that?

The following statistics have been used by speakers in the opposition, to show that women are too ignorant to vote:

A decided sensation has been produced throughout the country by the publication in the third number of the "Transactions of the American Social Science Association" of statistics concerning the illiteracy of women in the United States. The subject has received very general discussion, and these are the conclusions reached:

1. That there is a large excess of female illiteracy. 2. That from 1850 to 1860 there was an increase of illiterate women to the extent of 53 per cent. in New Hampshire, 27 in Vermont, 24 in Massachusetts, 33 in Rhode Island, 16 in Connecticut, 37 in the District of Columbia, 33 in Wisconsin and 32 in Minnesota. 3. That this state of things is alarming, and ought to be remedied.

When the London Saturday Review raised the cry of alcoholic drunkenness among women, the conservative journals all over the world swelled the sound and confirmed the charges. Now that that story has run itself to death, a new assault is projected, and a general clamor concerning their illiteracy follows. If the charges are true, there is nothing very astonishing about them. The education of women has been considered a matter of secondary importance until very recently, and with our foreign population the education of girls has been almost wholly neglected. When the customs and usages of the world have made ignorance largely compulsory in women, it is somewhat inconsistent in men to go into spasms about the results.

January 17, 1874, at the Republican State convention, Mayor Briggs of Manchester, on taking the chair, made a speech, rehearsing the history of the party and laying out its programme for the future, closing as follows:

The Republican party has future duties. Its mission cannot end and its work should not, so long as any radical reform shall yet urge its demands in behalf of humanity. The civil service reform is eminent and important. In this regard the movement of the present administration is in the right direction, and yet it is only a first step of many which must ultimately be taken. To the people, not to a part of the people, belongs the sovereignty of this nation. Let them keep it. To this end great care should be taken to guard against the caucus system. Nothing should be more scrupulously avoided in the management of political parties. Anti-republican in spirit, it is sometimes exclusive in practice. The people have the same right to nominate that they have to elect their own officers. Why not? Ultimately, too, they will take that right, and for its own sake no party can afford to make itself the nursery of caucus power. The political machinery should be simplified, that nothing which mere politicians can desire shall stand between the people and their government. In a genuine republic, every act of the government should be but a practical expression of its subjects. All the subjects, too, should share equally the power of such expression. There should be no exclusion among intelligent, qualified classes. Involved in this principle is the idea of woman suffrage, the next great moral issue, in my judgment, which this country must meet, and a reform which no party can afford to despise. Indubitably right, as I believe it to be, I regard its success as inevitable, and that whatever party opposes it is as surely destined to defeat, as was the party which arrayed itself in opposition to the anti-slavery cause.

The following letter in the Woman's Journal shows that something of the spirit of the Connecticut Smith-sisters has been found in New Hampshire:

I have long felt a deep interest in the subject of woman's rights, and some fifteen years ago I resisted taxation two successive years. The second year I worked out my highway tax, for which crime I brought down upon my guilty head a severe persecution from both men and women, from clergymen and lawyers, as well as other classes of my fellow townsmen. The tax-collectors came into my house and attached furniture and sold it at auction in order to collect my tax, one of whom made me all the cost the laws would allow. The most incensed town officers threatened that if I resisted taxation the next year, they would take my house from me and sell it at auction. One of the tax-gatherers asked me what I thought I could do alone in resisting taxation. He said he did not believe there was another woman in the State of New Hampshire who possessed the hardihood to take such a stand against the laws. The editor of one of our weekly journals, who professed to be an advocate of woman's rights, and who was a candidate for representative in the State legislature, condemned me through the columns of his paper, in order to secure the votes of his fellow townsmen who were opposed to woman's rights. He had nothing to fear from me, knowing that I was only a disfranchised slave. Such unjust treatment seemed so cruel that I sometimes felt I could willingly lay down my life, if it would deliver my sex from such degrading oppression. I have, every year since, submissively paid my taxes, humbly hoping and praying that I may live to see the day that women will not be compelled to pay taxes without representation.

MARY L. HARRINGTON.

Claremont, N. H., January 17, 1874.

In 1870 a law was passed allowing women to be members of school committees; and eight years later a law was enacted permitting women to vote at school meetings. On the evening of August 7, 1878, the House Special Committee granted a hearing to the friends[192] of the School-suffrage bill, which had already passed the Senate by a unanimous vote; and the next day, when the bill came up for final action in the House, the following debate occurred:

Mr. BATCHELDER of Littleton said: This bill is one of the greatest importance, and before we vote upon it let us have the views of the committee.

Mr. GALEN FOSTER of Canterbury called upon Mr. Blodgett to give his opinion as to the power of the legislature upon the question.

Mr. BLODGETT of Franklin said he had no doubt of the constitutionality of the bill. School districts were created by statute and not by the constitution; hence the legislature had a perfect right to say who should vote in controlling their affairs.

Mr. FOSTER said: The mothers of our children should have a voice in their education. We have allowed women to hold certain offices in connection with schools, but we have never given them a voice in the control of the money expended upon them. The mothers take ten times more interest in the education of the young than the fathers do, and should have an equal voice in the affairs of the school districts. This is a matter of right and justice.

Mr. SINCLAIR of Bethlehem said: There ought not to be any objection to this bill. If there is any class that ought to have a voice in the education of children, it is the mothers. [Applause.] Some of the best school committees in the State are women. If they can be elected to that office, is it proper to say they shall have no voice in the elections?

Mr. WHICHER of Strafford thought they would get a little mixed in carrying out the provisions of this bill, in the face of the statutes relating to school-district meetings. He would move to indefinitely postpone the bill.

Mr. MOSHER of Dover said: There ought to be a new motion gotten up; to "indefinitely postpone" is getting to be stereotyped. This bill needs no further championing. Its justice is apparent.

Mr. HOBBS of Ossippee said: If women are capable of holding office they are also capable of saying who shall hold it. [Applause.]

Mr. PATTEN of Manchester favored the bill and hoped the motion of Mr. Whicher would be voted down.

The SPEAKER [Mr. WOOLSON of Lisbon] said: The bill had passed the Senate unanimously, been reported unanimously by the committee, and he hoped it would be passed promptly by the House. [Applause.]

Mr. PATTERSON of Hanover said he would congratulate the gentleman from Bethlehem on being orthodox on this question.

Mr. SINCLAIR congratulated his friend from Hanover on his display of courage in waiting until the ice was broken all round before making a forward step.

Mr. Whicher withdrew his motion to postpone and then moved to lay the bill upon the table. This being lost, the bill was passed, August 8, 1878. Mrs. White, the president of the State association, in a letter to a friend, wrote as follows:

To our surprise and delight the bill allowing women to vote at school-district meetings passed the House yesterday amid much cheering and clapping of hands, the ladies in the gallery joining in the demonstration. Thus conservative New Hampshire leads New England in this branch of reform for women.

The governor, B. F. Prescott, signed the bill without delay and words of cheer poured into the capital city from all quarters; especially were Mr. and Mrs. White congratulated upon this good result of their earnest and persistent labors. The following is from the Woman's Journal:

At the first election at the State capital of New Hampshire under the new law allowing women to vote on school questions, the result was a wonderfully full vote, not less than 2,160 ballots being cast, of which over half were deposited by women. The Boston Investigator, from which we gather these facts, says:

The balloting extended over three meetings and the number of women who participated was almost exactly doubled on the second and third evenings--150, 299, 662. Another interesting feature of this election was the fact that the sexes did not rally to the support of opposing tickets, but men and women divided their votes very evenly. A ticket bearing the names of two men was elected by a narrow majority over another which bore the names of a man and woman.

Of the first evening's election the telegraphic dispatch to the Boston Globe was headed, "Crowds of Women Voting in New Hampshire":

CONCORD, N. H., March 22.--The occasion of the annual meeting of the Union-school district of this city, which comprises all of the city proper, this evening, was one of unprecedented interest. For months school matters have been sharply agitated and the election has been looked forward to as an opportunity by all parties. To the uncommon interest centered in the matter the right of women to vote at school meetings, delegated by the last session of the legislature, greatly added. The new condition of affairs had been fully canvassed and the women had determined on making the best of their first opportunity and winning a decisive victory if possible. The night of the meeting proved inauspicious, but notwithstanding the severe storm of snow and sleet that was falling the newly constituted citizens were out in force. At the hour of opening the meeting the City Hall was packed to suffocation, 500 of the audience, at least, being ladies. The first business was the choice of a moderator, and in this the ladies may claim a victory, as the candidate a majority of them supported was elected in the person of ex-mayor John Kimball. After this came the reading of the report of the board of education, which was strenuously objected to by the male supporters of the ladies. In this they were beaten by a large majority. The reading completed, the meeting commenced to ballot for three members of the board. The scene then became one beyond the power of the reportorial pen to describe. It was an old-fashioned New Hampshire town-meeting, with the concomitant boisterousness and profanity subdued by the presence of the ladies. A line was formed to the polls and a struggling mass of humanity in which male and female citizens were incongruously and indecorously mixed, surged towards the ballot-box. The crowding, squeezing and pushing were severe enough for the taste of the masculine voter, and were harsh enough to make it extremely unpleasant for the dear creatures who were undergoing so much to cast their maiden vote. To add to the delay the Hon. Nathaniel White had planted his somewhat corpulent form directly in front of the ballot-box and stayed the surging tide to shake hands with every woman that voted. Having voted, the men were only too glad to leave the crowded hall and let the anxious crowd rush in. The vote was at last all in, and the work of counting completed shortly before 11 o'clock. It was found that there were some ten different tickets in the field, and forty-two candidates voted for; but from this mass of votes there was no choice, though the regular candidates, the outgoing members of the board, who would have been elected had it not been for the new element in the election, were ahead, having a plurality. The meeting was then adjourned till next Saturday evening, when the scenes of to-night will be intensified by a larger attendance and still greater interest. The meeting to-night obtains importance in New Hampshire, as this is the center of female suffrage sentiment in this State, and the women are determined to win here if possible.

In the opening convention of November 5, 1879, Mrs. White, the president, made the following address:

Ladies and Gentlemen, Friends of the N. H. Woman Suffrage Association: We hold the seventh meeting of this association under circumstances that mark an epoch in the progress of equal rights, irrespective of sex, in this State. After more than a decade of agitation, and petitioning of our legislature, women hold in their hand the ballot on one important matter. Let us exchange congratulations on this occasion, that so much has been gained toward the final triumph of our cause.

You will remember when this association was last in session, July, 1878, that the bill giving the women of New Hampshire the right to vote on the public-school questions, was pending in our legislature. At our first hearing before that body, we hardly dared anticipate the passage of the bill during that session. But agitation, vigilance and perseverance ever bring their sure reward in the end, therefore we continued to press our claim, and soon learned to our great satisfaction that our allies in behalf of this bill, were the very cream of our legislature. We at once took courage, and as day after day we went up to the state-house, with friends who plead for it before the committee, who kindly gave us several hearings; we saw the gradual growth of interest in behalf of this bill soon ripen into a final decision causing it to pass; thereby enacting a law, to which our worthy governor, B. F. Prescott, immediately gave his willing signature, securing to the women of this State the high privilege many of them gladly exercised last spring. Many feared this law would be repealed; but to show with what favor it has been received, we have only to refer to the legislature of the present year, which passed an additional law, giving to women not only the right to vote for and serve on school boards, but also the power to serve as moderator or clerk in school meetings, for which the former law did not provide. This, it would seem must remove all fears of a repeal.

Petitions asking municipal suffrage for women, were sent to our last legislature, and a bill to that effect, introduced in the House, was referred to a special committee, who reported in its favor: and after more or less discussion, although the bill did not pass, about one hundred members voted for it, and their names are registered, and with the committee, will be kindly remembered by those women whose cause they did not desert. From past experience we see the importance of continued labor and proper measures for the accomplishment of our work. The present degree of progress indicates the fact that we are not to obtain the full recognition of our rights at one bound, but that they are coming step by step. To note the growth of our principles in the various reform movements, let us look at the temperance organizations throughout the length and breadth of this country; we find nearly all of them now discussing the ballot for women. Why, no sooner had Massachusetts, following the example of New Hampshire, obtained the school ballot for women, than the Woman's Christian Temperance Unions all over the State were a unit for the temperance ballot, and the past year have had their agents canvassing the State in the interest of school suffrage and "home protection."

All who read the reports last winter of Frances E. Willard's labors in Illinois in behalf of her Home Protection bill (for it originated with her), of the list of petitioners of both sexes she secured and took to Springfield, of the delegation of women who accompanied her there to advocate her bill, must acknowledge the educating force of all such untiring devotion for the right to vote. Although she was not victorious, she was successful beyond all expectation, for it is said, "Success is not always a victory, nor is victory always a success in the end." Let me say here, Miss Willard believes in the entire enfranchisement of her sex, but in her earnest and faithful labors makes a specialty of the temperance ballot.

At the annual meeting of the New Hampshire Woman's Christian Temperance Union, held here one year ago, a resolution was offered by a most worthy lady, indorsing suffrage for women on all temperance questions. It was at once vigorously opposed by some, while others, although believing in it, feared it would divide their ranks if it passed, and felt too timid to give it their support. The lady offering it, seeing it would be defeated, withdrew it, at the same time giving notice that she should present the same, or one similar, to that body every year as long as she lived, or until it passed. Last month the same organization held its annual meeting in Portsmouth, and that lady, as good as her word, was there with her resolution on temperance suffrage, and it passed unanimously, about 100 delegates being present and voting, many of whom acknowledged the timidity they felt last year, but now earnestly gave it their support. Such experiences give us some idea of the different instrumentalities by which our cause is forced upon conservative minds for consideration, ending in honest conviction.

In closing, I know you will all unite with me in tributes to Mr. Garrison. Now that he has gone to join that innumerable host of philanthropists in the higher life, let us rejoice that he was one of the leaders of that reform which brings us here to-day. And now, friends, in view of the present status of our cause, have we not much to encourage us in our work? May we go forward in that spirit of good-will that shall bring us a speedy victory.

Resolutions of respect to the memory of Mrs. Abby P. Ela, William Lloyd Garrison and Angelina Grimke Weld were adopted by a rising vote.

In the National Citizen of December 14, 1879, we find the following:

Marilla M. Ricker of New Hampshire had an executive hearing before the governor and council of that State, November 18, in regard to the management of the State prison. Mrs. Ricker, who in winter practices law in Washington, and is known as "the prisoner's friend," referred to the cruel treatment of convicts in various States, notably in New Hampshire, where prisoners are not permitted to read the magazines or the weekly newspapers which contain no record of crime, nor to receive words from their friends, as in other States they are allowed at stated times to do. When Mrs. Ricker desired to see a certain prisoner and let him know he had friends who were yet mindful of his comfort, the warden replied that he did not wish that man "to think he had a friend in the world." Mrs. Ricker warmly protested against such brutality. The attorney-general agreed with Mrs. Ricker, remarking that the line between crimes punished and those not punished, and the lines between those in prison and those outside who ought to be there, were so dim and shadowy that great care should be exercised in order to secure just and humane treatment for prisoners. Mrs. Ricker's remarks were earnest and dignified, and were listened to with the closest attention by the governor and his official advisers. At the close of the hearing the governor referred the subject to the special prison committee of the council, directing its members to procure all possible information as to the management of penitentiaries in other States, and report at the next meeting. Through Mrs. Ricker's influence the last legislature passed an act providing that any convict may send sealed letters to the governor or council without their being read by the warden.

In 1882 a judicial decision in New Hampshire recognized the advance legislation of that State in regard to the position of married women. This decision shows that they are no longer under the shadow of the old common law, but now hold equal dignity and power as individuals and joint heads in family life. The "divinely ordained head," with absolute control in the home, to rule according to his will and pleasure, is at last ruled out of the courts altogether, as the following case illustrates:

Mrs. Harris and her husband sued Mrs. Webster and her husband for slanders uttered by Mrs. Webster against Mrs. Harris. The suit was brought on the old theory that the legal personality of the wife is merged in that of her husband; that she is under his control, his chattel, his ox, and therefore he is responsible for her trespasses as for those of his other domestic cattle. The Court held that the wife is no longer an "ox" or "chattel," but a person responsible for her acts, and that her innocent husband could not be held responsible for her wrong. In rendering the decision in this case, Judge Foster further said: "It is no longer possible to say that in New Hampshire a married woman is a household slave or a chattel, or that in New Hampshire the conjugal unity is represented solely by the husband. By custom and by statute the wife is now joint master of the household, and not a slave or a servant. The rule now is that her legal existence is not suspended. So practically has the ancient unity become dissevered and dissolved that the wife may not only have her separate property, contracts, debts, wages, and causes of separate action growing out of a violation of her personal rights, but she may enter into legal contract with her husband and enforce it by suit against him."

The writer of the following letter is a successful farmer, remarkable for her executive ability in all the practical affairs of life, as well as for her broad philanthropy. One year she sent, as a contribution to our Washington convention, a tub of butter holding about sixty pounds, which was sold on the platform and the proceeds put into the treasury of the National Association:

Dear Friends assembled in the Washington Convention:

Last week our new town-house was dedicated. The women accompanied their husbands. One man spoke in favor of woman suffrage--said it was "surely coming." In this town, at the Corners, for several years they tried to get a graded school, but the men voted it down. After the women had the school-suffrage, one lady, who had a large family and did not wish to send her children away from home, rallied all the women of the Corners, carried the vote, and they now have a good graded school. Our village is moving down, that the boys and girls may have the benefit of the good school there. I think the women who have been indifferent and not availed themselves of their small voting privilege, by which we might have established the same class of school in our village, will now regret their negligence, at least every time they have to send three miles for a doctor. Thus, stupid people, blind to their own interest, punish themselves. I regret not being able to send a fuller report of the good that woman's use of the ballot, in a limited form, has done for us in this State. The voting in the town-hall is the "infant school" for women in the use of the ballot. Thanking the ladies all for meeting at the capital of the nation, and regretting not to be counted among the number, I am,

Yours sincerely, MARY A. P. FILLEY.

North Haverill, January 5, 1884.

In closing this chapter some mention should be made of the invaluable services of Senator Blair,[193] who, in his place, has always nobly defended the rights of women. He was a member of the first special committee ever appointed to look after the interests of women in the United States Senate. The leaders of the movement in that State claim that they helped to place Senator Blair in his present position by defeating his predecessor, Mr. Wadleigh, who was hostile to the enfranchisement of women.

UNITED STATES SENATE, WASHINGTON, D. C., March 5, 1884.

MY DEAR MISS ANTHONY: I had the honor duly to receive your invitation to address the National Association during its sessions in this city, for which I heartily thank you; but the pressure of duties in the Senate, service upon committees being just now specially exacting, makes it impossible for me to accept.

I trust that I need not assure you of my full belief that woman has the right and ought to have the privilege to vote. Whenever a fundamental right exists both public and individual welfare are promoted by its exercise and injured by its suppression. The exercise of rights is only another name for the discharge of duties, and the denial of the suffrage to an adult human being, not deprived of it for mental or penal disability, is an intolerable wrong. Such denial is not only a deprivation of right to the individual, but it is an injury to the State, which is only well governed when controlled by the conflicting opinions, sentiments and interests of the whole, harmonized in the ballot-box, and, by its fiat, elevated to the functions of law. But you have no occasion for expression of theoretical views from me.

If I may be pardoned a suggestion, it would be the specification to the public mind of the practical uses and benefits which would result from the exercise of the suffrage by women. Men are not conscious that women lack the practical protection of the laws or the comforts and conveniences of material and social relations more than themselves. The possession of the ballot as a practical means of securing happiness does not appear to the masses to be necessary to women in our country. Men say: "We do the best we can for our wives and children and relatives. They are as well off as we." In a certain sense this appears to be true. The other and higher truth is that woman suffrage is necessary in order that society may advance. The natural conservatism of an existing order of things will not give way to a new factor in the control of affairs, until it has been shown in what way enlightened selfishness may hope for good to society if the change be made. Here it seems to me that the convention may now strike a blow more powerful than for many years. Society has not so labored with the great problems which concern its own salvation for generations.

What would woman do with the ballot if she had it? What for education? What for sobriety? What for social purity? What for equalizing the conditions and the rewards of labor--the labor of her own sex first--and towards a just division of production among all members of the community? What for the removal, or for the amelioration when removal is impossible, of hunger, cold, disease and degradation, from the daily lives of human beings? What could and what would woman do with the ballot which is not now as well done by man alone, to improve the conditions which envelope individual existence as with bands of iron? What good things--state them seriatim, as the lawyers say--could woman do in New Hampshire and in New York city, and ultimately among the savage tribes of the earth, which she cannot do as well without as with the suffrage? Would woman by her suffrage even help to remove illiteracy from Louisiana, intemperance from New England, and stop society from committing murder by the tenement-house abuses of New York? Let the convention specify what practical good woman will try to achieve with her God-given rights, provided that men will permit her to enjoy them. Show us wherein you will do us good if we will rob you no longer. It might influence us greatly. Why should we do right for nothing? In fact, unless you show that the exercise of your alleged right will be useful, can you logically conclude that you have any? We must have proof that the experiment will not fail before we will even try it. You must connect the ballot with progress and reform and convince men that they, as well as women, will be better off for its possession by the whole of the adult community rather than only by a part. Theories may be true, but they are seldom reduced to practice by society unless it can be clearly seen that their adoption will heal some hurt or introduce some broad and general good.

The increasing discussion of industrial, educational, sanitary, and social questions generally, indicates the domain of argument and effort where victories for the advocates of enlarged suffrage are most likely, and I think are sure to be won. Woman should study specially what is called, for the want of a better term, the labor problem--a problem which includes in its scope almost everything important to everybody. I know this is an unnecessary suggestion, for it is just what you are doing. I only write it because repetition of the important is better than to recite platitudes or even to quote the declaration. I believe in your success because I believe in justice and in the advancement of mankind.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, HENRY W. BLAIR.

FOOTNOTES:

[188] Concord, Nathaniel P. White, Mrs. Sarah Pillsbury, Rev. J. F. Lovering, P. B. Cogswell, Mrs. Eliza Morrill, Mrs. Louisa W. Wood, Col. James E. Larkin, Mrs. J. F. Lovering, Charles S. Piper, Mrs. Armenia S. White, Mrs. M. M. Smith, Mrs. F. E. Kittredge, Mrs. Sarah Piper, Mrs. Ira Abbott, Mrs. L. M. Bust, Dr. A. Morrill, Mrs. P. Ladd, Mrs. R. A. Smith, George W. Brown, Mr. and Mrs. J. V. Aldrich, Mr. and Mrs. M. B. Smith, Mrs. T. H. Brown, Mrs. R. Hatch, Mrs. J. L. Crawford, Mrs. Anna Dumas, Miss Harriet C. Edmunds, Miss Salina Stevens, Miss Mary A. Denning, Miss N. E. Fessender, Miss M. L. Noyes, Miss Clara Noyes, James H. Chase, Peter Sanborn; Lancaster, Rev. J. M. L. Babcock; Rochester, Mrs. Abby P. Ela; Bradford, Mrs. L. A. T. Lane, Miss M. J. Tappan; Laconia, Rev. J. L. Gorman, William M. Blair; Manchester, Dr. M. O. A. Hunt; Plymouth, Hon. D. R. Burnham; Portsmouth, Hon. A. W. Haven; Canterbury, Mr. and Mrs. D. M. Clough; Lebanon, A. M. Shaw; Keene, Col. and Mrs. Wilson; Grafton, Mr. and Mrs. Peter Kimball; Northfield, Mrs. D. E. Hill; Franklin, Rev. Wm. T. Savage; Canaan, William W. George; Littleton, R. D. Runneville.

[189] They had their influence in the church as well as the State, as the following item in The Revolution, July 16, 1868, shows: "The New Hampshire convention of Universalists, at their late anniversary, adopted unanimously a resolution in favor of woman's elevation to entire equality with man in every civil, political and religious right."

[190] President, Mrs. Armenia S. White. Vice-Presidents, Rev. J.F. Lovering, Concord; Mrs. A.L. Thomas, Laconia; Ossian Ray, Lancaster; Mrs. S. Pillsbury, Concord; J.V. Aldrich, West Concord; Mrs. Mary Worcester, Nashua; Mrs. Mary Barker, Alton; Peter Kimball, Grafton; E.J. Durant, Lebanon; Mrs. Fannie V. Roberts, Dover; Miss A.C. Payson, Peterboro; Mrs. E.A. Bartlett, Kingston; Mr. Springfield, South Wolfboro; Galen Foster, Canterbury; Mrs. R.M. Miller, Manchester; Mrs. Nancy Gilman, Tilton; C. Ballou, North Weare; D. Burnham, Plymouth. Executive Committee, Nathaniel White, Mrs. E.C. Lovering, Col. J.E. Larkin, Concord; Mrs. J. Abby Ela, Rochester; Rev. Wm. T. Savage, Franklin; Mrs. Eliza Morrill, Mrs. Daniel Holden, West Concord; Miss Caroline Foster, Canterbury; P.B. Cogswell, Mrs. Louisa Wood, Mrs. M.M. Smith, Concord; Dr. M.V.A. Hunt, Manchester. Recording Secretary, Mrs. E.C. Lovering, Concord. Corresponding Secretary, Dr. J. Gallinger. Treasurer, Jas. H. Chase.

[191] Wendell Phillips, William Lloyd Garrison, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, Frederick Hinckley, Lucy Stone, Frances Ellen Harper, Dr. Sarah H. Hathaway, Rev. Phebe A. Hanaford, Rev. Mr. Connor, Rev. Ada C. Bowles, Emma Coe Still, Rev. Lorenza Haynes, Mary Grew, Mary A. Livermore, Elizabeth K. Churchill, Margaret W. Campbell, Anna Dickinson, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Matilda Joslyn Gage, Rev. Olympia Brown, Lillie Devereux Blake, Elizabeth A. Meriwether, Elizabeth Lisle Saxon, Susan B. Anthony.

[192] The speakers at this hearing were Mr. Galen Foster of Canterbury, Senators Gallinger and Shaw, Mrs. Abby Goold Woolson, H. P. Rolfe, S. B. Page, Rev. E. L. Conger and Mrs. Armenia S. White.

[193] Reelected to the Senate, June, 1885.

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us