The winning of the first bill of rights for American women

Front matter

Neraiatte

2 f load # <at>

TM

CHAPTER I. Our Task Outlined

This is a story of the great event of the year 1921 in the progress of women towards complete equality with men. That event was the enactment, by the Wisconsin legislature, of the first Bill of Rights for American women. In a bulletin issued from the National Woman’s Party headquarters in Washington, this event was appraised in the following language:

“With the signing of the bill this week by Governor Blaine, Wisconsin became the first State in the Union to remove women from a subject position in the law. It is also, so far as we know, the only place in the English-speaking world where women have equal rights with men. This is as significant for the women of the Nation as was the granting of suffrage by Wyoming in 1869.”

The National Woman’s Party, which was chiefly instrumental in securing the passage and ratification of the federal suffrage amendment, assembled in a national convention in Washington in February, 1921, and disbanding as a suffrage organization, reorganized, and voted that the next objective of the Woman’s Party should be to remove the remaining forms of the subjection of women, beginning with the legal and proceeding as rapidly as possible to the other disabilities.

This story portrays the removal of the legal discriminations against women in the State of Wisconsin. It is written not only to tell what was done in our campaign, but to tell how it was done, so that women seeking similar legislation in other states may have the benefit of our experiences.

In April, 1921, I received from the National Woman’s Party headquarters in Washington a tentative draft of a bill which the National Woman’s Party planned to have introduced into Congress. This bill, designed to remove all legal discriminations against women which it was in the power of Congress to remove, was then being perfected by some of the leading lawyers of the United States. It was then planned that when the bill was completed it should be introduced into the senate by Senator Curtis of Kansas. Here is a copy of that bill:

“To abolish discriminations against women on account of sex.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled. ;

“That in so far as the laws of the United States, including those pertaining to the District of Columbia, confer, regulate or define the right of (1) freedom of contract, (2) choice of citizenship and residence, (3) guardianship or control of children, (4) jury service, (5) holding public office or position through certification by the Civil Service, election or court order, and (6) control, disposition or acquisition of property, there shall be no discrimination or distinction against women by reason of sex or coverture and women shall have the same Sycekas and privileges as men:

“Provided, that this act shall not amend or affect any law relating to the labor of women or minimum wage for women.”

A letter accompanying a copy of this bill suggested that I have a similar bill drawn to abrogate in every respect the common law disabilities of women in the State of Wisconsin, and, as soon as possible, have this bill introduced into the Wisconsin legislature.

No rights or privileges designated in the above bill, except those relating to choice of citizenship and the civil service commission, could be conferred by Congress upon the citizens of the States, so it was necessary to have a separate bill passed by each State legislature.

Wisconsin’s laws, like those of nearly all of the other States, were based upon the old English “common law,” brought over to this country by the early colonists. All women were, according to the common law, legally inferior to men, and during marriage a woman lost her legal identity entirely: husband and wife were considered one person and that person was the husband. The married woman’s property, her earnings, her labor, and her children belonged to her husband and were entirely under his control.

The harshness of the common law had been modified in many respects during the last century. Women now possessed the right of suffrage and married women had won certain personal and property rights. But Wisconsin had never specifically repudiated the common law doctrine of woman’s inferiority. It still prevailed in all cases in which a special law had not been passed to the contrary. In many respects, therefore, Wisconsin women were ruled by the laws of the sixteenth century.

CHAPTER II. Starting Our Campaign

I was at a loss how to begin. I had no previous experience with a state legislature, nor did I know any member of the Wisconsin legislature, nor any person connected with the State government at Madison. Neither did I know anyone else in Madison. I had once met Miss Gena Thompson, who was executive secretary of the Wisconsin Woman’s Progressive Association, and Mrs. Harry Glicksman, both of Madison, when I had been there a few months before to witness the inauguration of the present administration.

I decided to write to the Governor and ask him how to go about having such a bill introduced into and passed by the legislature. This I did, and received the following reply:

Executive Chamber, Madison, Wis., April 18, 1921. Dear Mrs. Putnam: ©

Replying to your favor of April 14, beg to state that the only way now to have a bill introduced in the legislature is to have it introduced by a committee, and inasmuch as the legislature may be nearing a possible adjournment in May, you perhaps might want to give the matter immediate attention. ;

I would therefore suggest that you take the matter up with a committee of the legislature at your earliest convenience. Yours very truly,

| JOHN J. BLAINE, Governor.

This did not simplify the matter very much for me. I had no idea what committee was the best one to introduce this bill. I was fearful of getting it into a committee, the majority of whose members would be antagonistic to a.woman’s rights bill, or into a committee whose members would be indifferent to such a bill and would fail to push it, even though they would be willing to introduce it. I was in a quandary until one day the newspapers reported that a bill, called the Conant jury bill, which provided for women sitting on juries, had that day been defeated in the Assembly. This bill had been before the legislature for some time and had previously passed the Senate. I then learned that Senator Conant, who had introduced and sponsored this bill, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary committee, and also that the Judiciary committee was the logical committee to introduce this bill into the Senate, because it was the committee to which the bill would be referred no matter who introduced it.

This combination seemed a piece of good luck, so I learned this committee’s meeting days, and made arrangements to appear before it on Thursday, May 12.

I wrote to Miss Zona Gale of Portage and to Miss Ada James of Richland Center, who were members of the National Woman’s Party, asking them to meet me in Madison on Thursday and go before the committee with me.

*

In order to be in Madison early enough to learn my way around, I went over on Wednesday afternoon, leaving Milwaukee on the 5:20 train. Milwaukee is a three-hour ride from Madison. On that train, as good fortune would have it, was Mrs. Harry Glicksman, whom I had met before. I discovered that she knew much about the legislature, and being the wife of a professor at the University of Wisconsin, located at Madison, and herself an instructor in parliamentary law, she knew many Madison women. I plied her with questions; she was most kind in giving me information and offers of further assistance. She told me the names of the women there who were leaders of various women’s organizations, and those who were experienced in legislative work. This was most valuable information to me. Moreover, it took away the feeling of strangeness which the town had held for me; I now knew the names of some women there who might be interested in the bill and who might help me.

CHAPTER III. Our First Public Statement

Early Thursday morning I| took to the Madison papers the following statement which on Wednesday afternoon had been sent to the Milwaukee papers and all the other dailies in the State:

The National Woman’s Party is urging the Wisconsin legislature to make Wisconsin the first State to grant women equal rights with men under all the laws, as Wisconsin was first to ratify the federal suffrage amendment. Representatives of the party, led by Mrs. Frank Putnam of Milwaukee, state chairman, will appear before the Senate Judiciary committee at Madison, Thursday, May 12. They will ask the committee to report out and press to passage the following bill: .

“To abolish discriminations against women on account of sex.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and Assembly of Wisconsin in regular session assembled :

“That insofar as the laws of Wisconsin confer, regulate or define the rights of (1) freedom of contract, (2) choice of residence, (3) guardianship or control of children, (4) jury service, (5) holding public office or any office or position through election, appointment or court order, (6) control, disposition or acquisition of property, there shall be no discrimination against women by reason of sex or coverture, and women shall have the same rights and privileges aS men:

“Provided, that this act shall not amend nor affect any law relating to the labor of women, nor to.a minimum wage for women.”

“The national congress and the legislature of each of the forty-eight States,” said Mrs. Putnam, ‘“‘will be asked to pass a bill in substantially this form, to give women legal equality with men, as the suffrage amendment gave us political equality. President Harding and other leaders of the party in power at Washington have pledged their ‘support to such a measure. We want Wisconsin, first to ratify the suffrage amendment, to be first in removing the legal disabilities of women. The time having passed, for this session, when a member can introduce a bill, we shall ask the Senate Judiciary committee to present it. We do not insist on the exact text of this bill. We shall be glad to have it strengthened and improved in any way the senators or assemblymen may suggest.”

Nearly every paper which received this statement printed all or part of it; some even gave it editorial attention. When I went to The Capital Times, one of Madison’s two large dailies, with this statement, I talked with the editor, Mr.

William T. Evjue, and told him what we planned to do.

was interested and gave me a note to a member of the Senate Judiciary committee, Mr. Henry Huber, who, Mr. Evjue said, would be a friend.

I went directly to call on Senator Huber to enlist his interest and to learn the best way and time to approach the committee. I was struck by his great physical likeness to Senator Robert M. La Follette, and found him very much like Senator La Follette in manner, very likeable and pleasant, courteous and always gravely sincere. He is an unusual type to find in a State legislature, a typical gentleman of the old school, and though courtly, not always able to understand the modern woman. We were always very grateful for Mr. Huber; he was our friend throughout the campaign; we often went to him for counsel. He told me what time to be at the committee meeting and said he would introduce me.

CHAPTER IV. Governor Blaine’s Good Advice

My next step was to call on the Governor. He said, in looking over the tentative draft of the bill which I planned to present to the Judiciary committee that afternoon, that in regard to freedom of contract, “there might be some protection to a married woman in not being held liable on a note which she signs as a guarantor of her husband, and that really ought to be studied very carefully.” He told me he had signed a bill a few weeks before giving women the same right of guardianship and control of children as the father. His assumption was that jury service, on the part of women, was the same as that of men, except in some cases, and he was convinced beyond any doubt that women could hold any office. He thought when the federal amendment was adopted, the striking out of the word “male” perforce gave women the same right to hold office as men. He had not studied thoroughly the question of the discrimination against women as to the disposition and acquisition of property; that he thought ought to be carefully considered. And he agreed with the last section of the bill that the law relating to labor, as it affects women, should not be affected by a general act abolishing other discriminations.

I had gone to Governor Blaine to get his opinion on our bill, and to ask his advice on the best way to proceed. I told him we had talked with lawyers, but had not been able to learn all of the remaining legal discriminations against women in the statutes of Wisconsin, and I asked him to send me to the person who would be most likely to know all of those disabilities and who would help us draft a bill removing them. I told him, that even though jury service on the part of women might be lawful, there was a great deal of dispute in the courts about it, and we wanted to make it lawful beyond any doubt.

He advised me to go to Mr. Charles Crownhart, Revisor of Statutes, saying that Mr. Crownhart had recently. gone over the statutes and would be in a better position than anyone else to give me the information I wanted.

I had heard of Mr. Crownhart as a lawyer of ge ability, so this was pleasing advice.

Such a satisfying interview with the Governor was encouraging. To have the interest of the chief executive of the State, a man who was the leader of a large group of the legislature, meant well for the bill. Besides, I carried away from that conversation the feeling that Governor Blaine was a man of stability, of honesty of purpose, and that he stood for the cause of woman’s rights from conviction and not from political motives; and I want to say that throughout all our campaign, and I had many other interviews with him, that I never changed my opinion of him. He was ever the same. His wife also is most charming. She was much interested in our bill, and during the campaign, asked me over to tea many times, and having had much political experience, since Governor Blaine had served several terms in the Wisconsin legislature as a senator, and was Attorney General when elected Governor, she gave me many helpful suggestions.

But to go back to my first talk with the Governor. As soon as it was over I immediately went to Mr. Crownhart, and he was interested. He told me he had drawn the Conant jury bill which had failed to pass. I told him of my plan to call on the Senate Judiciary committee that afternoon and that I would ask them to report out a bill. He said if the committee would - introduce the bill that he would draw it up. Kindly, humorous, keen, always encouraging, always willing to help, he was our best friend throughout our hard campaign. We went to him at every point of difficulty. He gave us the best of advice, and coached us on legal points. I knew him to be an able lawyer of absolute integrity and I had complete confidence in his opinion. Moreover he was with us wholly from the start; _ he thought we had a right to insist on getting the whole bill, that we had a right to every point, and that we could get it all if we did not compromise, and we loved him for the encouragement he gave us, for his confidence in our ability. We could not have done without him.

One of our former Woman’s Party members was connected with the legislative reference library. I went to see her. She was horrified at our idea of presenting a blanket bill; she was sure the legislature would never pass such a bill; she thought they wouldn’t even consider it. She advised me strongly to have some lawyer go over the statutes, and draw up as many bills as were necessary, revising separately each statute as to discrimination against women.

“But,” I said, “that would take so long, and we want to get a bill through this legislature. We have neither the legal learning, nor the resources necessary to employ it, to attempt the many special enactments for which a blanket bill will serve.”

She said: “You will never get a blanket bill through. I advise you to lay out a campaign for four years, plan to get something done at the next legislature, and the rest at the next, and forget about this one; it is too late in the session.”

My answer was: “The National Woman’s Party does not work that way; we do things NOW.”

CHAPTER V. Our First Committee Hearing

At 2 o’clock I went to the Senate Judiciary committee meeting. I was a trifle late, and arrived at a crowded committee hearing. Mr. Crownhart was seated across the room and beside him was a vacant chair. I made for that chair as for a port in a storm. There were delegations to be heard; one was holding forth and continued to hold forth for an hour, and I began to grow nervous. I was the only woman in the room. Miss Gale had not arrived and Miss James had sent word . that she could not be present. ‘Would I alone have to speak for the bill? Would the committee be so tired after all the _hearings that they would be bored by my request? O, why hadn’t I arrived just a little before 2 o’clock! Maybe then I could have spoken first!” Such thoughts went racing through my mind.

The first hearing was finally finished, and Chairman Conant asked for the next. Mr. Huber then asked him to wait a moment, and introduced me, saying I had been waiting some time, and had a request to make which would only take a few minutes. Thoughtful Mr. Huber, he must have known how perturbed I was, and how very eager I was to get my errand over with.

I made known my. desire, and read the bill, telling the committee it was to be introduced into Congress and each State legislature. Mr. Conant laughed and said:

“Have you heard about my jury bill and what happened to it in the Assembly? Such a bill as yours, including jury service, would never pass the Assembly.”

I told him I had heard the women had not gotten behind his bill; that if the women would work for such a bill it would pass, and the women would work for this bill. He said:

“Well, you take your bill to an Assembly committee, and get them to introduce it over there. If it passes the Assembly, it will pass the Senate.”

My: heart went down, but I was determined not to yield. I said:

“No, I’m here now. If I went to an Assembly committee, they would tell me to take it to a Senate committee; and besides, we want this committee to introduce it.”

At that, a smile went round the committee table, and after some demurring and discussion among the committee members, Mr. Conant said:

“All right, Pll introduce it, if Mr. Crownhart will draw it Sheed and he looked to Mr. Crownhart. With a relieved and a triumphant feeling, I said:

' “Mr, Crownhart has already said he would draw it up if you would introduce it.’ And Mr. Crownhart added his assent. Then Mr. Conant said:

“All right, Ill introduce it, and I'll vote ae it; any bill Mr. Crownhart will draw up will be acceptable. But,” he added, “you will have to do a lot of missionary work in the Assembly,” which statement seemed very funny to all the committee. I realized afterwards that an attempt to get any such bill through the Assembly seemed like a huge joke to them all.

So the first goal was passed. It was then about 4 o’clock. With great joy I immediately left the committee room and proceeded to get in touch with several Madison women.

CHAPTER VI. Enlisting Women Workers

I went to see Miss Gena Thompson, executive secretary of the Wisconsin Women’s Progressive Association. She promptly realized the importance of such a bill. She at once called a board meeting for Saturday morning to discuss the bill and to learn what the executive committee of that organization of 1,000 women would do. I was most eager to get their support, because a thousand women throughout the State, writing in to their senators and assemblymen urging their support of the bill, would be a great help. This organization was composed of women voters supporting Senator Robert M. La Follette. I learned later that by others it was called the “La Follette women’s organization.”

I telephoned to many women, among them Mrs. Willard Bleyer, chairman of a legislative organization called the Clearing House, having as voting members representatives of all woman’s organizations in Madison, and in Dane county of which Madison is the county seat. This Clearing House meets every Monday during the legislative session, to study the program of the legislature for the week, and to pass resolutions endorsing or not endorsing pending legislation in which the members are interested. An endorsement of a bill by the Clearing House is equivalent to an endorsement by every woman’s organization in Dane county, and occasionally some of its members will lobby for a bill.

Other women I telephoned were Mrs. L. A. Kahlenberg, state legislative chairman of the League of Women Voters and of the Federation of Women’s Clubs and their lobbyist at Madison; Mrs. Walter Ayer, Dane county chairman of the League of Women Voters; Mrs. Carl Jackson, prominent in the League of Women Voters; Miss Mary Connor, president of the Wisconsin Council of the Catholic Women’s clubs; Mrs. John Donald, legislative chairman, Dane County League of Women Voters; Mrs. William Kittle, chairman of the Wisconsin Consumers’ League; Mrs. Joseph Jastrow, prominent in the Consumers’ League; Mrs. Louis E. Reber, chairman of the Dane county board of the Young Women’s Christian Association; Mrs. E. H. Van Ostrand, chairman of the Service Star Legion and prominent in the other. patriotic organizations of Madison.

I later went to see most of these women at their homes, or they came down town to meet me, and they all promised their support for the bill.

Friday morning I went to see Mr. Crownhart to talk about the draft of the bill. We decided to present a bill providing only for choice of residence and jury service since Wisconsin women seemed to have practically every other legal equality.

Friday and Saturday I continued to confer with Madison women. Some liked the draft of the bill Mr. Crownhart had prepared, others did not. Some believed in asking for one thing -at a time, others believed there might be more disabilities we should have removed. The bill did not seem complete, yet there seemed no reason to include more. But since the session was nearing a close, we knew that whatever we did, we would have to hurry about it.

CHAPTER VII. Sending the News to the People

Saturday afternoon I returned to Milwaukee, and after conferring with members of the party, we sent out the following report of progress, which appeared in the Milwaukee Sunday papers:

. Women <working- to -get an equal rights bill passed during the present session of the Wisconsin legislature made decided progress during the last week.

Mrs. Frank Putnam, state chairman of the National Woman’s Party, who returned to Milwaukee from Madison on Saturday, said:

“We learned that Wisconsin is already in advance of most other States in this respect. Wisconsin women enjoy freedom of contract equally with men; they have equal rights with men in control or guardianship of their chil- . dren, and in acquiring and disposing of property, and Goyernor Blaine assures us women in Wisconsin have an equal right with men to hold any public office to which they may be elected or appointed.

“This leaves only two inequalities, out of the six we had listed, to be corrected. These relate to choice of residence, and the right equally with men to serve on juries.

“To place women upon an equality with men in this State in these particulars, Charles Crownhart, revisor of State laws, drafted for us a bill. Chairman Conant of the Senate Judiciary committee has promised that his committee will introduce the bill next Wednesday. Senator Huber of the Judiciary committee told us he would move to have the bill referred back to the Judiciary committee for a hearing during the following week.

“At this hearing representatives of the League of Women Voters, the Progressive Women’s Association, the Federation of Women’s Clubs, the National Woman’s Party and other organizations will appear in support of the bill.”

The bill as drafted follows:

“A bill to amend section 2,524 and the seventh paragraph of section 6.51 and to create new section 238.740 of the statutes, for the purpose of removing discriminations against women.

“The people of the State of Wisconsin, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“Section 1: Section 2,524 of the statutes is amended to read:

“Qualifications of jurors. Section 2,524. All citizens of the United States who are qualified electors of this state, who are possessed of their natural faculties, who are not infirm or decrepit, who are esteemed in their communities as persons of good character, approved integrity and sound judgment, and who are able to read and write the English language understandingly, shall be liable to be drawn as jurors, except as otherwise provided in the statutes.

“Section 2. The seventh paragraph of Section 6.51 of the statutes is amended to read:

“(6.51) Seventh: The place where a married man’s family resides shall generally be considered and. held to be his residence, but if it is a place of temporary establishment for his family, or for transient objects, it shall be otherwise. A married woman shall be deemed to be a resident where she has her actual abode.

“Section 3. A new section of the statutes is created to read:

“Section 23.470: A married woman may have her legal residence and place of abode separate and apart from that of her husband.

“Section 4. This act shall take effect upon passage and publication.”’

“In this connection,” said Mrs. Putnam, “we wish to recall public attention to the following paragraph from the---Governor’s platform, which admirably expresses women’s purpose in supporting the above bill:

“Women having come into full partnership with men in the conduct of the affairs of government, the legislature should revise our laws to the end that in all matters men and women should be upon a basis of equality.’ ”

On Sunday I talked with many women, some of them lawyers, about the bill. I read it over and over again, comparing it with the original bill sent to me from Washington. I had noted, when reading the statutes in regard to jury service, that the word “male” was always used. The idea kept recurring to my mind that probably there were other statutes where the word “male” was used, instead of the word “citizens,” especially in respect to holding office, and that we ought to have a blanket bill changing all the statutes necessary to avert the possibility of any future legal discriminations against women.

So on Sunday night I sent a special delivery letter to Mr. Crownhart, telling him of my fears; enclosed a copy of our original bill from Washington and asked his advice. I told him I would be in Madison Tuesday mornmeg to consult with him, and asked him to withhold from the committee the first bill he had drawn until we could talk it over again.

CHAPTER VIII. The First: Bill of Rights for Women

On Tuesday morning, at 10:30, I was at Mr. Crownhart’s office. He had drawn up another bill. He said: “After studying the statutes for the past few days and giving a great deal of thought to your bill, I believe it would be best to have a woman’s bill of rights which will remove every disability against her which appears in the statutes, those we know about and those we don’t know about. Because even though the ratification of the 19th amendment perforce removed some discriminations against women, still many courts, executive and administrative officers may not be aware of this and may not be acting accordingly. So it is just as well to have a declaration of rights which will inform every one of the status of women in this State. Here is the bill I have drawn for you.”

“To create new section 6.015 of the statutes to remove discriminations against women and to give them equal rights before the law.

“The people of the State of Wisconsin, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:

“SECTION 1. A new section is added to the statutes to read:

“6.015. Women shall have the same rights and privileges under the Jaw as men in the exercise of suffrage, freedom of contract, choice of residence, holding office, holding and conveying property, care and custody of children and in all other respects. The various courts, executive and administrative officers shall construe the statutes where the masculine gender is used to include the feminine gender unless such construction will deny to females the special protection and privileges which they now enjoy for the general welfare. The courts, executive and administrative officers shall make all necessary rules and provisions to carry out the intent and purposes of this statute.